DessertStorms

There were 830,000 unwanted moves in England over the past 12 months, meaning 40% have been forced to relocate

Unwanted home moves cost renters more than half a billion pounds a year, with tenants coughing up an average of £669 every time they are forced by landlords to leave their home, a survey has revealed.

Analysis by the homelessness charity Shelter estimated that there had been 830,000 unwanted moves in England over the past 12 months, meaning 40% of renters who move house are doing so because they have been compelled to look for other accommodation.

An unwanted move is defined as a fixed-term tenancy coming to an end, or tenants being priced out by a rent increase, being served an eviction notice or being informally asked to leave by the landlord.

Renters collectively spend £550m a year on moving costs, often paying rent and bills on two properties during the moving period, along with hiring removal vans, paying for stopgap storage and buying new furniture, Shelter estimates.

Natalie, 47, has moved 12 times in the past 21 years, and has been served with two no-fault evictions in the past 18 months. Although she has been in her new home for seven months, she still cannot relax and feels traumatised by her moving experiences. “I haven’t even unpacked properly,” she said. “I’m worried that as soon as I do, I’m going to have to move again.

“I’ve downsized to a studio. Most of my stuff is stored in a garage nearby that I’m renting for £75 and I had to shell out £750 on removal van hire alone. It took me 18 months just to pay back all the debts accrued from the last move, and then it happened all over again.

“There is nothing worse than being forced to move home,” she added. “Without a stable foundation, how can you lead a fruitful life?”

“This is money that renters will never see again,” said Tarun Bhakta, policy manager for Shelter. “It’s not a deposit that you may or may not get back at the end of your tenancy, it’s not money for your rental, it’s simply costs down the drain. Money for a removal van, for packing boxes, for new furniture; these are avoidable expenses that tenants are having to make against their will.

“Because of an abnormally and unreasonably unstable rental system, tenants are having to cough up millions and millions of pounds each year in moves that could otherwise be avoided, if the government had a backbone and delivered a strong, watertight renters’ reform bill.”

In April, the government signalled that it would make amendments to the long awaited bill, delaying the ban on section 21 evictions – the two-month notice, “no fault” compulsory orders to leave the property – and reneging on the promise to overhaul fixed-term tenancies.

New figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that average rents have increased by £107 a month nationally, and by £207 a month in London over the past year.

Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, said: “Tenants are coughing up millions in unwanted and unwarranted moves, while the government runs scared of a minority of its own MPs. Instead of striking dodgy deals with backbenchers to strangle the renters’ reform bill, ministers should defend renters’ best hope of a stable home.

“With protections from eviction so weak and rents so high, we constantly hear from people forced out of their homes and communities at huge personal cost. It’s impossible for renters to put down roots knowing a no-fault eviction could plunge them back into chaos at any moment.”

A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesperson said: “The renters (reform) bill will deliver the manifesto commitment to abolish section 21 evictions. It will be returning to the House of Commons shortly.”

Officials at Department for Work and Pensions accused of ‘threatening and cruel’ tactics over repayment orders

Government officials have been accused of using “threatening and cruel” tactics towards unpaid carers by saying they could face even greater financial penalties if they appeal against “vindictive” benefit fines.

This month a Guardian investigation revealed that thousands of people who look after disabled, frail or ill relatives have been forced to pay back huge sums after being chased by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over “honest mistakes” that officials could have spotted years earlier.

Dozens of unpaid carers have said they feel powerless to challenge the penalties, which often run into many thousands of pounds, even when the government is at fault.

Now the Guardian has learned that the DWP is warning carers that their fine may increase if they appeal against a repayment order.

In one letter in June 2023, the government department said that if the unpaid carer challenged the order “the entire claim from the date it started will be looked at, which could potentially result in the overpayment increasing, if there are more periods where your earnings exceeded the allowable limits”.

This carer, whose husband has dementia and Parkinson’s, had been ordered to repay nearly £4,000 for unwittingly exceeding the weekly earnings threshold of £151 by calculating her zero-hours job on a monthly basis – as she believed the rules required – rather than on a four-weekly basis.

The former council worker said the penalty had “destroyed” her confidence and left her feeling unable to challenge the DWP. “I can’t afford this bill but I can’t afford to argue with them because if I do I’ve made these mistakes already, chances are I’ve made other mistakes,” she said.

Cristina Odone, head of family policy at the centre-right thinktank the Centre for Social Justice, described the DWP tactic as “threatening and incredibly cruel”.

