Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Politics and Finance

Benefit reform: all you need to know about the Universal Credit

Rosalind Kent
by Lovemoney Staff Rosalind Kent on 04 October 2012  |  Comments 28 comments

Major changes to the benefits system are afoot, with the launch of the Universal Credit. What will actually happen, who will be affected, and is it a good idea?

Benefit reform: all you need to know about the Universal Credit

With any great reform there are detractors and supporters, and the proposed shake-up to the welfare system is no exception. Described as “the most radical redesign of the benefits system this country has ever seen” by Government ministers, the Universal Credit is due to come into effect next year.

Iain Duncan Smith claims that the new system will pay people to work rather than claim benefits, and most would agree that this is a fantastic idea. But, many groups are already expressing concern about the implementation of this benefit change.

What will change?

The current system is incredibly complicated, as anyone who has had anything to do with benefits will testify. I trained as a Citizens Advice Bureau adviser and now give advice at a local independent advice agency (the Paddock Wood Community Advice Centre – if you are in the area please feel free to drop in for advice!) on a wide range of topics such as debt, employment, housing, consumer rights and, of course, benefits.

The new Universal Credit will replace five current benefits, so if you claim any of the following you will be affected by the changes:

  • Income Support

  • Job Seeker's Allowance (Income based)

  • Employment & Support Allowance (Income related)

  • Housing Benefit

  • Child Tax and Working Tax Credit.

Also, under the new system Council Tax benefit is also to be abolished. It will instead be dealt with by your local authority, though it is not yet clear how each authority is planning to deal with the change.

The new system will go live nationally in October 2013, although a ‘pilot’ scheme will start earlier in April 2013 in certain areas in the north west. Only new claims will be affected from October 2013 - those already claiming will be moved over to Universal Credit from 2014 and the process may not be completed until 2017.

How will it work?

The ideology behind the change is that it will improve a claimant’s incentive to work. It aims to ensure that people are always better off working than claiming benefits.

At the moment, one of the main things we are asked to do as advisers is to work out whether a claimant will be ‘better off’ if they start work, and more often than not they won’t be! This clearly should not be the case.

The new system should make it easier for claimants to move in and out of work. Claimants can increase their hours of work without worrying, as their benefits will not automatically stop if they do. The benefit will instead be reduced at an incremental rate, taking actual earnings into account.

What is expected of claimants?

One of the key aims of the Universal Credit is to reduce fraudulent claims, cracking down on the benefit cheats who threaten the entire welfare system. The Government wants the public to adopt the idea that the new credit represents a partnership between the state and the claimant.

This boils down to the idea that, in return for financial support, the claimant must accept a ‘Claimant Commitment’ that they will take steps towards finding work. Of course, with benefits such as Job Seeker's Allowance, this is already supposed to be the case, with claimants having to apply for jobs and be willing and available for work. If they are not they are in danger of losing their Job Seeker's Allowance.

If they don’t stick to their side of the bargain under the new system they will lose not just their Job Seeker's Allowance but their entire Universal Credit.

What are the main concerns?

Various charities and community groups have expressed concerns about practical aspects of this change.

Online applications

The entire Universal Credit application process will be online. With an estimated 8.5 million people who have never use the internet and a further 14.5 million who have little or nothing in the way of ICT skills, this will present a very real problem to a lot of people. It is not clear what measures the Government is going to put in place to deal with this problem.

I suspect the Government is hoping that charitable advice centres will simply be there to pick up the slack!

Monthly payments

This will present a problem to those families on very low incomes, many of whom are used to having their wages, benefits or tax credit paid either fortnightly or weekly. Debt advice agencies are concerned that this will lead to an influx of payday loan applications to bridge the gaps.

One claimant per household

This could upset the family dynamic, giving power to the member of the household the money is paid to. Domestic violence charities have expressed concern about the discord this could cause.

Businesses and the self-employed

For those who run their own business or work for themselves the new system will force them to report their pay each month. The Institute of Taxation describes this as an extra ‘significant and difficult burden.’

Will it work?

As someone who sees the direct implications of the current benefit system in practice every day I would have to say that, teething trouble aside, the reasons and aims behind this reform are all sound. We all hope that when the changes have been properly implemented they will help the Government achieve an almost impossible ideal: to have a fair and fraud-free welfare state that really works!

