Agenda item

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview. The report provided brief statistical information regarding households likely to be affected by the roll out of Universal Credit (UC) in the London Borough of Hillingdon and considered how UC works in practice and its likely impact. Key points raised included the fact that the main full service roll out of UC for new claimants in Hillingdon was scheduled for 24 October 2018, universal credit had been introduced in some parts of the Borough. The overall caseload would increase next year through the introduction of managed migration to transfer residents to universal credit.

Inderpal Mudhar, Partnership Manager, from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) addressed the Committee and provided an overview of the process. He explained that there were two different claimant groups namely mainstream and vulnerable.

Mainstream claimant groups

Mainstream claimant groups had access to IT, they had access to email, bank accounts and phones for texting services. Once the claimant was set up they would call the service and arrange an appointment with their nearest Job Centre. Workers at the Job Centre would sit and check IDs. Workers discussed options such as what claimants were going to do, how claimants would look for jobs and relevant training needed and, following this, the claimant’s account would become active. If the claimant fell under the social housing category, the rent amount asked and the tenancy was verified with the Local Authority. There was also landlord portal which the DWP can access for information.

Vulnerable claimant groups

Mr Mudhar explained that vulnerable claimant groups usually had no access to IT and no knowledge of the digital process. Funds from the DWP had been commissioned to the Local Authority to support claimants. There were training providers that supported vulnerable claimant groups through the process and a training course usually took up to six weeks. If there were any arrears, personal budget services were discussed. Several job fairs were held, claimants had 1:1s, CV enhancement workshops and there were academies that provided work experience and training.

Mr Mudhar informed the Committee that one of the reasons that arrears occurred was due to the claimant already having arrears before UC was rolled out. The DWP wanted to support claimants with arrears and if there was evidence of hardship, advances were offered. The DWP worked closely with food banks. Overall, there were many options available to support claimants if the LA and DWP worked together.

Members thanked officers and Mr Mudhar for his attendance. Members welcomed the close working between the DWP and food banks to support vulnerable claimants.

In response to Member questions, Mr Mudhar confirmed that the DWP had a complex needs plan to manage vulnerable claimant groups. For example where there were alcohol/drug abuse concerns, the DWP worked with specialist organisations to support claimants. Specialist advisors worked with claimants with disabilities and employees were trained so that they could offer the appropriate support and options.  When asked how people were categorised as being vulnerable, Mr Mudhar explained that people at the front of the desk had specialist knowledge and had specific training. Other factors that could make claimants feel vulnerable included language barriers. Officers supported this and further explained that the Council was making individual contact with Hillingdon claimants, undertaking assessment, and doing this in advance of the verification process. Further information on this would be provided in session three.

Members questioned whether training could be tailored to meet different community needs. Mr Mudhar confirmed that different training providers were used such as GOSAC working with a majority of Somali communities.

During the discussion, it was noted that the main reason for UC was to encourage people back into work. Members questioned how many people were back in employment since 30 July 2018 and whether there were any trends and patterns in ages with people applying for UC. Officers and Mr Mudhar did not have this information to hand and Members asked whether it could be provided as it would be helpful to the review.

It was also noted that the landlord portal was only available for social housing and large housing associations claimants. It was not available for private housing claimants, although Mr Mudhar explained that claimants usually had to bring documentation to confirm their rent and tenancy type.

The Local Authority and DWP were all working in partnership to try and migrate to the new system. It was noted that there was a YouTube video that explained the process in detail, however the video only had 60k views. Members asked the DWP to consider whether this was the most effective tool being used and whether other avenues could be explored to educate and promote UC. Members questioned what the best way of registration would be if people did not have mobiles and Mr Mudhar explained that there was also the option to use emails and journals.

Members asked for further information on how other councils had managed the transition process. Members commented that facts and figures would be useful.

Although Members heard a great deal of positive information and a simplified explanation of the process, they still had concerns about how this process would be embedded in practice. This was particularly relevant to people who had specific conditions such as issues with overspending money and people not wanting to leave their house for whatever reason. People with alcohol or drug abuse were unlikely to be able to manage personal budgets. Members considered that this would lead on to other issues down the line. Members took the view that there was still the worry for these vulnerable people and the process did not take into account these specific needs. Although the Committee heard that that there were visiting officers that visited homes to help these people, there was a general consensus that prevention need to be worked on and vulnerable claimants needed to be targeted. More work needed to be done and evidence of supported needed to be explained.

After Member questions, Mr Mudhar confirmed that there was an appeals process in place which were dealt with by Job Centre Managers with a turnaround of seven days. This was an improvement from the previous process which could take up to eight months. 

Members all reached the conclusion that seeing the service in practice and on the front line, meeting with Job Centre workers and home visitors would enhance their understanding of the process. It would be insightful and allow Members to ask further questions and make informed recommendations. It was important for Members to undertake a decent and honest review and wanted to explore aspects of the transitions process.

RESOLVED: 

That the Committee:

1.    Thanked the witness and officers for their evidence and attendance

2.    Noted the evidence presented; and

3.    That Democratic Services liaise with officers and Inderpal Mudhar to arrange a site visit to a Job Centre.