She said: “Again and again, if you talk to ordinary people, the DWP raises their hackles and their fears because it is the state possibly coming to claw back benefits.

“It is the most hostile bit of the state for so many people. This just confirms their wariness of the DWP as the bit of government that is the least sympathetic, most faceless and most heartless.”

Unpaid carers are entitled to a carer’s allowance of £81.90 a week – the smallest benefit of its kind – providing they care for someone for at least 35 hours a week. They are allowed to work but must not make more than £151 a week after tax and expenses.

People who make more than the £151 weekly limit, even as little as 1p more, must pay back the entire week’s carer’s allowance for the whole period in which they were in breach of the rules, in what has been described as a “cliff edge” approach.

Tens of thousands of carers have unwittingly fallen foul of this rule and have not been alerted by the DWP until years later, even though the government has real-time technology that means it can spot and stop these infractions much sooner.

Carers have been plunged into debt, forced to sell their homes and given criminal records over what they say were “honest mistakes” that should have been spotted much sooner by the DWP.

Three former work and pensions secretaries, including Iain Duncan Smith, have called on the government to pause investigations into unpaid carers and launch a review of its failings. Debbie Abrahams, a Labour MP on the Commons work and pensions committee, has called the DWP’s approach “simply vindictive”.

Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, a campaign group supporting unpaid carers, said the DWP’s attempt to dissuade people against appealing was “quite troubling and quite unsavoury”.

Maugham said: “Parliament has set up an appellant system to enable appeals against demands that people repay carer’s allowance. For the DWP to take steps to discourage people from using this very important safeguard is itself quite troubling.”

Emily Holzhausen, director of policy at Carers UK, said unpaid carers feel “stuck in a place where they feel unable to challenge decisions – even though they have a legal right to do so”.

The DWP said: “Carers across the UK are unsung heroes who make a huge difference to someone else’s life and we have increased carer’s allowance by almost £1,500 since 2010.

“We have safeguards in place for managing repayments, that’s why visiting officers are available to provide support and assistance to customers when attending their homes, particularly for those deemed vulnerable.

“Claimants have a responsibility to inform DWP of any changes in their circumstances that could impact their award, and it is right that we recover taxpayers’ money when this has not occurred.”

Officials at Department for Work and Pensions accused of ‘threatening and cruel’ tactics over repayment orders

Government officials have been accused of using “threatening and cruel” tactics towards unpaid carers by saying they could face even greater financial penalties if they appeal against “vindictive” benefit fines.

This month a Guardian investigation revealed that thousands of people who look after disabled, frail or ill relatives have been forced to pay back huge sums after being chased by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over “honest mistakes” that officials could have spotted years earlier.

Dozens of unpaid carers have said they feel powerless to challenge the penalties, which often run into many thousands of pounds, even when the government is at fault.

Now the Guardian has learned that the DWP is warning carers that their fine may increase if they appeal against a repayment order.

In one letter in June 2023, the government department said that if the unpaid carer challenged the order “the entire claim from the date it started will be looked at, which could potentially result in the overpayment increasing, if there are more periods where your earnings exceeded the allowable limits”.

This carer, whose husband has dementia and Parkinson’s, had been ordered to repay nearly £4,000 for unwittingly exceeding the weekly earnings threshold of £151 by calculating her zero-hours job on a monthly basis – as she believed the rules required – rather than on a four-weekly basis.

The former council worker said the penalty had “destroyed” her confidence and left her feeling unable to challenge the DWP. “I can’t afford this bill but I can’t afford to argue with them because if I do I’ve made these mistakes already, chances are I’ve made other mistakes,” she said.

Cristina Odone, head of family policy at the centre-right thinktank the Centre for Social Justice, described the DWP tactic as “threatening and incredibly cruel”.

She said: “Again and again, if you talk to ordinary people, the DWP raises their hackles and their fears because it is the state possibly coming to claw back benefits.

“It is the most hostile bit of the state for so many people. This just confirms their wariness of the DWP as the bit of government that is the least sympathetic, most faceless and most heartless.”

Unpaid carers are entitled to a carer’s allowance of £81.90 a week – the smallest benefit of its kind – providing they care for someone for at least 35 hours a week. They are allowed to work but must not make more than £151 a week after tax and expenses.

People who make more than the £151 weekly limit, even as little as 1p more, must pay back the entire week’s carer’s allowance for the whole period in which they were in breach of the rules, in what has been described as a “cliff edge” approach.

Tens of thousands of carers have unwittingly fallen foul of this rule and have not been alerted by the DWP until years later, even though the government has real-time technology that means it can spot and stop these infractions much sooner.

