Disabled and ill benefit claimants overcharged for care due to DWP error

Botched transfer had knock-on effect on councils’ financial assessments

Disabled and chronically ill benefit claimants who were left thousands of pounds out of pocket by a government error may have also been overcharged by their local authorities for social care, it has emerged.

At least 110,000 benefit claimants were underpaid an average of £5,000 following a botched overhaul of incapacity benefits which began in 2011, according to the latest figures.

The error occurred when Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) officials transferred people from older benefits on to the wrong kind of employment support allowance (ESA), meaning they missed out on premium payments they were eligible for.

The Guardian understands that, as a knock-on effect, the error will have skewed financial assessments many councils undertake to determine how much these claimants should have contributed towards their social care costs.

Pat Sawh, 65, has received a refund of more than £2,000 from Enfield council, in north London, which is believed to be the first to begin addressing this issue. Her sons Stephen, 31, and Kris, 29, both have autism, while Stephen also has epilepsy and multiple allergies.

“Both my sons still live at home and my husband and I are pensioners,” she said. “This extra money is helping them a lot – without it they could not do as much.”

Wendy Berry, 75, helps run a group for carers of learning disabled adults in Enfield and helped Sawh bring her case to the attention of the council.

“The problem with this issue is that councils probably do not even realise that the DWP error had an impact on social care charging. It is very complicated. We suspect that very few councils have really thought about it,” she said.

“Charging for social care is always a difficult area because it takes money from the disability benefits paid to the most vulnerable people, who need support to live in their own homes. To ensure people are paying what they are supposed to be paying is critical.”

Enfield council has since sent letters to other residents it suspects have been affected by this issue, which could number as many as 200 people, according documents seen by the Guardian.

In 2014, local authorities gained the power to introduce charges to recoup costs they incur from contracting care and support services. These charges are typically deducted from the benefits of people receiving social care.

Councils who charge must conduct financial assessments to ensure that they do not cause a person’s income to drop below the statutory minimum set by the Department of Health (pdf), although they also have discretion to have more generous charging rules.

Many, though not all, councils now charge for adult social care. Among the factors considered when calculating a person’s minimum income guarantee is whether they are receiving a premium, such as the enhanced disability premium.

Those who, like the Sawhs, missed out on premiums because the DWP transferred them on to the wrong type of ESA, may have had a reduced minimum income guarantee. As a result, they may have been overcharged for care by their local authority.

While the DWP has compensated those who missed out on premiums – to the tune of £5,000 on average – there appears to have been no government effort to address this knock-on effect.

Marsha de Cordova, the Labour MP and disability rights campaigner, said: “This is a scandal. It is a responsibility of the DWP to ensure that all local authorities are compensating or refunding any ill or disabled persons affected.

“I would worry for the ill and disabled people that have fallen into debt, destitution or poverty because of this error by the DWP.”

Kamran Mallick, Disability Rights UK’s chief executive, said: “Now that the DWP have finally recognised the thousands of disabled people who have been underpaid ESA, we urge local authorities to refund the overpaid charges for social care that have been paid by many of these same disabled people.

“It’s monstrous that many of the poorest people in our society have faced a double whammy of not receiving their full entitlement and being hit by social care overcharging.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “We have worked hard to ensure that all those entitled to ESA receive the benefits they are entitled to.

“We urge anyone who believes their social care payments may have been affected by this issue to contact their local council.”

Figures released last month revealed that 5,000 people died before they could be reimbursed for the DWP’s ESA error.

Enfield council was contacted for comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/15/disabled-and-ill-benefit-claimants-overcharged-for-care-due-to-dwp-error

Welfare surveillance system violates human rights, Dutch court rules

Government told to halt use of AI to detect fraud in decision hailed by privacy campaigners

A Dutch court has ordered the immediate halt of an automated surveillance system for detecting welfare fraud because it violates human rights, in a judgment likely to resonate well beyond the Netherlands.

The case was seen as an important legal challenge to the controversial but growing use by governments around the world of artificial intelligence (AI) and risk modelling in administering welfare benefits and other core services.

