To Liverpool, then, where I spend an hour or two with a guy called Peter S_ (may add  his surname later) about his experiences of jobseekers’ allowance. He’s on JSA at the moment. There’s a transcript of the interview with Peter below.

Peter used to work as a carer. Like many carers, he had a job which paid so badly that he couldn’t meet his bills. He started his day early and finished it late, but – again like many carers – was not paid for the time that he had to spend travelling between caring jobs, which meant that he couldn’t make enough money to get by. (Said the Resolution Foundation in an August report on this serious and growing problem: “Careworkers often lose at least £1 an hour because they are not paid separately for the time spent travelling between appointments and because providing decent care often takes longer than the time allocated by the employer for each visit.”)

Then – this is hardly surprising – Peter became very depressed. He suffers from depression and the working situation made it worse. He applied for ESA, but was found fit for work. He was still very depressed and couldn’t find the energy to appeal. So, he signed on for jobseekers’ allowance and was promptly sanctioned for “leaving” his job (depression, it seems, is no longer considered a “proper” reason for breakdown). He was sent on the work programme with the British Heart Foundation and is now applying for zero hours caring jobs which will also pay next to nothing.

So.

The best part of all this? – that Peter is supposed to feel grateful for his crappy wages and his life on JSA. He is supposed to accept every sanction and attack without complaint. He is expected to rise to all hurdles. Everybody is supposed to. Everybody is supposed to feel grateful for the chance to grind away on dwindling wages and get nowhere while the well-connected and well-appointed loot the nation’s pay packets and the public purse. I’m sure I tell you nothing new when I point out that when Cameron says “work hard and get ahead” he means “work hard for stuff all and help my corporate mates get even further ahead.” Why should anyone feel inspired to work to advance corporate interests? I’ve never seen that as a golden ticket, myself.

You’ll read more about this in the transcript below.

You’ll also read a few short comparative paragraphs about very wealthy and well-connected persons who – unlike people in Peter’s position – genuinely feel entitled to public money. They are taking that sense of entitlement to a new plane.

You’ll note, for instance, that I post Peter’s story as we’re lobbed an “apology” by Nadhim Zahawi who claimed parliamentary expenses to heat his stables. I mean – heated stables. Who the hell has stables? People I speak to can’t afford to heat their homes. MPs can, of course. You would have read plenty about MPs heating their second homes on expenses. I head out for an hour to walk the dog and by the time I’m back, we have career twat Nadine Dorries finally forced to register her I’m a Celebrity fee. These people are taking the piss.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – it’s the gross lack of balance I can’t stand. It’s the extraordinary double standard. This is unreal. It can’t last. Peter in Liverpool has been paid utter crap, had his tiny benefit cut and sent to work for free on the work programme. He spends his time applying for zero-hours caring jobs which won’t pay him enough to survive. If he doesn’t like this and doesn’t accept it and his mental health suffers, he and people in the same situation will be pillioried by members of a political class who care only to trample us all as they race for the lolly. I wonder, on the other hand, how things will pan out for Nadhim Zahawi. Comparatively, you understand. Will he be sanctioned, written off as a scrounger, forced to take a zero hours contract for tiny wages that won’t cover his costs and told to be grateful or to get out? Will he be forced to queue for one of two computers at a jobcentre to find non-existent work (as Peter was – you’ll see this below), sent on meaningless work programmes and made to turn up to a jobcentre each day for pointless jobsearches and workfare? Will he be held up before the electorate as an example of someone who is responsible for the recession – someone whose sense of entitlement and flagrant abuse of the public purse stands between the nation and economic greatness? Continue reading →

Joe Halewood has posted a very interesting article: it’s about a letter from the Knowsley Housing Trust which says that the recipient may be considered to have intentionally made themselves homeless if they’re evicted because of rent arrears. The letter also says that social services will be advised if there are children in the home:

People have read this as “pay your rent, or we’ll come for your kids,” as well they might.

As Joe says:

“Knowsley Housing Trust (KHT) are sending out a standard letter which tenants are reading as “pay your rent or social services will come and take your children off you”..and you thought social landlords couldn’t get any more incompetent!

“The prior paragraph sees KHT assume that any tenant evicted for arrears will be declared intentionally homeless by the council – that not paying your rent means you WILL be found intentionally homeless and that is a huge assumption and an overt scare tactic in itself by KHT and this predicates the threat of your children being taken into care. Councils have to look at the individual circumstances of each case under homeless legislation and eviction for arrears does NOT equate with being found intentionally homeless as KHT strongly allude it does.”

So.

I’m posting this, because I know that this fear of losing your kids if you can’t pay the bedroom tax looms large in many minds. I know this because people have told me about it. They certainly told me about it when I was travelling around in the northwest for this recent article about the bedroom tax. I wrote then:

“The other concern people have is that social services will remove children from parents who are found to be struggling due to the extra cost. People say this a lot. “Nobody wants social services butting their noses into people’s business, because it’s a danger game when a mother hasn’t got enough money to feed her kids properly,” Jill says [at the West Everton Community Centre]. “She’s going to starve herself to make sure her kids are fed. You’re hearing about kids being taken away when they shouldn’t be.””

A similar point was raised on at least two more occasions by people I met at the bedroom tax campaign meetings I attended during that trip. One man I was speaking with said that the campaign groups wanted to get more young people involved. “They’re probably worried about social services coming round,” a woman at our table said. I had a similar conversation with two women after a meeting in central Liverpool.