Carers have been plunged into debt, forced to sell their homes and given criminal records over what they say were “honest mistakes” that should have been spotted much sooner by the DWP.

Three former work and pensions secretaries, including Iain Duncan Smith, have called on the government to pause investigations into unpaid carers and launch a review of its failings. Debbie Abrahams, a Labour MP on the Commons work and pensions committee, has called the DWP’s approach “simply vindictive”.

Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, a campaign group supporting unpaid carers, said the DWP’s attempt to dissuade people against appealing was “quite troubling and quite unsavoury”.

Maugham said: “Parliament has set up an appellant system to enable appeals against demands that people repay carer’s allowance. For the DWP to take steps to discourage people from using this very important safeguard is itself quite troubling.”

Emily Holzhausen, director of policy at Carers UK, said unpaid carers feel “stuck in a place where they feel unable to challenge decisions – even though they have a legal right to do so”.

The DWP said: “Carers across the UK are unsung heroes who make a huge difference to someone else’s life and we have increased carer’s allowance by almost £1,500 since 2010.

“We have safeguards in place for managing repayments, that’s why visiting officers are available to provide support and assistance to customers when attending their homes, particularly for those deemed vulnerable.

“Claimants have a responsibility to inform DWP of any changes in their circumstances that could impact their award, and it is right that we recover taxpayers’ money when this has not occurred.”

Sick of the press and govt constantly talking crap about disabled people? So is journalist Rachel Charlton-Dailey...

[Click to listen to the article, and support the Canary]

I’m often asked what needs to change to make the world a better place for disabled people. It used to be a complex answer for me. It depended on the context I was being asked, who was asking, or what had been happening recently.

But now it’s simple: the world needs to stop hating disabled people and being so fucking ableist.

Ableism has always been rife in society, media, and politics. It feels like it’s been ramped up in recent years, but especially in the last few months. A big reason for this is that the government are intent on demonising us to cover for the fact they and their rich mates are stealing from taxpayers.

How the poison of ableism trickles down

This feeding of hate from the government and media to the common man is easily done when 75% of the British media is owned by the same two, rich, Tory-supporting men. The click-driven nature of news now means government ministers can call disabled people anything they want without the press challenging it.

After all, “languishing on benefits” is a much punchier vox pop than ‘minister claims people don’t want to work but they’re actually just trying to survive’.

These views are then repeated as fact by right-wing pundits on chat shows. Eventually, it becomes the public opinion that people on sickness and disability unemployment benefits are lazy and taking the taxpayer for a ride.

What the hatred manifests into

This awful rhetoric contributes to the centuries-old stereotype that disability is something to be ashamed of. Except now, they’ve made our lives so miserable that if you dare to attempt to live a happy disabled existence you MUST be faking it to rinse those hard-working taxpayers.

It means photography companies think it’s perfectly acceptable to leave disabled kids out of school photos. Young lads feel comfortable sitting on their shit podcasts and laughing about how they wouldn’t date a “mangled” woman in a wheelchair cos they’d be worried their equally shit mates would laugh at them. Heaven forbid they consider getting better friends.

It means cunts like Matthew Parris can week in and week out call disabled people lazy fakers who drain the taxpayer and when you, for example, co-ordinate 400 complaints against him the press regulator can come back with ‘Well that’s just his opinion as a journalist‘. Well isn’t it a good job that I get to have my opinion too?

And so The Week in Ableist Bullshit was born

If the last few weeks have proven anything, it’s that there’s simply too much ableism to keep track of and the media can’t be trusted to hold all of it to account – especially when they create a great chunk of it.

One thing I have always striven to do in my work is hold those making life harder for disabled people accountable. That’s why I’m delighted to be writing this new weekly column here at the Canary. In it I will collate and dissect the barrage of crap disabled people are facing from the government, media, social media, organisations, and society.

But I also want to celebrate the great things disabled people do too, so at the end of each column will be my disabled joy of the week. Come for the ableists bashing – but stay for the hidden pockets of joy.

This week’s is a much more condensed version but from next week expect no stone to go unturned. So, shall we?

Shakespeare’s Globe doesn’t give a fuck if disabled people hate them

A few months ago it was announced that in the Globe’s latest incarnation of the ableist classic, Richard III will be played by a non-disabled performer. In my opinion, the play and role have always been an awfully over-exaggerated portrayal of the disabled villain trope.