More on benefits:

How to keep your Child Benefit

Shame and embarrassment stopping people claiming benefits

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (28)

  • csarina
    Love rating 2
    csarina said

    OK so how do pensioners fit into the scheme of things. We claim Housing benefit at 69 and 79 there is no way we are going to be back in work.

    Already our benefit has been clawed back is is due for a further claw back in December.We live in a 2 bedroomed apartment but only get an allowance for one bedroom. We need two bedrooms due to medical reasons, no joy there. What happen to those pensioners who do not have internet access or bank accounts???

    This government will soon be suggesting that at 70+ you are given a pill to swallow and swan off the scene so they do not have to pay us pensions or housing benefit.

    If we were paid a decent pension we would not have to claim housing benefit...........

    With electricity going up the choice will soon be heat or eat. Our apartments are heated with storage heaters, expensive to run and not easily controlled as gas heating.

    Report on 04 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • windlesham1
    Love rating 14
    windlesham1 said

    Many benefits claimants are familiar with a SKY set top box, and the latest mobile phones.

    why does anyone on benefits need an iPhone?

    So perhaps claiming online will not be such a problem-it removes responsibility from DWP to the claimant. Benefits are not there to subsidise lifestyles, but to help the vulnerable.

    We have a totally disproportionate amount of people who are too sick to work compared to other first world countries,suggesting that people are 'swinging the lead'. That is why the previous poster is being penalised-subsidising the workshy cheats.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • mrs weatherley
    Love rating 31
    mrs weatherley said

    Will it work ? I have no confidence in it because of the repeating fiasco of government IT failures....passports....CSA etc etc.

    f it works and if employers feel able to spend time on this then maybe it will be helpful ...however if you are a small concern it is just another bit of red tape which the government were suppose to be getting rid of.

    The way forward if to make wages sufficient for people to live off then there would be no need for tax credits.......I paid in for my pension only to fin the end date changed...my mother and sister both paid in too dying in their 50's contributions paid and nothing collected. Now the TV ads say we are all 'opting in' well we had opted in it is the government that has opted out of paying.

    The masters making fools of the population again...based on some outdated notion that the poor are feckless and workshy.....from people who have no idea of the demands on people who don't have enough to live on. We live in a complex society the poor are not able to opt out of that, things cost what they cost, to be included in society means an expectation of a telly / phone / heating etc. That is what the work of the working classes provides for the rich.....fair shares for all.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • violetsarelue
    Love rating 2
    violetsarelue said

    Many benefit claimants are also familar with poverty , scraping by from one benefit payment to the next with no chance of saving any of their benefits . Not everyone on benefits is lazy, there are good and bad people thoughout this country , just because someone claims benefits doesn't mean they should be all tarred with the with the same brush !

    This new universal benefit will cause chaos, just remember the debacle of when the Conservatives brought in "Poll Tax"!

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • mrs cox
    Love rating 2
    mrs cox said

    mrs weatherley - I see you are one of the 500,000 women who have had their pension stolen - pls visit PROTEST AGAINST PENSION AGE INCREASE on fb - we are a group of women who have been fighting against this and some of us went to westminster may 2011 with Age Uk - now the law has been passed we are now fighting to get the law repealed - at the time our staunchest supporter was Rachel Reeves (Labour) whose own mother was affected by this age increase - pls visit we welcome new members and fresh input - thanks Mari Cox

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • spiritusuk
    Love rating 0
    spiritusuk said

    Just one gripe really on an otherwise good article; you make no mention under the main concerns of the families that will be unable to afford their rent under the new system. Rights and wrongs aside, many thousands will be displaced, made homeless or be forced to live in unsuitable accommodation. This may not be the case in Tunbridge Wells but an article about the Universal Credit should really look beyond middle England don't you think?

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    The principle that we end the ludicrous labyrinth of benefits and credits and condense them into a single benefit seems sensible to me. It must be hugely expensive to administer the plethora of benefits and credits from here there and everywhere. Combining them into a single universal system should save administrative expense and, if the assessment part works properly, the genuine claimants will not lose out. A family usually has a given level of income and from that income must pay for all they need to live. The single payment (universal) of benefit would appear to me to approximate that.

    The devil, as always, is in the detail. What is the right level of benefit? How well will it be administered both in the assessment (how much does a claimant need to live) and the payment (how do we get the money to her/him) parts. HMG's record in these areas is less than impressive.

