Councils sit on £67m in emergency help for poor

Councils sit on £67m in emergency help for poor
Record numbers of families have pleas for help rejected even though councils in England are failing to spend allocated cash

A fledgling scheme to provide emergency help to the poorest in the country is in chaos, with £67m left unspent and record numbers of families being turned away.

Figures released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests indicate that by the end of January councils in England were sitting on £67m of the £136m that had been allocated to local welfare schemes. Half of local authorities had spent less than 40% of their funds.

An analysis by the Guardian shows that under the new local welfare assistance schemes, four in 10 applications for emergency funds are turned down, despite evidence that many applicants have been made penniless by benefits sanctions and delays in processing benefit claims. Under the previous system – the social fund – just two in 10 were. In some parts of the country, as few as one in 10 applicants obtain crisis help.

The schemes were designed to help low-income families in crisis, such as those in danger of becoming homeless or subjected to domestic violence. Charities and MPs have warned that those denied help are turning to food banks and loan sharks.

Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, which offers debt and legal advice, said the emergency financial support system was in chaos. "When the safety net fails, people are left with no way of putting food on the table, paying the rent or keeping the lights on. Confusion over what help is available and who to approach means that people who need support are left high and dry.

"People are in danger of being pushed into the arms of payday lenders and loan sharks by the chaotic emergency support system. Citizens Advice bureaux see people in desperate need of support who have nowhere else to turn when jobcentres and the local council don't give out support."

Under the new system, emergency funds are no longer ringfenced, meaning that councils can divert unspent cash to other budgets. Local welfare assistance schemes were created a year ago in 150 English authorities, alongside national schemes in Wales and Scotland, following the abolition of the social fund.

Most schemes do not offer cash or loans, but support in kind, such as food parcels and supermarket vouchers. The social fund provided loans repayable against future benefit payments – typically about £50 – and larger capital grants to destitute families who needed help to furnish flats or replace broken domestic appliances.

Despite charities reporting that demand for help has rocketed as a result of economic hardship and welfare cuts, some councils spent more money setting up and administering their welfare schemes than they gave to needy applicants.

Councils told the Guardian they had provided less in emergency funding than in the past because there was a lack of public awareness of the new system. Some had failed to advertise their schemes, while others set such tight eligibility criteria that many applicants – typically including low-paid working families, benefit claimants and those deemed to have not lived in their local area for long enough – were turned away.

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, who has repeatedly raised the issue of local welfare in parliament, said his constituents frequently reported struggles to get crisis help. Constituents he has helped include:

• A low-wage family with three children, including an 11-month-old baby, who applied for £35 to pay for gas, electricity and baby food to help them until payday. The council scheme initially referred the family to a food bank. After lobbying by Danczuk, they were given £20 for energy costs, but were refused money for baby food.

• A pregnant mother and her partner, who after benefit changes were left with £7 a week for food after rent and council tax. They were told that they could not apply as the scheme was for "genuine emergencies" such as fires and flood.

In each case Danczuk believes the families would have qualified for emergency support under the social fund. "Central and local government are pushing people into the hands of payday loan companies and food banks. They have in effect privatised the lender of last resort," he said.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions, which funds local welfare schemes run by 150 local authorities across England, said: "In contrast to a centralised grant system that was poorly targeted, councils can now choose how best to support those most in need. It is for local councils to decide how they spend their budgets."

But a Conservative council leader has called on the government to reinstate local welfare assistance funding, calling it a "cut too far". Louise Goldsmith, leader of West Sussex county council, said the proposed cut would leave many low income families without vital support when they were going through a "tough patch in their lives".

A briefing note prepared by the council found that 43% of 5,582 individuals and families helped by the local welfare fund to the end of February had applied because they had been left penniless by benefit sanctions and delays.

The Local Government Association has called upon the ministers to reverse the cut, and it is understood a number of councils and welfare charities are preparing to seek a judicial review of the government's decision to cut local welfare assistance funding in April 2015.

Many councils are using part of their welfare assistance allocation to provide financial support for local food banks, which provide penniless applicants with charity food parcels.

Lady Stowell, a local government minister, told the House of Lords in January that local authorities were "doing a good job of supporting people in times of crisis and are doing it without using all the funding that has been provided so far from DWP". But Centrepoint, the homelessness charity said that local welfare assistance underspending meant many homeless youngsters could not get vital support when they moved from hostels into independent living. "Councils need to start using these funds to address urgent need now and ensure that young people have access to it," said Seyi Obakin, Centrepoint's chief executive.Two local authorities – Labour-run Nottinghamshire county council and Tory-run Oxfordshire – have scrapped local welfare assistance altogether and plan to divert the money into social care services..