However, the Globe lost me when it released a statement following pushback from disabled people in which they almost claimed that there was an abundance of roles for disabled people to play. The artistic director Michelle Terry, who is taking up the role, stated “it will come around again”.

Many hoped that our voices would be heard and the Globe would change its mind, but today the full cast was announced and Terry remains in the role. When I visited a couple of years ago I found their access to be exceptional.

But access doesn’t matter when the historic theatre refuse to cast us in stories about us.

The government is trying to fuck over disabled students even more

Being a disabled student is already hard, but now the Department for Education (DfE) is proposing to abolish a huge chunk of disabled students’ allowance funding.

The cuts would apply to “specialist non-medical help” which could mean students lose funding for interpreters, note-takers, and more. It will mean disabled students will be put at an even bigger disadvantage.

The consultation closes on 3 July and is open to disabled students, providers, and higher education staff. You can have your say here.

Daily Mail is back on its ‘ADHD is fake’ bullshit

There are so many stories about different ways in which ADHD doesn’t exist that I fear ‘ADHD lies of the week’ may become a permanent feature here. I swear at times it feels like the Daily Mail and the Times are having a competition to see who can whip up the most hate about people with ADHD.

This time they’re aided by exercise bore Joe Wicks who is blaming processed food for the increase in ADHD diagnosis. The fact this has been disproven many times didn’t bother the rag though.

I know the realities of being neurodivergent all too well. Swapping my safe food – chicken nuggets – for some veggies won’t make my life any easier. But these ignorant fools not speaking on issues they have no idea about will.

Disabled Joy of the Week – Keedie

In amongst all the hatred towards neurodivergent women and girls, Elle McNicoll is a constant force for good. The author’s latest offering Keedie is a prequel to her behemoth A Kind of Spark.

The book is about standing up to those who try to make you feel small and celebrating the brilliance of autistic and neurodivergent people. Attending the Autistic Girls Network online event celebrating Elle felt like a balm for my soul that had been destroyed by all the abuse we’ve endured these last few weeks.

Neurodivergent women and girls loudly being ourselves and refusing to be made small in a world that wants to make us ashamed of who we are. You can buy Keedie here.

And finally…

I wanted to leave you with something my pal told me when I was feeling guilty about treating myself. As someone who comes from poverty, the idea of frivolously spending money on myself feels wrong.

Enter T with some excellent wisdom:

When you don’t treat yourself the Tories win a little bit.

In this terrible world it’s important that, when we can, we celebrate who we are – even if that’s by buying the cute boiler suit.

Until next week, fuck the Tories and don’t believe all you read.

alt text: "stop normalising the grind and start normalising whatever this is" above a painting of a forest where two bear cubs are up on their hind legs dancing together and two other bears are chilling under a tree watching them

Single people with long-term disability that stops them working will be much poorer after rollout, Resolution Foundation says

The rollout of universal credit is on course to make thousands of working-age disabled people significantly poorer, according to a report showing that more than 7 million people will be covered by the six-into-one benefit change before the end of the next parliament.

A single person with a long-term disability that prevents them from working is £2,800 a year worse off when they transfer to universal credit (UC), the Resolution Foundation said, adding that all single people with long-term disabilities will suffer this loss of income when the rollout of UC is completed by 2030.

The report – In Credit? – gives an overview of the huge change to the benefit system championed by the former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith during the coalition government.

Previous benefits, including income support, housing benefit and tax credits, were merged into a single payment.

The rollout of UC since 2013 has been characterised by technical delays that several parliamentary committees have criticised for driving up the cost of the changes and causing hardship for claimants.

Funding cuts after the Conservative party general election victory in 2015 added to concerns that many claimants were being pushed into poverty.

“By 2028, entitlements to UC will total around £86bn a year,” the thinktank said. “But this is £14bn less than if the government had kept the 2013-14 benefit system.

“As a result, seven in 10 working-age families eligible for means-tested benefit support will be worse off under ‘universal credit Britain’ than with the pre-reform system,” it added.

A funding boost for UC in recent years has limited the cut in income for many claimants and given a boost to others.

The main group to benefit from funding increases have been working-age households who rent, though much of the increase in weekly payments has covered soaring rent bills.

“A renting single parent who works 30 hours per week on the national living wage will be nearly £3,800 per year better off in 2024-25 than if they were on the old system,” the report found.

“Across the 2.7 million families in the private rental sector that are eligible for UC, the average gain compared to the old system is £1,200.”

Alex Clegg, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, said UC was conceived in an era of high unemployment, and was ill-equipped for a post-pandemic age when many claimants were suffering from long-term illnesses and disabilities.

