benefit sanctions

Alarmingly, the new system of Universal Credit does not seem to be improving the lot of many care leavers - particularly those with disabilities or children of their own. For example, a 21-year-old whose disability limits their capability for work and who rents a one-bed flat from a housing association, could lose half of their disposal income making a new claim under Universal Credit compared to the old system.
The Government must now listen to the NAO who have called for a wide ranging review of sanctions policy, particularly as the Department rolls out Universal Credit. The implementation of Universal Credit has already been plagued with chaos and delay - seven delays to the roll out timetable to date.
Last Saturday, I went to see a film called "I, Daniel Blake". It focuses on a man who suffered a major heart attack and yet
Austerity measures have contributed to the creation of a mental health crisis. The sufferers of mental illnesses are being increasingly left to deal with their conditions on their own instead of being offered the medical treatment which they desperately need.
I met John* after his three month sanction had ended. He lived in a fifth floor council flat and was wondering whether to throw himself off the balcony. He had a history of depression and I do not like to speculate what would have happened if he had been left on his own.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) stands like a light house shining alarm signals across the stormy seas of British national and local politics while individuals and families crash into the rocks with an ever diminishing chance of being rescued by the lifeboats of the increasingly stretched NHS.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled against the DWP again, meaning it could well be obliged to repay £130million in benefit payments to claimants who were 'sanctioned' after "refusing" workfare
David Cameron came under fire today after declaring that some benefit claimants were making a “lifestyle choice”. The Prime
The Government on Monday refused to investigate the effects of benefit cuts to thousands of people's mental health. Department
Why does behaviour we would think outrageous if it were a business owner trying it, get given the okay when it's people administering the benefits system that do it? What justifies the rules being so very different?