Conservative-run Herefordshire had county council spent less than £5,000 of its annual £377,000 allocation by the end of December last year, equivalent to 1% of its local welfare budget.It said its spending reflected low demand for crisis help, a claim disputed by Hereford Citizens Advice and Hereford food bank, which said they had been inundated with requests.

Labour-run Islington council had spent 80% of its emergency funds budget by the end of December last year and had spent all its emergency funds by April. It said it had encouraged its frontline staff to refer individuals to its local welfare scheme to ensure they got crisis help and assistance with any underlying problems, such as debt.

Local authorities are anticipating further problems over local welfare in 2015 when the DWP scraps funding for the schemes. Councils, charities and MPs have called on the government to restore and ringfence the crisis support allocation.

Councils say that in some cases they have refused emergency help because benefit claimants have been wrongly referred to local authority welfare schemes by jobcentres. Some councils have refused to accept applications from those who ought to have been offered a short-term benefit advance from their local jobcentre.

Scotland and Wales have their own welfare assistance schemes and these have higher applicant success rates than in England. In Northern Ireland, which still has the social fund, 70% of applicants received help.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/20/emergency-welfare-scheme-local-councils

It's a complete mess and makes lives worse for the most vunerable.

Sitting on that money is the absolute worst thing those councils should do. Failing that they actually pay the benefits the system is set up to pay, it would even be better if a tax refund was set up, putting the money back into the local economy and stimulating job creation.

And what do you know, it's the Tory areas that see the worst of it ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sitting on that money is the absolute worst thing those councils should do. Failing that they actually pay the benefits the system is set up to pay, it would even be better if a tax refund was set up, putting the money back into the local economy and stimulating job creation.

And what do you know, it's the Tory areas that see the worst of it ...

Yep, you would'nt have thought it would you lol

This reads hugely depressing, with a Government who have little heart or common sense, and as this article says , many of these people are in this situation directly because of the DWP...

It can't ever remember things being this bad for people, not even in the eighties , when things were so tight for many, but never this bad...

Even though I was a bairn, I knew this older lass who still lived with her parents who were neighbours of mine,she signed on all the time ,and back then( about 1983) , she told me she is better off not working but claiming dole money as she lived with her parents anyway!



This couldn't be further from the truth in this day though, where Britain's poorest are being targeted time again,usual Tory Policy...

Trample on the poor...prop up fellow Toffs

Why would someone on a low wage have three children?

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would someone on a low wage have three children?

Yeah, you'd think they'd scuttle a few of them once they hit hard times, huh?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would someone on a low wage have three children?

Yeah, you'd think they'd scuttle a few of them once they hit hard times, huh?

They clearly can't afford three children, so it's their own fault they're poor. Same goes for the woman who got pregnant whilst on benefits.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would someone on a low wage have three children?

Yeah, you'd think they'd scuttle a few of them once they hit hard times, huh?

Yea, lost me job, better bin those two!!!!!   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would someone on a low wage have three children?

Yeah, you'd think they'd scuttle a few of them once they hit hard times, huh?

They clearly can't afford three children, so it's their own fault they're poor. Same goes for the woman who got pregnant whilst on benefits.

Maybe the U.K. should make it illegal to have sex if you don't have a good paying job! Unless you're gay, of course.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They clearly can't afford three children, so it's their own fault they're poor. Same goes for the woman who got pregnant whilst on benefits.

Maybe the U.K. should make it illegal to have sex if you don't have a good paying job!

There is such a thing as contraception you know.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They clearly can't afford three children, so it's their own fault they're poor. Same goes for the woman who got pregnant whilst on benefits.

Maybe the U.K. should make it illegal to have sex if you don't have a good paying job!

There is such a thing as contraception you know.

And you know what they say about contraception -- 60 percent of the time, it works -- every time. Or wait, was that Sex Panther cologne?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:




Yeah, you'd think they'd scuttle a few of them once they hit hard times, huh?

They clearly can't afford three children, so it's their own fault they're poor. Same goes for the woman who got pregnant whilst on benefits.

Do you want a timer to tell them when they can shag ( sorry!) Rags?

And I doubt the lass who got pregnant while on benefits is in a position to redact her actions. 

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There is such a thing as contraception you know.