“Compared to the old system, universal credit offers greater support for renters and stronger incentives to enter work,” he said. “But its original design did not anticipate there being over 2 million claimants with poor health or disabilities.

“Alongside efforts from the NHS, education, and labour market policy to address the drivers of ill-health, UC will need to change to tackle Britain’s new challenge of long-term sickness.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “Universal credit has proven itself as a modern benefits system fit for the future, providing a vital safety net to millions while helping people move into work faster.

“We boosted benefits by 6.7% this month, worth £470 for 5.5 million households on universal credit.

“Work is the best path to long-term financial security and through universal credit, our £2.5bn back-to-work plan will help over a million people – including those with long-term health conditions – find, stay and succeed in work.”

Amy Westervelt and Kyle Pope have covered climate disinformation for a combined 20-plus years – here’s their guide on how to decode it

Increasingly sophisticated and better-funded disinformation is making climate coverage trickier both for journalists to produce and for the public to fully understand and trust.

But telling the story, and understanding it, has never been more urgent with half of Earth’s population eligible to vote in elections that could decisively impact the world’s ability to act in time to stave off the worst of the climate crisis.

Swayed for 30 years by fossil fuel industry propaganda, the media has been as likely to unknowingly amplify falsehoods as they were to bat them down. It’s only in recent years that more journalists started to shy away from “both-sides-ing” the climate crisis – decades after scientists reached an overwhelming consensus on the scope of the problem and its causes.

The good news is that while the fossil fuel industry’s PR tactics have shifted, the stories they’re telling don’t change much from year to year, they are just adapted depending on what’s happening in the world.

When politicians talk about how much it will cost to act on climate change, for example, they almost always refer to economic models commissioned by the fossil fuel industry, which leave out the cost of inaction, which rises with every passing year. When politicians say that climate policies will increase the cost of gas or energy, they count on reporters having no idea how gas or energy pricing works, or how much fossil fuel companies’ production decisions, not to mention lobbying for particular fossil fuel subsidies or against policies that support renewable energy, impact those prices.

1. Energy security

From fueling wars to preserving national security, the fossil fuel industry loves to trumpet its role in keeping the world safe, even when it is engaging in geopolitical brinksmanship that makes everyone decidedly less so. In the context of national security, it’s worth noting that the US military started funding net-zero programs back in 2012 and listing climate change as a threat multiplier in its Quadrennial Defense Review a decade ago. But oil companies and their trade groups ignore that reality and instead insist the threat is in reducing fossil fuel dependence.

We’ve seen this recently in the industry’s messaging around the Russia-Ukraine war, when it mobilized even before Putin to push the idea that a global liquified natural gas (LNG) boom was a fix to short-term energy shortages in Europe. The industry has been noticeably quiet on the Israel-Palestine war, but is pushing general “we keep you safe” messaging that emphasizes global instability. In the US, energy security narratives often have nationalistic undertones, with messages pushing the global environmental and security benefits of US fossil fuel over that from countries like Qatar or Russia.

It is true that energy self-sufficiency contributes to any nation’s stability, but there’s no rule that says energy has to come from hydrocarbons. In fact, it’s well-documented that depending on an energy source vulnerable to the whims of world commodity markets and global conflicts is a recipe for volatility.

2. The economy v the environment

In 1944, when it looked like the second world war would end soon, PR guru Earl Newsom pulled together his corporate clients–including Standard Oil of New Jersey (ExxonMobil today), Ford, GM and Procter & Gamble – and crafted a top secret post-war strategy to keep the US public convinced of the “worth of the free enterprise system”.

From school curricula to Hollywood-crafted animated shorts to industry presentations to media interviews, the fossil fuel industry has hammered these themes repeatedly for decades. And, in a classic move, industry spokespeople point to studies that industry groups, like the American Petroleum Institute, commission as proof that taking care of the environment is bad for the economy.

In 2021, a peer-reviewed paper entitled “Weaponizing Economics” tracked the activity of a group of economic consultants who were hired by the petroleum industry for decades. “They produced analyses that were then used by both companies and politicians … to tell the public that it would just be way too expensive to act on climate, and that in any case, climate change was not going to be a big deal, so the best thing to do would be to do nothing,” the paper’s co-author Ben Franta, head of the Climate Litigation Lab at Oxford University, said.