    Of course all ideas, good or bad, can be derailed by persistent voluble opposition. The “Poll Tax” rioting is a case in point. I have yet to hear anyone describe to me what was basically wrong with the “Poll Tax”. It was introduced to get everyone to pay for Council Services rather than a select few victims who happened to own or rent houses. People, not houses, use Council Services so people should pay for them.

    I am sure there were some things wrong with the application of the Community Charge (The Poll Tax) but that does not change the principle.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    Will it work? What do you mean by 'work'. The governmnet's intention is to reduce the total payment bill, not unreasonable seeing how much the deficit is in the UK. Benefits have become just too easy to obtain, especially by fraud. I used to be a senior officer in local government before retirement and saw how many benefit fraud cases there were. But local councils being given the problem of setting Council Tax benefit levels is going to cause problems. They are meant to protect the vulnerable but wthout a definition of vulnerable. It will still be a complicated system with plenty of opportunity for fraud back ed up by an active legal profession defending those who think they have a right to take my tax and live the life of Riley.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    Sounds good, doesn't it. universal credit. But people are all different, their reasons for not working vary, different parts of the country have different cost of living. We already see people going to charity for food, and it will become more common. The benefit, being paid to only one member of the family, is a step backward in protecting women and children from hardship,

    Benefit fraud has been made easier because the personal contact has been reduced - once upon a time, 'National Assistance' (as hardship benefit was called) involved an officer coming to the house to see the living conditions, and anything dodgy was often picked up. When everything is online, it is very clear that they are not trying to reduce fraud, only costs. But that way, it is much easier to refuse someone because they are depersonalised, it's like the difference between shooting someone face-to-face and dropping a bomb on a city. What will happen is that the streetwise fraudsters will still get their money and the inexperienced but possibly more genuine will not know how to work the system!

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    What I mean by "work" is that it delivers a level of benefit to genuine claimants to allow them to live reasonably well while encouraging them to look for work they can do and "weeding out" the fraud and that it does it at lower cost.

    I am not stupid enough to imagine that all fraud will be eradicated but if we have one agency/department assessing the needs and responsible for minimising fraud it should be much more difficult for fraudsters to succeed and that should reduce the leakage from the welfare budget.

    There will always be areas of discretion. What do I mean by "live reasonably well"? These cannot be embodied in rules as they change from time to time, place to place and person to person.

    We should never be in the business of putting people in genuine need under pressure, financial or otherwise.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 140
    MK22 said

    windlesham1 talks about "workshy cheats". There are 650 in central London that could usefully be got rid of if this is the best they can come up with!

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    @Aitken B, if you want to know what is REALLY happening, take a look at the 'Benefits and Work' website and read some of the stories there. People are dying in despair. ASOS health'care' are being paid MILLIONS to process huge numbers of human beings like cattle. Men and women who are dying of cancer are being found 'fit for work'. That's because the so-called 'asessment' asks silly questions like 'can you lift up one of your arms as if to put on a hat?' 'can you manage to dial a telephone number?' - this is for Employment and Support Allowance - and if the answer to questions of this sort happens to be 'yes', then off you jolly well go to register for work! No matter that you have been given three months to live and are taking a cocktail of drugs in a desperate last-ditch attempt to save your life. If you know of ANY job which could be done which involves dialling a telephone number (just once, no more!) or putting on a hat with one hand, I'll eat mine. Hat. that is. The information in this article makes me fear that there will be more tragedies as the vulnerable are left out in the cold while the unsrupulous and savvy ones will milk an impersonal and rigid system.

    Windlesham8, I don't know your circumstances or age, but I find the word 'workshy' highly offensive.

    I worked ALL my life depite several major illnesses and operations, I always worked as soon as I could, enough to earn a full state pension, which now precludes me from the many freebies which others who have never worked can get. I know of people who have had the same illnesses as mine who have given up work before the age of 40, but I don't condemn them as 'workshy' because we are all different and what one can cope with, another cannot.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Henry-GBG
    Love rating 46
    Henry-GBG said

    Benefit claimants are not the only "workshy". The most important "workshy" group are landlords who leave their premises vacant rather than selling or renting them at realistic market levels. In doing so they are locking out those who would like to use those premises for productive activity.

    On the broader question of benefits, the only solution to this is the universal citizens' income, payable to all UK citizens resident in the UK. This is the only system which would ensure that people were always better of working than being idle. Of course that would require a robust tax system with no deadweight cost, and this is exactly what the UK does not have at the moment.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RocketSteve
    Love rating 30
    RocketSteve said

    The problem with the welfare system is that it pays money! It shouldn't. The welfare system should be there for people who have lost their job and need to pay/present their bills to live from one month to the next until finding employment. It's not their so people can watch Sky TV, Smoke, Drink alcohol, spend hours texting, eat crisps, cakes or 'do lunch' as one of my friends sisters thinks it's about, etc. It should be there as a safety net only.