And you know what they say about contraception -- 60 percent of the time, it works -- every time. Or wait, was that Sex Panther cologne?

I have no sympathy for idiots.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

And you know what they say about contraception -- 60 percent of the time, it works -- every time. Or wait, was that Sex Panther cologne?

I have no sympathy for idiots.

Isn't it idiotic to have an affair with a married man, or was that just a rumour?  ::D:: 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There is such a thing as contraception you know.

And you know what they say about contraception -- 60 percent of the time, it works -- every time. Or wait, was that Sex Panther cologne?

I have no sympathy for idiots.

That's kind of ironic, don't you think?

No wait, never mind.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have no sympathy for idiots.

Isn't it idiotic to have an affair with a married man, or was that just a rumour?  ::D:: 

What you do in your spare time is entirely up to you.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have no sympathy for idiots.

That's kind of ironic, don't you think?

No wait, never mind.

No.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have no sympathy for idiots.

That's kind of ironic, don't you think?

No wait, never mind.

 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Isn't it idiotic to have an affair with a married man, or was that just a rumour?  ::D:: 

What you do in your spare time is entirely up to you.

Never have done myself, but I understand you have, so I don't think you are in a position to judge anyone else do you?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What you do in your spare time is entirely up to you.

Never have done myself, but I understand you have.

Then you understand wrongly.

By the way, if you want to poke your nose into my private life, I expect you won't mind if we discuss your private life too - including your health.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Never have done myself, but I understand you have.

Then you understand wrongly.

By the way, if you want to poke your nose into my private life, I expect you won't mind if we discuss your private life too - including your health.

That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then you understand wrongly.

By the way, if you want to poke your nose into my private life, I expect you won't mind if we discuss your private life too - including your health.

That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

I don't give a stuff. People that poke their noses into my private life and make up lies about me deserve all they get.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

I don't give a stuff. People that poke their noses into my private life and make up lies about me deserve all they get.

If you remember, I asked if it was just a rumour, and it was very pertinent as you were sitting in judgement on someone's sex life.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't give a stuff. People that poke their noses into my private life and make up lies about me deserve all they get.

If you remember, I asked if it was just a rumour, and it was very pertinent as you were sitting in judgement on someone's sex life.

You asked because you're a nosy old cow who wants to know everything about everyone.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then you understand wrongly.

By the way, if you want to poke your nose into my private life, I expect you won't mind if we discuss your private life too - including your health.

That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

Don't worry about it JD, my healths a lot better since I finished the chemo, got the energy back I had five years ago.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

If you remember, I asked if it was just a rumour, and it was very pertinent as you were sitting in judgement on someone's sex life.

You asked because you're a nosy old cow who wants to know everything about everyone.

I don't give a toss what you do, however if the rumour was true it would be very hypocritical of you to judge anyone else.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then you understand wrongly.

By the way, if you want to poke your nose into my private life, I expect you won't mind if we discuss your private life too - including your health.

That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

Come off it JD is Rags just supposed to sit and take it?
No mention of Sassys original comment about affairs from you I notice!

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You asked because you're a nosy old cow who wants to know everything about everyone.

I don't give a toss what you do, however if the rumour was true it would be very hypocritical of you to judge anyone else.

It's to do with having children you can't afford. It's a bit stupid to do that and then complain that the State won't pay for them. People are just so stupid about that sort of thing.

In future, keep your nose out of my private life.

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

Come off it JD is Rags just supposed to sit and take it?
No mention of Sassys original comment about affairs from you I notice!

It was probably JD who told Sassy that big fat lie in the first place. You know how she likes to gossip via PM.

Sassy wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

Don't worry about it JD, my healths a lot better since I finished the chemo, got the energy back I had five years ago.

..yeah Sass, you did say about 2 weeks ago you were feeling a lot better now, and long may it to continue you tough nut!x

Joy Division wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Don't worry about it JD, my healths a lot better since I finished the chemo, got the energy back I had five years ago.

..yeah Sass, you did say about 2 weeks ago you were feeling a lot better now, and long may it to continue you tough nut!x

Thanks love, OH is glad I'm going on holiday at the end of next month so he can have a rest   Not that he's complaining lol

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


That's bloody terrible and another forum low.

Come off it JD is Rags just supposed to sit and take it?
No mention of Sassys original comment about affairs from you I notice!

..and I'm gonna tell you why Nems....

Rags has caused nothing but aggro since arriving here, some on the right will choose not to see that, but in absolute truth,Rags been deliberately picking fights, lying and encouraging certain members to back her up.