These tactics also show up in ads that remind us to balance a desire for reduced emissions with the need to keep the economy going. One BP ad recently running on NPR, New York Times and Washington Post podcasts states that oil and gas equals jobs and argues for adding renewables, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

3. ‘We make your life work’

The fossil fuel industry loves to argue that it makes the world work – from keeping the lights on to keeping us riveted by smart phones and TV, and clothed in fast fashion. It’s genius: create a product, create demand for the product, and then shift the blame to consumers not just for buying it but also for its associated impacts.

“Basically it’s a propaganda campaign,” said Brown University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle. “And you don’t have to use the words ‘climate change’. What they’re doing is they’re seeding in the collective unconscious the idea that fossil fuels equals progress and the good life.”

Advertisements like Energy Transfer Partners’ “Our Lives Are Petroleum” campaign, which has been running since 2021, also serve the purpose of shaming people into keeping quiet on climate unless they have successfully rid their own lives of hydrocarbons. The logic goes: if you use a phone or drive a car, or really, if you live in the modern world at all, you’re the problem. Not the companies that have worked for decades to make their products seem indispensable and block any alternatives to them.

4. ‘We’re part of the solution’

Nothing keeps away regulation like promises of voluntary solutions that make it seem like the fossil fuel industry is really trying. In a 2020 exposé, Greenpeace’s investigative newsroom, Unearthed, caught an Exxon lobbyist on camera explaining this tactic had worked with a carbon tax to head off emissions regulations and how the company was pursuing the same strategy with plastic. Working with the American Chemistry Council to roll out voluntary measures like “advanced recycling”, the lobbyist, Keith McCoy, said the goal was to “get ahead of government intervention”.

As with climate change, McCoy explained, if the industry can make it seem as though it was working on solutions, it could keep outright bans on single-use plastics at bay. Today, this narrative shows up in the industry’s push for carbon capture, biofuels, and methane-based hydrogen solutions like blue, purple, and turquoise hydrogen. We also see it in the industry’s embrace of the term “low carbon” to describe not only fossil fuel–enabling solutions like carbon capture, but also “natural gas”, which industry lobbyists are successfully selling to politicians as a climate solution.

5. ‘The world’s greatest neighbor’

Just in case people still aren’t accepting of dirty air, dirty water and climate change, the fossil fuel industry funds museums, sports, aquariums, and schools, serving the dual purpose of cleaning up its image and making communities feel dependent on the industry and thus less likely to criticize it.

Both journalists and their audiences have more power to combat climate disinformation than it might feel when they’re awash in it. Understanding the industry’s classic narratives is a good starting point.

Debunking false claims is a critical next step.

• Amy Westervelt is an award-winning investigative climate journalist, founder of Critical Frequency, and executive editor of Drilled Media

• Kyle Pope is executive director of strategic initiatives and co-founder of Covering Climate Now, and a former editor and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review

Hundreds of thousands could lose out in England and Wales under disability benefit reforms after general election

Hundreds of thousands fewer disabled people could receive cold weather payments under the Conservatives’ planned post-election disability benefit reforms, according to an internal government report seen by the Observer.

The briefing, by civil servants at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), says that under the plans, new applicants for disability benefits in England and Wales would only qualify for cold weather payments if they passed a much harsher assessment than exists at present.

“We recognise that this recommendation will result in fewer low-income people being eligible for [cold weather payments],” the briefing says, adding that some higher-income people will gain access to them.

Cold weather payments worth £25 for every week of freezing weather between November and March are automatically given to people on certain benefits.

Working-age disabled people qualify for the payments via the work capability assessment (WCA), which decides whether people are sufficiently sick or disabled to get disability payments through universal credit.

The Conservatives intend to abolish the WCA after the next general election. Instead, universal credit disability payments will go to people who qualify for the separate personal independence payment (Pip) disability benefit.

The WCA became notorious in the 2010s for unfairly refusing disability benefit. But it has softened in recent years and now about 80% of applicants qualify for higher benefits or reduced requirements to look for work. By contrast, the Pip benefit assessment rejects nearly half of new applications.

The DWP briefing, which was written in October, recommends that once the WCA is scrapped in 2026, newly disabled people will need to pass the Pip benefit assessment in order to qualify for cold weather payments.

The briefing rejects the creation of a separate new qualifying test, as it claims it would add complexity to a system that has just been simplified.

“This is further proof of the brutal impacts that the government’s proposed overhaul of the disability benefits system will have on disabled people unable to earn an adequate income through paid employment, yet consigned to poverty through denial of social security payments,” said Ellen Clifford of Disabled People Against Cuts. “Many disabled people are unable to work full-time hours and are much more likely to be in low-paid employment than non-disabled people.”