Campaigners say such “digital welfare states” – developed often without consultation, and operated secretively and without adequate oversight – amount to spying on the poor, breaching privacy and human rights norms and unfairly penalising the most vulnerable.

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, applauded the verdict and said it was “a clear victory for all those who are justifiably concerned about the serious threats digital welfare systems pose for human rights”.

The decision “sets a strong legal precedent for other courts to follow”, he added. “This is one of the first times a court anywhere has stopped the use of digital technologies and abundant digital information by welfare authorities on human rights grounds.”

The verdict will be watched closely by welfare rights campaigners in the UK, where the government is accelerating the development of robots in the benefits system in a digitisation drive that vulnerable claimants fear could plunge them further into hunger and debt.

A Guardian investigation in October found the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had increased spending to about £8m a year on a specialist “intelligent automation garage” where computer scientists were developing more than 100 welfare robots, deep learning and intelligent automation for use in the welfare system.

The Dutch government’s risk indication system (SyRI) is a risk calculation model developed over the past decade by the social affairs and employment ministry to predict the likelihood of an individual committing benefit or tax fraud or violating labour laws.

Deployed primarily in low-income neighbourhoods, it gathers government data previously held in separate silos, such as employment, personal debt and benefit records, and education and housing histories, then analyses it using a secret algorithm to identify which individuals might be at higher risk of committing benefit fraud.

A broad coalition of privacy and welfare rights groups, backed by the largest Dutch trade union, argued that poor neighbourhoods and their inhabitants were being spied on digitally without any concrete suspicion of individual wrongdoing. SyRI was disproportionately targeting poorer citizens, they said, violating human rights norms.

The court ruled that the SyRI legislation contained insufficient safeguards against privacy intrusions and criticised a “serious lack of transparency” about how it worked. It concluded in its ruling that, in the absence of more information, the system may, in targeting poor neighbourhoods, amount to discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic or migrant status.

The system did not pass the test required by the European convention on human rights of a “fair balance” between its objectives, namely to prevent and combat fraud in the interest of economic wellbeing, and the violation of privacy that its use entailed, the court added, declaring the legislation was therefore unlawful. The Dutch government can appeal against the decision.

Christiaan van Veen, director of the digital welfare state and human rights project at New York University School of Law, said it was “important to underline that SyRI is not a unique system; many other governments are experimenting with automated decision-making in the welfare state”.

Van Veen cited Australia and the UK as countries where such concerns were particularly acute. “This strong ruling will set a strong precedent globally that will encourage activists in other countries to challenge their governments,” he said.

Alston predicted the judgment would be “a wake-up call for politicians and others, not just in the Netherlands”. The special rapporteur presented a report to the UN general assembly in October on the emergence of the “digital welfare state” in countries around the globe, warning of the need “to alter course significantly and rapidly to avoid stumbling, zombie-like, into a digital welfare dystopia”.

In the UK, as well as contracts with the outsourcing multinationals IBM, Tata Consultancy and Capgemini, the DWP is also working with UiPath, a New York-based company co-founded by Daniel Dines, the world’s first “bot billionaire”, who last month said: “I want a robot for every person.”

His software is being deployed in an effort to introduce machine learning to check benefit claims, which suggests welfare computers will autonomously learn and alter the way they make decisions with minimum human intervention.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/welfare-surveillance-system-violates-human-rights-dutch-court-rules

Blue Badge (disabled parking) scheme eligibility review

Summary

Proposals to extend Blue Badge eligibility to people with non-physical conditions.

This consultation closes at
11:45pm on 18 March 2018

Consultation description
We are proposing changing the eligibility criteria for the Blue Badge scheme to include people with non-physical conditions.

This is part of the government’s objective is to ensure that those people with the greatest need have access to badges, whilst ensuring the scheme remains sustainable.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/675301/blue-badge-scheme-consultation-on-eligibility.pdf

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/R2OF6/

or

Complete a response form and either

Email to:
bluebadge.consultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Write to:
Vida Browne-Campbell
Department for Transport
Traffic and Technology Division
3/27 Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/blue-badge-disabled-parking-scheme-eligibility-review

What is the secret to being more assertive? Having self respect

By Christian Jarrett

Why are some of us more inclined than others to stick up for ourselves, not aggressively, but assertively. Assertive people let others know when they feel mistreated and they’re confident saying “no” to unwanted demands.

