Sanctions imposed on claimants who miss a single universal credit (UC) interview are larger than the fines handed out to most criminals and have to be repaid nine times faster than courts recommend, a report by the Public Law Project (PLP) has found. In addition, the report revealed that sanctions are often a first, not a last, resort and most sanctions are unfair and unlawful, with over 80% overturned where a claimant manages to appeal.
The report, Sanctionable Failures: Universal Credit’s failing sanctions regime and the harm it causes, comes at a time when the government are considering whether to use sanctions against sick and disabled claimants as part of the proposed “support conversations” regime.
Level of fines
The PLP research found that the average court fine for a criminal offence issued in 2024 was £283. However, a single UC claimant aged 25 or over sanctioned for the median period in May 2025 lost £524.
Even more shocking is the difference in recovery rates. A criminal on benefits would have to repay their fine at a rate of £10 a week. A claimant subject to sanction loses 100% of their standard allowance, totalling £91.70.
So, claimants not only get “fined” almost twice as much for missing a single appointment or phone call as someone does for committing a crime, but they are also supposed to repay the money nine times as quickly.
UC claimants can apply for a hardship payment amounting to 60% of their standard allowance, to be repaid after the sanction is completed. But this still leaves them repaying at more than three times the rate of a convicted criminal and for a great deal longer.
First resort
The DWP argue that sanctions are only imposed as a last resort. But the PLP report makes it clear that in many cases the punishment is imposed as a first response to any transgression, however innocent and unavoidable.
Common reasons for sanctions include:
- Failures of communication because English is not the claimant’s first language.
- Ill health, sometimes involving hospitalisation.
- Device issues: phones being broken, credit running out, missed calls.
- Conflicting appointments: this could be health appointments, work or training activities or calls to deal with device repair issues.
Unlawful
The PLP worked with Central England Law Centre (CELC) to help their research subjects challenge sanction decisions. The result was that 39% saw their sanction overturned at mandatory reconsideration stage and 86% who went to appeal were successful.
This figure ties in with statistics published by the DWP itself in 2017, which showed that 81% of sanction appeals were successful. The DWP no longer publishes this information, perhaps not surprisingly.
It should be noted, however, that appeals take many months to reach a conclusion. The harm that can be done by a sanction, in terms of debt, housing insecurity and mental and physical health deterioration will not be undone simply by getting the decision overturned.
Support conversation
In their report, the PLP say that “Government is currently consulting on whether, and in what, circumstances to apply sanctions backed conditions on disabled claimants and claimants with health conditions. It has stated that sanctions would be used ‘only as a last resort’ and that safeguards will be built in to ensure vulnerable people are properly protected.”
This appears to relate to the support conversations that were a feature of the Pathways to Work Green Paper in relation to the abolition of the work capability assessment: “Instead of queuing for a benefit assessment, disabled people and people with a work-limiting health condition will have a support conversation… If someone does not attend or engage in a planned conversation, we will seek to understand the reasons before benefits are affected.”
Support conversations were covered in the government’s response to the Green Paper at questions 6-10, but there has been no indication as yet that the DWP have dropped the idea that failure to participate could result in a cut in benefits.
Reccomendations
The PLP recommend that, amongst other things:
- sanctions are only applied in exceptional circumstances, following a clear warning;
- the severity of sanctions should be reduced, for example, by introducing a minimum floor in line with the proposed ‘essentials guarantee’;
- the safeguards that are in place before sanctions are applied should be strengthened.
What will Labour do?
In a recent response to a report by the Work and Pensions select committee, the government said it was considering whether improvements to the sanctions regime, including non-financial measures, would be effective.
Debbie Abrahams, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said, “We’re satisfied that the Government has a genuine desire to move away from the failed punitive welfare system of old. The end of an over-reliance on financial sanctions and a hyper-focus on benefits compliance will help restore faith amongst claimants.”
And yet, Labour have had over a year to end, or drastically reduce, sanctions and they have taken no action.
On the contrary, with the planned abolition of the WCA and the possible introduction of mandatory support conversations, they appear to be bringing more claimants within the sanctions regime.
So, we hope that Debbie Abrahams is right, but there is no concrete evidence as yet that she is.
