Before I write about the current system, I will try to explain, as far as I can tell, how we got to it. Wrongly, both DLA and Incapacity Benefit (ICB) were seen as being too easy. Actually, Mgt Thatcher had a deliberate policy of putting people on ICB, rather than unemployment benefit to keep the unemployed numbers down, especially in mining areas. DLA was designed to help people get back to work, however as with anything, a small number of people abused it. There was a light touch on assessing disability, so in their wisdom the DWP thought that their assessors would be able to tell whether people were pooling the wool over GP’s and consultants eyes. Thus PIP and ESA.

Well, what could go wrong? Firstly, unbelievably, there is a quota of claims to be failed first time, yes only a % of people can get PIP at the initial claim; they do not understand the consequences of this; poverty, stress etc. The actual assessors one sees are paid about £80 per assessment, and are privatised so the Govt thinks it can deflect the blame. It was also meant to be cheaper; I have not got the figures, but it isn’t. The assessment for both Benefits consist of a set of questions, all of which must be asked however obvious the distress, incapacity of the claimant; I know, this happened to me. The assessor also tries to “trick” you; I said I could not follow multiple commands, later on she gave me multiple commands..

The forms, again, are designed to trick you. I designed Housing Benefit forms with that in mind, can you believe it:each council had its own designed form? Also, you have to describe your worst day, which is hard emotionally and many people don’t want to admit how bad they can be.

Yes, if you go for an assessment to a centre, they are watching you arrive. If car park too far away, “how did you manage it?”, remember for physical mobility PIP, one has to be unable to walk more than 30? Steps. Sometimes, the room is upstairs with no lift, “how did you climb the stairs?”.

As you can tell I am definitely not in favour of PIP or ESA. Most appeals are actually allowed on first appeal, and less than 10% are refused if you go all the way to Tribunal, sometimes the DWP does not even turn up; they are relying on stress and fatigue from the claimant. The Guidance is from Whitehall, but I do blame the assessors, and I think the actual DWP background staff should be more amenable to evidence. The folk on the Benefits hotlines are call centre staff, listened into, have set questions and maximum length of times for calls where possible. I certainly could not do any of the work, that is why call centres are in areas of of low employment so there is not much choice of work.

Having been a Housing Benefits Manager last century (makes me feel really old), leaving because I had a breakdown, I think that I can try to put the Benefits system into context, without defending much of it, certainly not much of the results!

Firstly, I will discuss Universal Credit. The theory does sound great:a one stop Benefit. However there are many problems with it; some deliberate, some visible, some inherent and some invisible.

The main deliberate one is the five week wait for payment, this is purely a financial decision and utterly indefensible, made by George Osborne. The decision to make it fully online is again indefensible.

The inherent ones include a visible one and one only bureaucrats would and should have known about. The visible one is that when a claimant puts ina “change of circumstances “ form there is inherently a delay in assessing this so if they become unemployed there will be a period when the person has no income, thus pushing them into poverty. The invisible one is that Local Authority Benefit computer systems are not one type; due to competition rules there were about four or five different systems. We moved from one HB system to another, and had to manually input each separate claim as the two were incompatible. Think what it must have been like merging different HB systems into a whole new edifice, ensuring all the complicated rules worked correctly.

These problems were created by the people in back offices, the frontline staff had to deal with them. This is always the case; even in the Blair years we were only given a limited amount per year to top up HB to the full rent in “exceptional circumstances”, so if the money ran out in January it would have been illegal to pay the extra in February and March, for instance. I would have broken the law so was the liable person; not a good place to be in. Another factor was that front line workers are often paying out more to one individual than they themselves receive; demoralising. This can make staff very jaded.

The Benefits system is very complicated; even the workers have to use Guides to work out claims. This is down to all the rules and conditions set down in law. Whether this is deliberate or not is up for debate, but I always found it embarrassing to inform people that their claim could not be backdated due to lack of knowledge, when we were quick enough to backdate overpayments due to the lack of knowledge of needing to inform of change of circumstances.

You then ask why do the staff do it? Some do see it as just another job, some go in to good (like me), but there are just enough “dubious claims” to make you question. Once I had to have a marked police car follow me from work until an irate claimant turned around, he was wanting to know where I lived. Going on strike was/is never an option, most staff needed their pay; despite media hysteria they are not well paid, and also they know the claimants won’t get paid at all.

To stop being overlong, I will look at PIP and ESA next time, as well as give my views on the whole system. Hint; try not to blame front line staff as they are only human, with all the flaws that go with being human.