Spoiler alert: this article, out of necessity, refers to the plot of I, Daniel Blake frequently.
Ken Loach’s brilliant film, I, Daniel Blake, is a highly realistic portrayal of many of the problems with the UK benefits system. We at the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust (Z2K) – a charity addressing poverty issues caused by unfairness in the law, legal and benefits system – were deeply moved by how it showed the day-to-day reality of poverty and trying to access welfare benefit.
Both of the main characters, Daniel and Katie, are typical of the kind of clients we help with welfare benefits and housing issues. The benefits system is complicated and, to borrow a line from the film, “a monumental farce”, so it’s no wonder people can feel reluctant to seek advice.
This is an attempt to show the kind of guidance we would give them, if they were experiencing any of the issues that arise in the film.
Daniel’s ESA claim and requesting a reconsideration
We first meet Daniel attending a work capability assessment. It is quickly established that he suffered a heart attack at work and has recently claimed employment and support allowance (ESA), which is an income replacement benefit for those too unwell or disabled to work, or look for work.
If you are facing a work capability assessment, if at all possible, take someone with you (which you are allowed to do), and get them to take notes. If nothing else, having someone you know there will make the ordeal less stressful; in our experience this can make a huge difference to the quality of the assessment and the outcome.
If you are deemed fit for work, and you think this decision is wrong for whatever reason, we would advise you not to feel too discouraged and not to give up. There is an enormous discrepancy between the quality of the initial decision and the final outcome of an appeal. The statistics show that roughly 60% of appeals against a “fit to work” decision are successful.
Daniel’s JSA claim
In need of money and unable to work, Daniel claims jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) while he is waiting for the mandatory reconsideration notice about his ESA claim. The “reconsideration stage” is an internal review whereby the Department for Work and Pensions will look at a decision again, but the system is undermined by the incredibly poor quality of decisions made at the reconsideration stage. One cannot help but suspect that the process is just a delaying tactic designed to put claimants off appealing.
The jobcentre should be making reasonable adjustments for anyone with medical needs claiming JSA, but in our experience it is a luck-of-the-draw system. If your jobcentre has failed to take into account your needs and make reasonable adjustments for you, or has mistreated you, you should consider making a complaint.
While claiming JSA, Daniel is told by his work coach that he has to attend a CV workshop, and that if he doesn’t, he will be sanctioned. Daniel is warned that he could face a reduction or nil payment of his benefits for anything between four and 13 weeks. It is possible to apply for hardship payments during the sanction period to make up for the reduction in your income. Sanctions can, and should be, appealed against (following a reconsideration).
Daniel’s housing
Daniel mentions that he is having to deal with bedroom tax. From this we can infer that he receives housing benefit. This is paid by local authorities, and it is not uncommon for them to suspend or even terminate housing benefit payments when someone who had previously been receiving ESA has their benefit has stopped. It is therefore crucial that you keep your local authority informed if something happens with your ESA or JSA claim.
As for the bedroom tax, it is not made clear in the film why Daniel would have had a spare room; it is possible that he could have needed it for his late wife, who had medical issues of her own. If this was the case, Daniel would have had a one-year grace period following her death. After that Daniel could consider applying to his local authority for a discretionary housing payment (commonly referred to as DHPs). This is essentially a grant paid by your local authority that tops up your housing benefit.
Daniel’s ESA appeal
On the day of Daniel’s appeal he is shown attending a tribunal where he meets his representative. The representative tells Daniel how confident he is of having the decision finding him fit for work overturned. None of our caseworkers could guess how Daniel would have even scored 12 points after his initial assessment. In our experience, for someone like Daniel, the most likely outcome following his medical would have been 0 points. This is because the way the ESA points system works is very inflexible and generally fails to account for conditions like Daniel’s.
Daniel would therefore have been relying on regulation 29 of the ESA regulations. This regulation can be used whenever a claimant has not scored the requisite points, but there would be a substantial risk to someone’s health if they were found fit for work and is commonly applied to people with Daniel’s health problems. A useful summary of this rule is provided by the Child Poverty Action Group.
Daniel might have also sought to rely on regulation 35 in order to argue that he should be awarded ESA with the support group component. This is about a claimant’s ability to undertake “work-related activity” at their local jobcentre, which is not nearly as difficult as claiming JSA, but there is still a risk of being sanctioned. It is therefore worth trying to make this argument, particularly given the upcoming cuts in ESA for those in the work-related activity group. The support group component also exempts ESA claimants from the benefit cap.
Katie
We first encounter Katie at the jobcentre. Katie is also claiming JSA, and is told that she is likely to be sanctioned for turning up late to an appointment with a work coach.
Katie has recently arrived in Newcastle. It transpires that her son’s room in their home in London had a leak that made him unwell. When she complained to the landlord, he evicted her. Unfortunately, disrepair or not, if Katie was renting from a private landlord she was likely to have had an assured shorthold tenancy, and therefore no security of tenure. This means that provided the landlord followed all the correct procedures, Katie could have been lawfully evicted without the landlord having to provide any reason. Recent changes in the law have made it slightly harder for landlords to lawfully evict a tenant following complaints about serious disrepair. Unlawful or illegal evictions should be reported to the local council immediately.
Katie spent two years in a homeless hostel before being offered accommodation in Newcastle. It is essential that, if you are not sure what to do, ask your local authority about an offer of accommodation. Local authorities have a duty to ensure that any offers made are for accommodation that is suitable, and the location of the accommodation has to be taken into account.
Seeking advice
The main message for anyone in Daniel or Katie’s situation is to get advice as soon as possible – and know that there is no shame in doing this. Advice agencies like ours are here to help and will treat you with respect, without passing judgment.
For further advice, contact: