If work coaches were truly trained to listen with empathy and if the system allowed more flexibility, I think a lot of stress, harm, and unnecessary sanctions could be avoided. We don’t need tougher rules, we need a fairer, kinder system that sees the full picture.

To be honest, I didn’t feel fully understood by my work coach at the Job Centre. As a full-time carer for my 3 children (one of them with high level of special needs), I came with unique challenges, but it felt like the system wasn’t built to listen to that. I was expected to meet the same job-search requirements as someone with no caring responsibilities, and explaining my situation didn’t always lead to understanding, just more pressure.

There were times I felt like I was being set up to fail—not because I didn’t want to work, but because no one was willing to adapt expectations to the reality of my life. Sanctions felt like a looming threat, and I lived in constant fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, even though I was doing my best.

If work coaches were truly trained to listen, with empathy and if the system allowed more flexibility, I think a lot of stress, harm, and unnecessary sanctions could be avoided. We don’t need tougher rules, we need a fairer, kinder system that sees the full picture.

I have been going to the Jobcentre for nearly 4 years. I am not any near getting work in fact I am in worse position now. I never felt supported. confident. I was getting the help I needed to get into work going to the Jobcentre. In fact the situation has only got bad. But more people are need to speak up about their experience in terms of what service they have gained going to the jobcentre because the work coaches just say they are doing their job and doing it right. But I believe work coaches should be able to get us into the right jobs for us within the first 6 months and if not should be sacked. It needs to be the right hours wage, contract, organisation and job. And if you want to do a course you should be supported to do and after doing a course for example if you have done a degree in law and want to be become a lawyer afterwards that's what you should be able to become with the help of the job centre and universities should be ensuring this as well.

I want to see the changes that people are getting more money who work for more hours but not vice versa. Nowadays, people's benefits amount reduced if they work more hours which made people to work less hours and relied on to live on benefits. If they are getting more benefits to work more hours then very soon they will go out of poverty.

Hello Sir Stephen - I have been a big fan of yours since your time on the Work and Pensions Select Committee. I saw you at CPAG conference last year too bringing a welcome change of tone to addressing people on benefits.

I am on UC as a lone parent with two daughters. I work full time with people who are also on UC so I can think of a few ways to change it so that it supports people on a low income better.

1. Local Housing Allowance - this does not reflect at all what the rental market is like out there. I know the LHA has been in place since 2008 and one aim was to curb the rise in rents of private landlords. Well that just has not worked. I cannot afford a 3 bedroom flat in my local area because they are so expensive. So my 18yro daughter has a room, and my 16yro daughter has a room. They need their privacy. I sleep in our living room/dinning room/study i.e. our only other room which does for all of these uses. We need more affordable housing which is not a UC problem I know - but the relentless non-increase in LHA over the last few years needs to stop. This directly contributes to the poverty in my home.

2. Help those who have disabilities and work to have an easier pathway to get the work-allowance. Currently UC does allow this - someone who is ill can be assessed under the Work Capability Assessment and if they get PIP and work, then the work allowance kicks in and reduces the amount of wages classed for UC calculations. This is a great way to support disabled people who may have lower wages or fewer hours due to their disability. It kind of replaces the tax credits disabled worker route of old.

But can you convince the DWP of this? Can you get a GP to issue a fit note by ticking "Can work with the following adjustments"? No you cant - no GP issues a fit note to someone who is working, people who are working don't realise they can get this despite working fewer hours, with work place adjustments, because they are disabled. This one is an easy win - UC already allows for it. It's just the DWP and GPs do not understand the process. Advertise this route - training DWP staff and GP surgeries to look out for people like this. It will surely encourage people back in to work who may feel they can, but in a limited way. They would see a real financial benefit.

3. Ease the drop in children elements when they turn in to young people and claim UC themselves. There is a huge drop in income especially when you have a disabled child. The difference can be around a loss of £800pcm, whereas the young person, who may well have disabilities meaning they cannot work, gets a mere £300odd pcm until they pass the WCA - and even then the amount is still lower once they are classed as ill. This really hits people who are already on a low income and find it difficult to budget.

Thank you for approaching Changing Realities to listen to us, it is appreciated.

I am only able to work infrequently, because of long covid. I am also nominally self-employed, so a regular income from work never happens.

I would like the system to be more equitable for people like me who can only work infrequently: Were I able to work regularly, the first £673 of my income is not deducted from universal credit. If I earned £2k in August, £2k in October and £2k in November, say, I would lose at least three months' universal credit (I am not sure of the exact calculation). Someone earning £500 a month every month would earn the same amount over the year and lose nothing.

I would absolutely love to be able to work regularly again. Five years of long covid has ruled that out. There must be many people in a similar position to mine.

Short term fixes:

- I’m starting a part time Masters degree in September, Universal Credit treats 30% of the Masters Loan as my income and tapers my UC award accordingly but 80% of my loan is used for tuition fees meaning I’m tapered for about £1,000 which in fact is in the bank of my university rather than my pocket. I think the disregard should be either changed to 20% or whatever is left after tuition fees are paid (this could easily be proven as we currently do now with evidence of childcare payments).

- UC tapers your tax (and NICs) income but student loans are deducted BEFORE the taper. Student loans are a de facto tax and should be treated as such for UC purposes.

- we’ve already mentioned to Ali McGovern that UC could use the CCGPS (Childcare Grant Payment System) that Student Finance England use to pay childcare up front to the provider and then invoice us for 15% rather than expect us to fund 100% and claim back 85%. Equally we’d ideally like it to reimburse 100%.

- The other big change would be to make LHA reflect real rents. You won’t find a 2 bed to rent in Newbury cheaper than the £1,200

I pay but LHA is set at £895 for 2 bed and £1,200 for 3 bed!

- Finally, Boris Johnson was (in my humble opinion) a disaster but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. He had an excellent idea to allow UC claimants to claim for mortgage costs not just interest. This would be transformational for aspirations as it would allow UC claimants to access mortgages - particularly for shared ownership - instead of being trapped in the private rented sector. The advantage to the state must surely be clear: as mortgages are paid off the amount the state pays is reduced as opposed to ever rising rents.

Medium term:

- Reduce the taper rate considerably to make work really pay.

Longer term:

- I’ve been doing some thinking on how Uc can better interact with the tax system to avoid those high marginal rates where taper and tax collide. I need more time to properly sketch these out but I do think there are ways to resolve things to make universal credit and tax simpler without a huge increase in government costs.

Good afternoon Stephen ,

Thank you for asking the Big Question, I look forward to answering the questions you have planned to ask.

My answer to your first question......

What Aspects Of Universal Credit Should Be Changed So That It Supports People On Low Incomes Better ?

To better support people on a low income, several aspects of Universal Credit (UC) should be improved.

Firstly, staff at UC offices need better training to ensure they treat claimants as individuals, each with unique circumstances. It is important not to label or judge those on a low income, as many are in difficult situations beyond their control, not of their choosing.

Secondly, UC payments should better reflect the real cost of living. With rising prices for essentials like food, housing, and energy, the current rates often fall short. Increasing the payment rates would help people manage their basic needs without falling into debt or poverty.

Thirdly, more support should be offered for personal development. Providing access to courses, skills training, and business start-up programs would empower individuals to improve their income over time and build more stable futures.

Finally, the system must take health and medical conditions seriously. Many people struggle to work consistently due to physical or mental health challenges. These issues should be properly assessed and not dismissed, ensuring fair and compassionate treatment for all claimants.

Thank you

There are various changes that I think could make universal credit work better for low income families.

Removing the two child cap would be a huge step in reducing child poverty. As would removing the bedroom tax.

Reducing the administrative burden associated with universal credit for working families would be a big help. The endless uploading of evidence is wearing.

One thing that would work for a lot of families is looking at how child care costs are supported.

Rules like not being able to claim for costs paid more than two assessment periods in advance block a lot of claims for care in school holidays where camps/clubs fill up fast.

Top up fees/consumable charges etc are considered optional by universal credit but for places providing childcare these are essential and not optional. This means that I can actually only claim back up to 66% of my childcare costs through universal credit and a lot of people I know have it worse than that.

End the 5 week wait for first payment.

Have the choice to be paid weekly, fortnightly or monthly available to everyone, without having to plead and prove a special need.

Raise the level of UC payment so that all over 18s receive the same basic rate.

Allow claims and communications in person, by post and online by everyone without having to plead and prove special need.

I would have benefitted greatly from most of these changes being in place and it would make the claiming and communications process a lot more manageable and less stressful for me. Raising the payments for younger people would go some way to relieve poverty - food and rent doesn't cost less for under 25s. Being paid weekly or fortnightly would make it easier for me to budget and manage bills more confidently.

It would be great if it had a questionnaire that would allow people to answer questions to make sure they are getting the correct benefits, as a seasoned veteran of universal credit trying to make sure I included everything within my claim was not easy at first, but talking with staff with a greater knowledge of UC and their help was invaluable, they explained due to me having a disability and also being a carer I was able to apply for LCWRA via sick notes from the Doctor, also as a carer I was advised to apply for the carers element of Universal Credit, also it would be helpful to explain the amounts taken off your UC for claiming Carers allowance and also if you are working part time. I feel more clarity around this and also around payment of rent etc would be a great way forward for UC.

No. More. Sanctions. We know they don't work. You know they don't work. They place huge stress on other agencies, such as healthcare, charities like foodbanks, and the police and justice system. They cost the taxpayer far, far more, even in just the administration costs(!), than the tiny amounts clawed from the poorest and most vulnerable. Benefits aren't enough to live on as it is - there are no practical, or ethical, justifications for withholding that money.