Presumably it has to do with how see ourselves, yet past research has established that two key aspects of the self-concept – good feelings about the self (“self-liking” or “self-confidence”) and seeing oneself as competent – are not strongly related to assertive behaviour.

Daniela Renger, a researcher at the Institute of Psychology at Kiel University in Germany, believes this is because most relevant to assertiveness is self-respect – “a person’s conviction that they possess the universal dignity of persons and basic moral human rights and equality”. Across three studies published in Self and Identity, Renger shows that self-respect is a distinct psychological concept and that it is uniquely correlated with assertive behaviour.

For her studies, Renger devised a new, four-item self-report measure of self-respect. Participants rated their strength of agreement with:

In everyday life I always see myself as a person with equal rights
I always see myself as a person of equal worth compared with other people in my life
I am always aware that I have the same dignity as all other human beings
If I look at myself, I see a person who is equally worthy compared with others

In an initial study, 343 women and men in Germany (average age 33) completed this measure, plus questionnaires tapping their self-competence (e.g. “I am almost always able to accomplish what I try for”) and self-confidence (e.g. “I look at myself with warmth and affection”; “It is always worth taking good care of myself”). They also completed an 8-item measure of assertiveness, for example saying whether they would feel comfortable “telling a companion you don’t like a certain way he or she has been treating you”. Nearly a hundred of the participants completed these same questionnaires again nine months later.

Based on her analysis of the participants’ answers to the various measures, including  the correlations within and between them, Renger concluded that self-competence, self-confidence and self-respect are distinct aspects of the self-concept. Also, while all three factors correlated with assertiveness, only self-respect had a unique association with assertiveness when accounting for the other two factors. Finally, there was some tentative causal evidence: having greater self-respect at Time 1 correlated with increased assertiveness as measured 9 months later, but the reverse was not true (having greater assertiveness initially was not associated with increased self-respect).

What is the secret to being more assertive? Having self respect

Tories ‘shifting the goal posts’ on disability benefit entitlements, say Labour

Government has rewritten the law to deny higher benefit payments for more than 150,000 disabled people.

Callous Tory ministers have been accused of “shifting the goal posts” on disability benefit entitlements, after it was revealed that the UK Government has rewritten the law to deny higher payments for more than 150,000 disabled people.

Two social security tribunal cases resulted in the government being told to ensure more disabled qualify for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), which would better recognise how their condition affects their ability to live as independently as possible.

PIP consists of two separate components – a daily living component and a mobility element – each paying a standard or enhanced rate, with the enhanced rate paying more than the lower rate.

Claimants are awarded points in each component, depending on how their disability or long-term illness affects them on a daily basis, through an assessment system campaigners have likened to a “tick-box exercise”.

A minimum of eight points are required to qualify for the standard rate of each component, while claimants need to secure at least 12 points for the enhanced rate.

The first tribunal said those who experience “overwhelming physical distress” when outdoors alone, a common and debilitating symptom of severe psychological disorders that can leave sufferers trapped in their homes, should be awarded more points for the PIP mobility component.

An estimated 143,000 sick and disabled people would have benefitted from the ruling, with around half of these qualifying for the enhanced higher rate of £57.45 per week.

The other half would have qualified for the standard rate, currently £21.80 a week. A further 21,000 would have been moved from the standard to the enhanced rate.

A second tribunal said more points should be awarded in the daily living component for those who need help taking medication and monitoring their condition. More than 1,000 people would have benefitted from this decision, if the DWP had accepted it.

The DWP argued that adhering to the tribunal’s recommendations would cost the department an extra £3.7bn by 2022, the Daily Mirror reports.

So rather than accepting the Tribunal’s recommendations, and recognising how those affected incur extra costs as a direct consequence of their illness or disability, the DWP has instead decided to rewrite the law – yes, you read that correctly – thus denying tens of thousands of sick and disabled people the additional financial support they desperately need.

Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Debbie Abrahams MP, blasted the decision: “Instead of listening to the court’s criticisms of PIP assessments and correcting these injustices, this government have instead decided to undermine the legal basis of the rulings”, she said.

Abrahams added: “This is an unprecedented attempt to subvert an independent tribunal judgement by a right-wing government with contempt for judicial process.

“By shifting the goal posts, the Tory Government will strip entitlements from over 160,000 disabled people, money which the courts believe is rightfully theirs. This is a step too far, even for this Tory government.”

http://www.welfareweekly.com/tories-shifting-the-goal-posts-on-disability-benefit-entitlements-say-labour/

When the going gets tough, supervisors pick on their weaker staff

A crisis changes everything. Friends are gone, and survivors must adapt to a new, dangerous environment. In the aftermath, predators circle to exploit the weak and vulnerable. According to new research, this not only describes the red tooth and claw of nature, it also applies to the workplace. Pedro Neves at the New University of Lisbon provides evidence that following an organisational downsize, employees are more likely to receive abuse from their supervisors.

Neves was guided by displaced aggression theory – the idea that workplace abuse is often a form of “kicking the dog” – venting our frustrations not at their source, rather at those whom we have power over. Neves predicted that this leads supervisors to target those most unable or unwilling to retaliate: submissive individuals characterised by low “core self-evaluation”(CSE; a combination of personal traits relating to self-image including self-esteem and belief in one’s own abilities), and/or those with fewer co-worker allies.

Survey data from 12 large and medium-sized Portugese organisations from a range of industries – financial to construction to healthcare – confirmed that individuals with lower CSE or less co-worker support were at the receiving end of more abuse, based on their self-ratings of items such as “my supervisor blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment” or “tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid”. Four of the organisations had gone through downsizing in the prior two years, and in these, submissive employees were even more likely to be picked on. A post-downsizing environment involves uncertainty, ruptures to social networks, and a higher sense of individual risk – all of which heightens vulnerabilities and gives confidence to aggressors that their abuse is unlikely to be fought against.

The data also showed that submissive individuals performed more poorly and engaged in fewer organisational citizenship behaviours, which Neves argues is evidence of the employees also “kicking the dog” – in this case channeling their resentment of the supervisor into minor acts to undermine the organisation.

As this was a cross-sectional survey we have to be careful about drawing such causal inferences, but further analysis suggested two obvious alternative explanations were unlikely: that submissive traits were the consequence of supervisor criticism; or that abuse was causing both poor performance and the submissive traits.

Neves advises facilitating co-worker support as a bulwark against exploitation of the vulnerable, and to build the CSE of employees. These are good things to encourage in any case – but ultimately, the responsibility for change lies not with the abused, but the abusers, to cease picking on the weak.

ResearchBlogging.orgNeves, P. (2014). Taking it out on survivors: Submissive employees, downsizing, and abusive supervision. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology DOI: 10.1111/joop.12061

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/when-going-gets-tough-supervisors-pick.html

A small proportion of the population are responsible for the vast majority of lies

Obviously some people lie more often than others. What’s surprising is new research showing that the spread of lying propensity through the population is uneven. There is a large majority of “everyday liars”, and a small minority of “prolific liars”.

A few years ago Kim Serota and his colleagues put a figure on this. They surveyed a thousand US citizens and found that five per cent of the sample were responsible for 50 per cent of all lies told. Now Serota’s group have analysed data from nearly 3000 people in the UK and they’ve found the same pattern – the existence in the population of a minority of extremely prolific liars.

This new online survey is based on data collected as part of a public engagement project by the Science Museum in London in the Spring of 2010. Participants (51 per cent were female; average age 44.5) reported how often they told little white lies and how often they told big lies, as well as sharing their attitudes to, and experiences of lying.

The spread of answers was clearly skewed. Serota’s statistical analysis showed that 9.7 per cent of the UK sample were prolific liars. They averaged 6.32 little white lies per day and 2.86 big lies per day, compared with an average of 1.16 daily white lies and 0.15 daily big lies (about one per week) by the majority group of everyday liars. This means the prolific liars tell an average of 19 big lies for each single big lie by the everyday liars. The two groups generally agreed what counts as a big lie, with lying about whether you love someone being the most popular example.

