AdamNichol Fri 04-Jan-19 09:43:17

UC should be good in theory. But there are 2 issues - the wait/processing times; and an occasional policy design that is built around the understanding of a middle class person. The childcare thing is a good example. Policy says UC needs to look like work - monthly payments in arears. If you get a job and need childcare to attend, you have to pay up front and rebalance when your wage comes in. Fine and dandy (ish) if you can pay up front. If you can't.......oh!

UC also pays a percentage of childcare costs. In theory, you can't be worse off by working when on UC because (unlike Jobseekers) it doesn't suddenly cut off at 16hrs of work. But, childcare costs could rack up bigger bills than the wage covers.



The initial wait time thing (and sanctions) is way overblown though. You get different elements - a standard allowance then plus housing element / child element / childcare element / etc. You can have your standard allowance in advance for your first payment, and it is recouped over a series of payment so you never go a full month with nothing.

If your child/childcare/housing is delayed in processing, your first payment may not go out automatically, but your standard allowance can still be paid. Understandably, not all landlords are impressed with the delay with the rent though.

As for sanction, only your standard allowance gets sanctioned, everything else still pays out. There is a list of sensible reasons as to why you didn't fulfil your commitment in any month, and it's only violations beyond this that incur sanction.