New report by Public Law Project (PLP) and Central England Law Centre (CELC) finds that the current Universal Credit sanctions system fails on its own term, is disproportionately severe and does not prevent inappropriate sanctions. More than four in five cases (86%) that were supported to appeal were decided in favour of the person sanctioned. 

Read the research

The research uses evidence from casework support provided to over 100 sanctioned individuals, alongside analysis of Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) data, to consider who is being sanctioned and in what circumstances – and the significant and often harmful impact sanctions have on those individuals.

This new research evidences:

  • as currently designed and applied, sanctions are frequently applied as a first resort not a last resort measure,  
  • safeguards do not prevent inappropriate and harmful sanctions being imposed,  
  • the rate of sanctions (100% of someone’s standard allowance) is disproportionately severe – and far more severe than even the average criminal fine. 

Research participants reported sanctions leading to the need to use food banks, incur debt, negative impacts on physical and mental health and reduce their ability to search and undertake work.

The research also highlights that some groups are more likely to be impacted by this harmful regime than others – with people often sanctioned for reasons outside of their control (e.g unexpected health emergencies) or due to barriers they face in engaging with the system (e.g. language barriers).

It also evidences that digital exclusion puts people at risk of being sanctioned – and makes it harder to challenge sanctions that have been unfairly applied.

Recommendations

The report recommends the current sanction regime should be revoked entirely or fundamentally reformed to ensure sanctions are applied as a genuinely last resort measure, only after clear warning, and make sanctions less severe.

Read Annex 2