This is not because oh how she spoke of my lad with Autism, but because you stopped to a totally new low when you were mocking Sassy's condition.

Rags, I'm only telling the truth and I think you know that anyway, but if you make even a bit of effort, most or all others will too, there are easier ways to get on, even with minor bickering going on as well as chat and debate.

Suppose I'm all the bastards now eh?, maybe I always was?  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

Come off it JD is Rags just supposed to sit and take it?
No mention of Sassys original comment about affairs from you I notice!

It was probably JD who told Sassy that big fat lie in the first place. You know how she likes to gossip via PM.

OMFG Do I ever!

Well, as I've seen post after post about her having an affair with a married man JD, I asked if the rumour was true.   Because if she didn't, fine, if she did, she has no right to judge anyone else's sex life.

Sassy wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..yeah Sass, you did say about 2 weeks ago you were feeling a lot better now, and long may it to continue you tough nut!x

Thanks love, OH is glad I'm going on holiday at the end of next month so he can have a rest    Not that he's complaining lol

I think it's actually a great thing to each have just a wee break now and then sass!

I'm sure it helps keep the passions burning!  

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:

Come off it JD is Rags just supposed to sit and take it?
No mention of Sassys original comment about affairs from you I notice!

..and I'm gonna tell you why Nems....

Rags has caused nothing but aggro since arriving here, some on the right will choose not to see that, but in absolute  truth,Rags been deliberately picking fights, lying and encouraging certain members to back her up.

This is not because oh how she spoke of my lad with Autism, but because you stopped to a totally new low when you were mocking Sassy's condition.

Rags, I'm only telling the truth and I think you know that anyway, but if you make even a bit of effort, most or all others will too, there are easier ways to get on, even with minor bickering going on as well as chat and debate.

Suppose I'm all the bastards   now eh?, maybe I always was?  

Well do you know what JD, that would be fine and dandy if you were as quick to defend others against attacks and abuse. Your selectiveness makes it obvious JD.
When did I mock Sassys condition?

Joy Division wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Thanks love, OH is glad I'm going on holiday at the end of next month so he can have a rest    Not that he's complaining lol

   I think it's actually a great thing to each have just a wee break now and then sass!

I'm sure it helps keep the passions burning!  

Well ours has been sorely tested over the last while, so we are making up for lost time lol

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was probably JD who told Sassy that big fat lie in the first place. You know how she likes to gossip via PM.

OMFG Do I ever!

..I see your back with the James Bond stuff girls, I honestly don't know what your taking about ?...and PM's?..

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:
OMFG Do I ever!

..I see your back with the James Bond stuff girls, I honestly don't know what your taking about ?...and PM's?..

We know you dont know the half of it JD.

Sassy wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

   I think it's actually a great thing to each have just a wee break now and then sass!

I'm sure it helps keep the passions burning!  

Well ours has been sorely tested over the last while, so we are making up for lost time lol

OOer!  

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..I see your back with the James Bond stuff girls, I honestly don't know what your taking about ?...and PM's?..

We know you dont know the half of it JD.

...Well Nems..spill, I'm listening..

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:

We know you dont know the half of it JD.

...Well Nems..spill, I'm listening..

What do you want to know JD?

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:

We know you dont know the half of it JD.

...Well Nems..spill, I'm listening..

Oh you will be regaled for hours JD so I'll leave you to it. Now, why would I PM you about it when Phil has said it over and over and over and over again?   

Not a bit of it, one sentence says all that anyone needs to know.

If Sassy tells you the time check your watch

Sassy wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...Well Nems..spill, I'm listening..

Oh you will be regaled for hours JD so I'll leave you to it.   Now, why would I PM you about it when Phil has said it over and over and over and over again?     

..I was lost as to what this was about sass!, just looked back and Yes...it had been spoken of in posts.

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...Well Nems..spill, I'm listening..

What do you want to know JD?

..I was just replying to your post that said ' I didn't know the half of it' Nems!

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:

What do you want to know JD?

..I was just replying  to your post that said ' I didn't know the half of it' Nems!

Yes I knowJD  ::D:: 

Well I didn't learn much about the 67 mill but I did learn about people's sex lives   

eddie wrote:Well I didn't learn much about the 67 mill but I did learn about people's sex lives   

  

harvesmom wrote:

eddie wrote:Well I didn't learn much about the 67 mill but I did learn about people's sex lives   

  

It's amazing what you can glean from a thread about emergency funds harves