    I'd like to see a system where you go to the dole office and justify your monthly bills. Food vouchers covering healthy choice foods only - the basics. No chocolate, no crisps, no cake. They are there for those that work. There's got to be some incentive!

    A quote from one woman in the US on welfare: 'They cut my welfare so much I had to ditch cable TV...'. I'm sorry but you shouldn't have had it in the first place. It's not a right! Once you get a job you can have all the trappings.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • paulypilot
    Love rating 5
    paulypilot said

    This cannot & will not work, for one simple reason - unskilled wages are far too low to live on. Therefore until something is done to raise wages for the low paid, and reduce the cost of housing, it is mathematically impossible to ensure that work will always pay better than Benefits.

    We need to create a shortage of unskilled labour, in order to drive up unskilled wages. This can only be done by leaving the EU, closing the borders, and forcing employers to compete for British workers, instead of plugging any gaps with a virtually unlimited supply of immigrant workers. (NB. I have nothing against immigration per se, but simply that the numbers are far too large & are therefore forcing down wages at the unskilled end of the labour market).

    We also need to build 2m+ new council houses, so that everyone who needs affordable accommodation can get it. Once people are in cheap, decent housing, they have a natural incentive to find work.

    The Universal Credit is therefore an impossible dream, and will fail, because low wage jobs will never pay enough to replace the combination of Benefits that out of work people need just to cover their basic living costs.

    Report on 07 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • kodakfish
    Love rating 3
    kodakfish said

    @Paulypilot & @RocketSteve you both seem to believe that the benefits system was just set up for short term unemployment. Don't get me wrong for those unemployed and able to work I agree with you both. But having worked for 48 years I lost my job due to ill health. Any 'luxuries' I have where got while I was working. If my partner wasn't chronically disabled and entitled to DLA then we'd struggle to eat the 1-2 meals a day we do.Please don't think that being dependant on the state is all fun and games, living lives of luxury) It's an unfortunate truth that most of the people getting penalised by the new rules will be those most at need, meanwhile the scammers/scumbags/cheats will find the loopholes to carry on getting the little extra they can. But, despite the facts, the government (of what ever colour) will continue to demonise the sick,disabled and the pensioners.Until as csarina said we will all be given a little white pill as soon as we are no longer fit for work. I just hope those that demonise those in the above groups never become chronically sick themselves( thus dependant on the state) and realise the folly of their ways.

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 140
    MK22 said

    If we continue to pay starvation wages, taking away benefits, scrapping the NHS for poor sick people, etc, slowly the low paid will become incapable of working. As there is limited housing on this island (we're GROSSLY overcrowded as it is) bringing in migrant workers won't work for long. So who is then going to create the wealth for the rich people "we" are so desperate to protect? Rich people? Don't make me laugh!! Oh go on! Someone try and make me laugh over this.

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • athomik
    Love rating 11
    athomik said

    csarina said

    "OK so how do pensioners fit into the scheme of things. We claim Housing benefit at 69 and 79 there is no way we are going to be back in work.

    Already our benefit has been clawed back is is due for a further claw back in December.We live in a 2 bedroomed apartment but only get an allowance for one bedroom. We need two bedrooms due to medical reasons, no joy there. "

    If the second bedroom has been adapted for a medical purpose or for a disabled person, you may qualify for a reduction in council tax. check with your local council.

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tuttogallo
    Love rating 74
    tuttogallo said

    I wish the government well as it tries to sort out the hideously over complicated benefits system. As with any financial change of this nature, there will be winners and losers and unintended consequences, probably quite big ones.

    When the welfare state was initiated, the idea was to provide a safety net under the poorest and less able. Everyone would agree with that. The unintended consequences are that we have created a poverty trapped underclass, who will not go picking vegetables because it involves getting up early for low pay. Unfortunately someone has to do these low paid jobs and it should be British workers and not foreigners.

    Another unintended consequence is that living on benefits has become a lifestyle choice for people who have decided that they do not like getting up early. When making an appointment to visit a house where people were on benefits, I was put off because they were going abroad on holiday!