It is likely that in the long run, hundreds of thousands of disabled people who would previously have qualified for cold weather payments will no longer do so. The briefing says that, as of February 2023, there were 850,000 claimants who qualified for benefit through the WCA and did not have a Pip.

However, the changes will not affect existing claimants until 2029 at the earliest, and at least some of them will receive transitional protection for an unspecified period after that. The immediate impact from 2026 will be on those applying for benefits for the first time.

skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
Under the changes, about 460,000 existing Pip claimants would qualify for cold weather payments for the first time. These claimants are less likely to be on the lowest incomes, and overall the changes are predicted to cut spending on cold weather payments by about £12m.

Peter Smith, director of policy at fuel poverty charity National Energy Action, said: “The additional energy costs faced by households with long-term disabilities is well evidenced, as is the mental and physical strain this brings.

“If these changes are made and eligibility is narrowed, the impact could be life-threatening – with fewer very vulnerable households able to access this lifeline during exceptionally cold weather or made to jump through ever more hoops.

“The UK government should be looking to increase support for energy bills for the most vulnerable, not restricting it for people who desperately need help.”

The DWP briefing also recommends other government departments apply the same changes in eligibility to entitlements such as free childcare, warm home discounts and help with healthcare costs, although disabled people may be able to qualify for these through other routes.

The DWP said: “While we do not comment on speculation, we have been clear that our structural reforms will be rolled out gradually from 2026 and transitional protection will ensure nobody experiences a financial loss at the point of moving onto the new system. We will always ensure our welfare system supports the most vulnerable, having made over 1.1m cold weather payments this winter, and will set out full details on any further reforms in due course.”

Lori and George Schappell were joined at the skull with separate bodies and lived on their own since the age of 24

The world’s oldest living conjoined twins have died at the age of 62 in their native Pennsylvania.

Lori and George Schappell died on 7 April at the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, according to an obituary. A cause of death was not disclosed.

The Schappell twins were born on 18 September 1961 in Reading, in southern Pennsylvania. They were joined at the skull with separate bodies, sharing 30% of their brain and essential blood vessels.

George had spina bifida and used a mobility device. Lori pushed and steered George’s wheeled stool so the two could move around.

The twins represented the rarest form of conjoined twinning, which affects only 2% to 6% of conjoined twins, NBC Today reported.

George transitioned in 2007, with the Schappells becoming the first same-sex conjoined twins to identify as different genders, Guinness World Records reported.

George discussed his decision to come out with the Sun newspaper in 2011 when the siblings visited London to celebrate their 50th birthday and vowed to “continue living life to the full”.

He said: “I have known from a very young age that I should have been a boy.”

He added: “It was so tough, but I was getting older and I simply didn’t want to live a lie. I knew I had to live my life the way I wanted.”

The Schappells graduated from the Hiram G Andrews Center, a technical institute in Elim, Pennsylvania. They both worked for Reading hospital for a number of years.

The Schappells had distinct hobbies and interests.

George performed as a country music singer, traveling to several countries including Germany and Japan, according to Guinness World Records. Meanwhile, Lori was a lauded tenpin bowler.

The siblings lived on their own since the age of 24. They previously lived in an institution for people with intellectual impairments, despite not being mentally disabled, following a court order, New York Magazine reported.

Later, the two shared a two-bedroom apartment. Each sibling had their own room, alternating which room they would sleep in each night.

The Schappells said that, despite being conjoined, they were able to have privacy in the shared apartment.

“Just because we cannot get up and walk away from each other, doesn’t mean we cannot have solitude from other people or ourselves,” Lori said in a 1997 documentary.

For example, when George needed to rehearse his country music, the pair would go to his room, where Lori would remain quiet and allow George to practice.

While some conjoined twins have opted to be separated via surgery, such procedures weren’t available when the Schappells were born.

The twins also rejected the idea of separation.

“Would we be separated? Absolutely not,” George said in a 1997 documentary. “My theory is: why fix what is not broken?”

“I don’t believe in separation,” Lori said to the Los Angeles Times in a 2002 interview.

Lori and George Schappell were joined at the skull with separate bodies and lived on their own since the age of 24

The world’s oldest living conjoined twins have died at the age of 62 in their native Pennsylvania.

Lori and George Schappell died on 7 April at the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, according to an obituary. A cause of death was not disclosed.

The Schappell twins were born on 18 September 1961 in Reading, in southern Pennsylvania. They were joined at the skull with separate bodies, sharing 30% of their brain and essential blood vessels.

