DWP officially treats claimants worse than criminals

It often feels like you’re treated like a criminal when you claim benefits, but a new report has found that it’s actually worse for Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefit claimants than criminals.

The Sanctionable Failures report from Public Law Project looked at the problems surrounding Universal Credit sanctions and the harm they cause. It’s a needed report at a time when, as reported by Benefits and Work, the DWP is considering using further sanctions as part of “support conversations” to force disabled claimants back into work.

DWP’s treatment of claimants is criminal

The report found that Universal Credit claimants face larger sanctions than the fines handed out to most criminals. It also showed that they have to be paid nine times faster than court fines.

Not only are sanctions higher than the average court fine, they’re nearly double that. The research showed that the average court fine in 2024 was £283. However, the average Universal Credit claimant lost £524 when sanctioned in May 2025. The average claimant is sanctioned for between a week and a month, though in some cases, sanctions can last up to six months.

Someone fined after committing a crime would have to pay back at the rate of £10 a week if they’re on benefits. However, as sanctions mean your next payment is stopped, a Universal Credit claimant effectively loses £91.70 a week. This can be for something as small as missing a phone call or being late to an appointment at the job centre.

Universal Credit claimants punished for reasons beyond their control

Common reasons for DWP sanctions highlight how rigid the system is. Many were sanctioned because they were too ill to attend appointments, which included being hospitalised or not being able to attend due to already having a medical appointment. Communication and technology also played a big part.

As the majority of Universal Credit communications are online, claimants who can’t afford internet on their phones or at home were punished. This also includes those who had broken phones or simply missed calls or messages. Language barriers were also an issue, including those for whom English isn’t a first language or deaf people. Ridiculously, some were also sanctioned whilst trying to find work, after they missed jobcentre appointments because they were at interviews or mandatory training the DWP had sent them on.

Sanctions used as a first resort

To add even more insult to injury, whilst the DWP complains about how much it spends on benefits, it’s wasting money trying to enact sanctions. The DWP, unsurprisingly, no longer publishes data showing how many sanctions appeals fall in favour of the claimant, but in 2017, 81% were successful. So, whilst we don’t have figures for how much of taxpayer money this wastes, thanks to Big Issue, we know that the DWP spent over £50 million similarly fighting PIP claimants last year.

The report’s main issue with sanctions is that they are often used as a first response to someone not “completing work-related activity”, which can include missing appointments or showing the jobcentre that you’ve written a CV. As the report states

the system as currently designed and implemented does not sanction people as a ‘last resort’ as a result of ‘refusals’ to engage. Instead, sanctions are applied for first-time ‘failures’, often in circumstances or for reasons beyond an individual’s control.

The PLP also found that in many cases, the sanctions the DWP imposed on their panel claimants were unlawful and should never have happened in the first place. Working with Central England Law Centre (CELC), research subjects were able to challenge and appeal their sanctions. 39% of the group had the sanctions overturned by mandatory reconsideration, and 86% of appeals were successful.

The report says

These are sanctions that should never have been imposed at all, even within the terms of the current strict regime. It is likely that many were only challenged due to the temporary existence of dedicated support. And these sanctions were ultimately only overturned after a lengthy appeal process, by which time the damage was done

The “harm” the report mentions is both financial and to the claimant’s health. As the appeal stage can take months, claimants can find themselves in debt, needing to use food banks, lose their homes, and as a result, their physical and mental health will deteriorate. All this, of course, despite what the DWP clearly thinks, will actually stop people from working even further. This isn’t something that can be magically fixed because the DWP have been forced to own up to their mistake.

PLP recommendations would require empathy DWP doesn’t have

The report has many recommendations for the DWP on how to better support Universal Credit claimants. They suggest that sanctions should be at a much reduced rate, in line with the proposed “essentials guarantee”. They also say that sanctions should only be applied in exceptional circumstances as a last resort, not first. The report also wants the government to more to safeguard those who could be subject to sanctions and that more consideration is made to people’s circumstances. Basically, don’t punish people for problems beyond their control.

Finally, the PLP says

Government must take urgent action to better understand and be more transparent about who is impacted by Universal Credit policies, including sanctions and conditionality

However, one thing this report, like most, seems to be operating under is the idea that the DWP in any way cares about benefit claimants and actually wants to support them. What’s been made clear from decades of abuse is that everything the DWP does to benefit claimants is fucking deliberate. It’s impossible not to know about the harm their actions cause to claimants at this point – they just don’t bloody care.

Featured image via the Canary