    Social security is the largest item of government expenditure and the economy is not producing enough tax to pay it. The country cannot afford it i.e. we are too poor to do it. And soaking the rich won’t do it either, there aren't enough of them.

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    @kodakfish - how I agree with you.

    As a matter of interest, in 1965 when my son was born there WAS a universal benefit, it was called National Assistance, which was for anyone who was unable to support themselves and didn't qualify for any other benefit. It was means-tested and very hard to cheat because they would come to your house. My father died and my mother had cancer so I had to stop working to care for her, had no-one to look after my son, so I claimed National Assistance. Someone came to my house, looked round, could see that I had a single bed and no evidence of a man in the house, only my mother, myself and my baby. I was given £3 15s 6d per week which I continued to receive until my mother was able to care for my son again (about 6 months) I think it would have been pretty hard to fiddle that. Now, if I had applied online I could have had a house full of men working to support me and they would not have known unless a neighbour told them.

    If anyone does not have too selective a memory, they will remember that Margaret Thatcher set up a crusade to massage the unemployment figures by transferring the long-term unemployed to incapacity benefit. (My son was working in the Dole Office at that time, so I know what went on!) What a ruse! and, once on incapacity benefit there was no pressure on these people to look for work. Now they want to transfer these people back to Employment and Support Allowance (work-related). Meanwhile many have been bumming around taking drugs and drinking and have become unemployable because they are enjoying the lifestyle. Surprise surprise. Give a baby a lollipop instead of his dinner and then act surprised if he wants only lollipops!

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Drove End
    Love rating 2
    Drove End said

    The wealth of advice now comming out of the woodwork was available to the Government of the day when the present schemes were introduced so the question to ask is: What were the Governments motives in introducing these schemes?

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Singe57
    Love rating 8
    Singe57 said

    As long as they leave the mental ones alone we can all be safe in our beds:)

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • poppasmurf
    Love rating 31
    poppasmurf said

    marram: Same goes for the "unemployed figures messaging" via "New Enterprise Allowance".

    The government want to be seen to be doing something about unemployment.

    When the reality is they are not doing anything about the problem at all.

    The DWP is a business, run for profit.

    The DWP is not in the business of helping people anymore.

    If it can cut corners, money or close claims for no good reason they will.

    Sad but true.

    Report on 08 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Arblaster
    Love rating 41
    Arblaster said

    I have yet to hear anyone describe to me what was basically wrong with the “Poll Tax”. It was introduced to get everyone to pay for Council Services rather than a select few victims who happened to own or rent houses. People, not houses, use Council Services so people should pay for them.

    You have answered your own question. Another good reason is that it took no account of people's ability to pay.

    As to Universal Benefit, I shall be claiming it. There is no point in going out to work. This country will never be able to compete with China.

    Report on 10 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    This will be a disaster. The public schoolboys running the country will attempt to cut 10 billion from the benefits system and end up spending even more. They will be trying to run an online workhouse next...

    I don't think any of it will affect people already retired. They have a distinct advantage over younger people; they get out and vote at elections.

    Wait until the grown ups are running the country again...

    Report on 15 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • anonyy
    Love rating 16
    anonyy said

    @arblaster I was too you g to remember poll tax. I dont know how correct i am here, But from what my family say they had to pay it for each child they had whether they were working or not. That is not a fair system. The families get poorer as a result.

    I want more info on how much this universal credit will be my budget is weekly my first £42 that comes out of JSA is purely on my bills. That's £84 a fortnight I dont have a car to run or sky no luxuries. Just basic living.

    Report on 15 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Arblaster
    Love rating 41
    Arblaster said

    @anonyy You are correct. Although "child" did not cover juveniles or full-time students. For some reason, the clergy were also exempt. With the old rates system, the property was taxed. With the poll tax, every adult in the place was taxed. So a couple of parents with four adult offspring living with them would be charged for six people. Also, the introduction of the poll tax masked a withdrawal of government subsidies for local authorities. This was passed onto the poll tax payer. It was a total disaster.

    Iain Duncan Smith can talk as tough as he likes. True, there are people who select the dole as a lifestyle choice. I should know; I am one of them. But the fact is that there are not enough jobs to go round.

    Report on 15 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Neil C
    Love rating 0
    Neil C said

    Just to correct something Arblaster said: the clergy were not exempt from poll tax (i.e. vicars and Methodist ministers etc). It was monks and nuns who had taken a vow of poverty and therefore had no money of their own who were exempt.

    Report on 07 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4