This all put me in mind of a conversation I had a couple of years ago with a Wisconsin woman called Pat Gowens. I’d rung Pat in the first instance to talk about Wisconsin’s appalling workfare programme, which she had some experience of. She and other women had set up Welfare Warriors – a member-led campaign made up of people who were directly affected by that punitive W2 workfare scheme. We talked about that for some time and then our conversation moved onto other work the group was involved in. That work, it transpired, included representing women whose children had been removed by social services. “They come into your homes,” Pat said, “usually on an anonymous call, or [a call from] your husband. They decide you’re a bit crazy, or your house isn’t clean enough – a mother didn’t vacuum her carpets, or just swept them [or something like that]. Then, they take your kids away. You used to get them back in six months. Now it can be six years. If you want them back you have to do parenting classes, therapy, anger management, domestic violence therapy.”

The group is still active – you can see their facebook page here – and they’re still running articles with titles like Give Us Back Our Children.

The fear of losing your children is an appalling one. Most people ought to know that. And it is very bad to know that people fear losing their children because they can’t pay a tax that they should never have had to pay in the first place.

Joe Halewood is absolutely right when he says:

“Social landlords are in a position of authority when it comes to housing matters. Tenants assume that landlords know housing law and good practice therein and tenants in large part have to trust social landlords.”

He’s also right when he says that anybody who is abusing that power needs to be named and shamed. There is something very unpleasant going on here. Talk about a nasty way to keep people who don’t have money in line. Pure evil.

Update: info here on this situation from the Shelter site (h-t Mr Bogbrush on facebook):

“Can social services take children away because the family is found to be intentionally homeless?

No. Social services can only forcibly take a child away from her/his parents if there is clear evidence of a risk of abuse and a court order has been obtained. If social services offer to house the children but not the rest of the family, the parents are not normally obliged to accept this option.

If social services offer to house the child alone, you should get specialist advice from a local Shelter advice centre or other housing advice agency immediately.”

I wrote this update Sunday 3 November –  “it seems that KHT is “reviewing” its customer communications after that original letter went viral on it. Bit more than that needs reviewing if you ask me” – but it seems that review of customer communications has to do with another incident to do with eviction and not this one. What a mess – how many shambles can a trust have? Will post more on that when I get info through.

Update 4 November: The “review of customer communications” has to do with this incident – “A Merseyside community formed a ring of steel around a bedroom tax victim’s house after fears her possessions would be removed without her consent.” And see this, too – that ring of steel action apparently led to KHT announcing that anti bedroom tax campaigners were a danger to staff. Unreal. Were HAs not expecting direct action as a response to this tax?

Update 5 November: You’ll see in the comments that the review of customer communications is to do with the social services letter. See comment below from Huyton Freeman and watch the links below for updates:

“I posted the letter on my blog http://www.huytonfreeman.co.uk/ and on http://www.facbook.com/huytondi any further responses from KHT will also be published there and @huytonfreeman on twitter.”

Let’s see what KHT comes back with.

Video from outside the Supreme Court today where five justices found that government “back to work” schemes were legally flawed.

Have put a full transcript of Tessa Gregory’s speech below as it appears in the video – in it, she details plans to pursue repayments for sanctions.

“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the government’s appeal and confirmed that the regulations under which most of the back to work schemes were initially created were unlawful. The court upheld the findings that Iain Duncan Smith acted beyond the powers given to him by parliament by failing to provide any detail about various schemes in the regulations and in any event, the required notice provisions have not been complied with.

Shortly after lodging his appeal, Iain Duncan Smith rushed emergency legislation through parliament which retrospectively amended the law. This effectively overturned the court of appeal’s judgement and shamefully rendered much of its own appeal proceedings academic.

Indeed the Supreme Court was moved to note that the government has rather unattractively taken up court time and public money seeking to establish something that it had already sought a rememdy for in parliament.

We have already issued judicial review proceedings challenging the validity of that retrospective legislation which following today, we will seek to extradite.

It is also though important to note that the judgement has real practical implications.

In addressing one of our arguments, the court found for the first time that the government has a duty as a matter of fairness to provide from the outset enough information for jobseekers about a given scheme to enable them to make informed and meaningful representations.

A failure to provide that informtion is likely to make it unlawful for the DWP to require people to participate on a given scheme, or to dock their benefits if they fail to do so. The court found that on the facts of this case, the secretary of state did not provide our clients with adequate information. For Jamie Wilson, who was stripped of his benefits for six months, that means that notwithstanding the restrospective legislation, we will now seek repayment of his benefits on that basis. We know that like Jamie and Cait, hundreds and thousands of other jobseekers have not been and continue not to be provided with information about the dizzying array of schemes. Following today’s judgement, any such jobseekers can object to sanctions that have been imposed and seek repayment of their benefits. It is staggering that Iain Duncan Smith has found himself in this position even after fast-tracking emergency restrospective legislation through parliament specifically designed to prevent repayment of benefits.

We intend to work with advice organsations to ensure that following this ruling, affected individuals have the right information and assistance. This case has expsoed an utterly shambolic system, where individuals are routinely being stripped of their subsistence level benefits after receiving inadequte and inaccurate information. Iain Duncan Smith has sought to brand our clients as job snobs. In reality, all they have been seeking is a system
that is fair and transparent.”