1 in 3 school-age children in England living in poverty (800,000) miss out on free school meals despite cost of living struggles of families. The main causes are restrictive eligibility criteria and lack of universal provision.
At the start of the pandemic, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relaxed some evidence checks for people making a universal credit (UC) claim to provide quicker access to benefits. In January 2021, the DWP began reverifying the details of claims made while evidence checks were eased. This has resulted in some claimants being asked to pay back the entirety of their UC award. More than a year after the exercise started, we continue to hear from people who have had their UC payments stopped, who have received demands to repay all the UC they received, and who are unable to understand or challenge the DWPs decision.
The Queen’s Speech was a missed opportunity for the government to introduce legislation that would support people in the short term and improve living standards in the longer term.
London is one of the greatest and richest cities in the world. But for too many Londoners and their children, proximity to the city’s affluence does not mean sharing in this wealth – adequate employment, affordable housing and fit-for-purpose childcare are often out of reach. In fact, after accounting for housing costs, London has the highest rate of child poverty of any region in the UK. We asked our London Calling panel what they want their councillors to prioritise. They highlighted five main themes: childcare, free school meals, housing, children’s activities and community engagement.
This report focuses on some of the problems UC claimants are experiencing both making a claim for UC and receiving accurate payments, which appear to be caused by the digitalisation and automation of the UC system. Claimants who have specific life circumstances are experiencing similar problems because the UC computer system seems unable to calculate their UC payment correctly and in accordance with the law.
This report draws on evidence from studies of minimum household costs in London to comment on the size of differences in children’s costs in various categories. This analysis builds on new research on a ‘Minimum Income Standard for London’.
The Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) panel recently invited the submission of evidence on how well or effectively judicial review balances the legitimate interest in citizens being able to challenge the lawfulness of executive action with the role of the executive in carrying on the business of government, both locally and centrally. Our response emphasises the important role of judicial review in ensuring good governance and that decisions which affect some of the most vulnerable members of society are made in compliance with basic standards of good administrative decision making.