The research also uncovered some intriguing differences between prolific and everyday liars. Prolific liars were more likely to be younger, male and to work in more senior occupational roles, although note these differences were modest. Prolific liars tended not to see lying as something that people grow out of. They were also most likely to lie to their partners and children (whereas everyday liars were most likely to lie to their mothers). Prolific liars were also more likely to say that their lying had landed them in trouble, including losing jobs and relationships.

Caution is required because of the different survey methods used, but this new research also allows a cross-cultural comparison between US and UK lying. Combining everyday and prolific liars, it seems that people lie more frequently in the UK – just over two lies per day on average, compared with an average of between one and two lies per day in the US, based on Serota’s earlier research. Another statistic – 24.4 per cent of the UK sample said they didn’t lie on a typical day, compared with 59.9 per cent of the US sample.

An obvious problem with this research is its dependence on people’s honesty about how often they lie. We’re in a somewhat bizarre situation of trusting prolific liars’ answers about their own lying. However, Serota and his colleague Tim Levine reassure us that past research has generally found self-reported lying to be fairly accurate. When more objective or third-party measures of lying are deployed, these usually correlate well with people’s self-reported lying rates. The current survey was anonymous, which would have helped.

The finding that lying frequency is distributed unevenly in the population has serious implications for deception research, most of which assumes that lying propensity is a “normally distributed” trait more like height or weight. “These data provide a strong case that the people who tell a lot of lies are not only different,” said Serota and Levine, “they are a population that needs to be studied independently of everyday liars in order to better understand the motivation and production of lies.” I wonder if future research might find that “prolific liars” are the same people who score highly on the Dark Triad of personality traits – psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism?

Serota, K., & Levine, T. (2014). A Few Prolific Liars: Variation in the Prevalence of Lying Journal of Language and Social Psychology DOI: 10.1177/0261927X14528804

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/a-small-proportion-of-population-are.html

Push for Action – Think Autism – NAS Campaign

As a result of our Push for Action campaign, the Government delivered Think Autism.

Please take 30 seconds to send a message to your council to alert them of the new steps that will help them do what they are supposed to.

Think Autism is the refreshed autism strategy that councils and the NHS should be following to remedy the historic barriers that prevent adults with autism and their families from getting the everyday support they need. It includes new national commitments to improve support, as well as programmes to help councils with their duties. We campaigned for the Government to do more to help councils unlock the barriers they were facing with regard to turning the autism strategy into a reality for individuals.

Please send an important reminder through our online form to the Director of Adult Services, who is responsible for making sure Think Autism is delivered.

I’ll be in touch next month when we launch new actions to prevent the care system from overlooking the specific needs of people with autism. Alongside embedding Think Autism in Bury, we’ll be making sure that changes elsewhere don’t undermine the tremendous progress we’re making.

Thank you,

Tom Madders
Head of Campaigns
NAS

 

http://www.autism.org.uk/push

Bury Adult Autism Strategy 2013-16 Approved by Bury Council Cabinet

The Bury Adult Autism Strategy 2013-16 has been developed by Bury Adult Care Services in conjunction with NHS Bury and the Autism Services Development Group. This Group includes members from Adult Care Services, Education, Communication Difficulties staff, Psychology, CAHMS, Additional Needs Team, Youth Services, and Children’s Services, Carer representatives, health colleagues and the National Autistic Society.

Who is the strategy for?

Bury Adult Autism Strategy sets out the vision for adults with autism who live in Bury. This includes those with High Functioning Autism (Aspergers Syndrome) and those who have a dual diagnosis which includes an Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

Aims of the strategy

The Bury Adult Autism Strategy focuses on five core areas of activity as outlined in the National Strategy:

  1. Increasing awareness and understanding of autism among frontline professionals.
  2. Developing a clear, consistent pathway for diagnosis in every area, which is followed by the offer of a personalised needs assessment.
  3. Improving access to the services and support which adults with autism need to live independently within the community.
  4. Helping adults with autism into work.
  5. Enabling local partners to plan and develop appropriate services for adults with autism to meet identified needs and priorities.

In short, the aims of the strategy are to:

  • Ensure that people have a better understanding of autism. This includes everyone from frontline staff, Job Centre Plus, receptionists, GPs and social workers.
  • Develop a local diagnosis pathway for adults with autism including post diagnostic support, sibling screening and reassessments
  • Develop new opportunities for social activity by working with partners
  • Ensure information is timely, accessible and relevant
  • Develop better access to universal services
  • Dispel negative perceptions of services and of autism
  • Develop more opportunities for employment, education and volunteering
  • Develop robust data collection systems

For further information about the Bury Autism Strategy 2013 – 2016

Jacqui Waite
Strategic Policy and Planning Officer 
(Policy Lead for Autism)
Adult Care Services, 
Castle Buildings, 1st Floor, Market Place, Bury. BL9 0LT
Tel;0161 253 6239
Email: j.waite@bury.gov.uk
Please note: my normal working days are Mondays and Tuesdays 
only.
Email: Bury Council – Strategic Planning Team
Write to us at Strategic Planning Team,
Bury Council Adult Care Services,
1st Floor Castle Buildings,
Market Place,
Bury, BL9 0LT.
( Call us on 0161-253-7975).
 
http://www.bury.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=8315

Disabled children and their transition into adulthood: the law and good practice

The session, facilitated by Camilla Parker from Just Equality, aims to provide attendees with an overview of the legal responsibilities of local authorities and NHS bodies to ensure that the social care, education and health care needs of disabled children are fully addressed – and sustained – as they move into adulthood. This session will also provide attendees with updates concerning relevant legal and policy developments.

Above all this is a forum where attendees will have the opportunity to discuss practical problems they have experienced and how these can be resolved, as well as share information on “what works” so that they can develop strategies on how to manage the transitional process successfully.

Objectives/outcomes

By the end of the session, attendees should have a better understanding of:

  • The need to plan adult transitions early, starting in year 9 (aged 14);
  • The legal obligations of local authorities and health bodies to manage the transition process and to cooperate;
  • The legal responsibilities of local authorities and NHS bodies to provide support services before and after a disabled young person’s 18th birthday.
  • The differences between the social care assessment obligations and eligibility criteria of disabled children and disabled adults;
  • The extent to which the duty to provide direct payments changes when a young person becomes 18;
  • The nature of local authority ‘children leaving care duties’ in relation to children who have been ‘looked after’;
  • The post 18 education rights of disabled people;
  • The differences between the NHS’s responsibilities to provide support for disabled children and for disabled adults;
  • The assessment of a person’s mental capacity to make decision and their ‘best interests’ and how this differs for adults and young people.

Dates and locations

  • Tuesday 25th June – Exchange Chambers, 7 Ralli Court, West Riverside , Manchester M3 5FT
  • Wednesday 26th June – Darwin Suite, Life Conference and Banquting, Times Square, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4EP

Seminar Programme

9.30am – Registration – Tea/coffee and biscuits
10.00 am – Introductions
10.10 am – Transition: Frequently encountered problems
10.20 am – The legal obligations of local authorities and health bodies to manage the transition process and to cooperate

11.15am – Tea/coffee break
11.30 am – Education: an overview of transition planning for children with special educational needs and/or disabilities
11:50 – Social care:key duties (assessment obligation, eligibility criteria, carer’s rights, care planning, direct payments and personal budgets)
12.50 pm – Looked after children and the ‘children leaving care’ duties
1.15 pm- Q + A session
1.30 pm – Buffet lunch
2.15 pm – Health: The continuing responsibilities of the NHS
2.30 pm – Strategies to ensure a successful transition into adulthood
2.45 pm – Q + A session
3.00 pm – Evaluations & Close

Cost

£10 for parents and carers; £25 for professionals (non-returnable)

Interested?

To find out more and to book your place please contact Melanie Dean at melanied@cerebra.org.uk or telephone 01267 242 556.