Human Rights & the UK Social Security Loophole

Social Security is a right! One which falls under many different headings of Human Rights in both Europe and United Nations. You can’t just deny people benefit if they are unemployed. It extends further to simple comparison: if one person can claim Jobseekers Allowance and have the same conditional circumstances as another; both are entitled to Jobseekers Allowance from a Human Rights viewpoint.

Social Security: a right?!

Yes, Social Security (in this respect referring solely to Jobseekers Allowance) is a human right. The Government (central and local) have a duty against the persons’ welfare in regards to elements such as housing, safety, and well-being.

This, however, doesn’t grant an automatic right to a person of the right to claim.

Social Security doesn’t mean the long overdue stereotype of a something-for-nothing culture with implication of such monies are around forever. The claimant must undertake reasonable steps to adhere to the Governments criteria of fairness towards citizens.

In the United Kingdom, for unemployment benefit; a "Jobseekers Allowance" exists. Firstly, a person has to adhere to two initial criteria. The first is: has the person contributed enough to society by ways of National Insurance? If so, they can claim for 6 months – known as Contribution Based Jobseekers Allowance.

If they haven’t contributed enough to society by ways of National Insurance, they can claim Income Based Jobseekers Allowance: subject to meeting a criteria regarding income:- savings, shares etc. Some people can claim reduced Jobseekers Allowance if they are deemed to have an income from their capital.

These initial criteria are met with several conditions for every week (Benefit Week) including being Available for Work (AfW) and Actively Seeking Employment (ASE). The Claimant is also legally responsible for reporting changes of circumstances. Those who fail to report these are Benefit Fraudsters. Many people are unaware of what they are required to report or report such changes late and get caught up in this.

Social Security Loophole

A Government cannot deny a citizen the right to claim Social Security if they have adhered to all the conditions of such benefit. Some sanctions are directly based around these conditions:- such as not being Available for Work (AfW) or Actively Seeking Employment (ASE) although most aren’t – this is the problem we are concerned with.

A Benefit Sanction doesn’t deny a person the right to claim – this is because:

a) The benefit claim is still ongoing (if signed off on New Deal etc. you are able to reclaim – sanction is imposed later)
b) The benefit sanction doesn’t have immediate effect
of that benefit week (but of the next or in the future)

It would be against Human Rights if Jobcentre Plus terminated your benefit and banned you from starting a new claim for a set period.

What Unlawful Sanctions is highlighting is the sanction regime: a bolt on to Social Security. The concept of Social Security is affected. Not a single person would claim Jobseekers Allowance just to be officially registered as "unemployed" without receiving any monies or National Insurance contribution stamps.

Does an ongoing claim where someone meets all the conditions and is receiving no monies constitute a ban to receiving Social Security?

We think it does! it is the financial security as to why people claim. This support being denied for a set period is a ban and no clerical arrangements to create technicalities of the "claim is active" and the person still being required to "sign on" can appropriately disguise the fact that indeed the Social Security right is being denied. An appointment from Jobcentre Plus, a field value on the computer system saying the claim is active and a signature of the Jobseeker does not hide the ceased payments.

Does an ongoing claim where someone doesn’t meet the conditions and is receiving no monies constitute a ban to receiving Social Security?

Yes it does! However, the ban would be justified as not meeting the conditions to claim the Social Security benefit.

The Social Security loophole scam!

It has not been tried that:

a) stopping a payment for a benefit is as good as terminating your benefit claim
b) preventing payment of a benefit for a set period is no different than banning someone from claiming for a set period

Creating technicalities of "claims" etc. and the so-called statuses associated with them ("active", "closed" etc.) has no real bearing on the legalities of Social Security – apart from the nature of a corrupt society.

Social Security is about providing critical support to the poorest in society – the administrative processes in the background has no affect on whether or not this help is being denied.

Has the person received the monies that he or she is entitled to under Human Rights after meeting all the conditions to claiming the benefit?

If the answer is no, in the case of benefit sanctions, this shows a failure in the Governments duty and thus is unlawful. The administrative backdoor processes of keeping claims open and denying payments and organising "sign on" appointments are a clever trick of the UK Government, however, a very illogical one.

Doing this creates a "paper trail" of evidence that the Government is:

a) aware of persons being unlawfully denied access to Social Security, and
b) is guilty of denying these people Social Security and covering it up with spoof signing on appointments and not closing claims which have no real purpose (have you ever setup a bank account for the sake of it without making even a single transaction? well you cant, for this exact reason all banks insist of opening account without a balance of zero.. i.e. £1 etc. )

Sooo…

We at Unlawful Sanctions, beleive it makes no difference whether or not whether this benefit sanction trick is used or whether people are kicked off benefits and banned from making a new claim for a set period. This goes without raising questions to the real purpose of sanctions.