George had spina bifida and used a mobility device. Lori pushed and steered George’s wheeled stool so the two could move around.

The twins represented the rarest form of conjoined twinning, which affects only 2% to 6% of conjoined twins, NBC Today reported.

George transitioned in 2007, with the Schappells becoming the first same-sex conjoined twins to identify as different genders, Guinness World Records reported.

George discussed his decision to come out with the Sun newspaper in 2011 when the siblings visited London to celebrate their 50th birthday and vowed to “continue living life to the full”.

He said: “I have known from a very young age that I should have been a boy.”

He added: “It was so tough, but I was getting older and I simply didn’t want to live a lie. I knew I had to live my life the way I wanted.”

The Schappells graduated from the Hiram G Andrews Center, a technical institute in Elim, Pennsylvania. They both worked for Reading hospital for a number of years.

The Schappells had distinct hobbies and interests.

George performed as a country music singer, traveling to several countries including Germany and Japan, according to Guinness World Records. Meanwhile, Lori was a lauded tenpin bowler.

The siblings lived on their own since the age of 24. They previously lived in an institution for people with intellectual impairments, despite not being mentally disabled, following a court order, New York Magazine reported.

Later, the two shared a two-bedroom apartment. Each sibling had their own room, alternating which room they would sleep in each night.

The Schappells said that, despite being conjoined, they were able to have privacy in the shared apartment.

“Just because we cannot get up and walk away from each other, doesn’t mean we cannot have solitude from other people or ourselves,” Lori said in a 1997 documentary.

For example, when George needed to rehearse his country music, the pair would go to his room, where Lori would remain quiet and allow George to practice.

While some conjoined twins have opted to be separated via surgery, such procedures weren’t available when the Schappells were born.

The twins also rejected the idea of separation.

“Would we be separated? Absolutely not,” George said in a 1997 documentary. “My theory is: why fix what is not broken?”

“I don’t believe in separation,” Lori said to the Los Angeles Times in a 2002 interview.

At least six people lock themselves in Grade II-listed York and Albany next to Regent’s Park and post notice

Squatters have taken over a pub in London leased by Gordon Ramsay that is up for sale with a guide price of £13m.

A group of at least six people locked themselves inside the Grade II-listed York and Albany hotel and gastropub, next to Regent’s Park, boarding up the windows and putting up a “legal warning” defending their takeover, the Sun reported.

In photographs taken before the windows were further boarded up, a person could be seen sleeping on a sofa in the bar, surrounded by litter.

On Saturday morning, two masked people wearing black tracksuits and carrying backpacks and carrier bags exited the property, running away from reporters before they could be approached for comment.

A notice taped to a door said the group had a right to occupy the venue, which they said was not a “residential building” and was therefore not subject to 2012 legislation in England and Wales that made squatting in a residential building a criminal offence.

The piece of paper, signed by “the occupiers”, also said: “Take notice that we occupy this property and at all times there is at least one person in occupation.

“That any entry or attempt to enter into these premises without our permission is therefore a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to such entry without our permission.

“That if you attempt to enter by violence or by threatening violence we will prosecute you. You may receive a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

“That if you want to get us out you will have to issue a claim for possession in the county court or in the high court.”

Ramsay called the police on Wednesday but was unable to have the people removed, it is understood.

Another notice asked passersby for “food and clothes donations or anything else you no longer want or need”.

The occupation of a person’s non-residential property without their permission is not a crime in England, though police can take action if crimes are subsequently committed, including damaging the property or stealing from it.

The Metropolitan police said in a statement: “Police were made aware of squatters at a disused property in Parkway, Regent’s Park, NW1 on Wednesday 10 April. This is a civil matter and so police did not attend the property.”

In 2007, the film director Gary Love bought the freehold of the former 19th-century coaching inn.

He subsequently leased the property to Ramsay on a 25-year term with an annual rent of £640,000.

The Kitchen Nightmares host unsuccessfully attempted to free himself from the lease in a legal battle at the high court in 2015.

The venue went on sale at the end of last year with a guide price of £13m.

According to government guidance, squatters can apply to become the registered owners of a property if they have occupied it continuously for 10 years, acted as owners for the whole of that time and had not previously been given permission to live there by the owner.

Observer investigation finds that private companies made £105m despite not being registered with Ofsted

Hundreds of extremely vulnerable school-age children in England are being sent to illegal, unregulated homes every year because of a chronic shortage of places in secure local authority units.

An Observer investigation has established that councils placed 706 children, the majority of them under the age of 16, in their care in homes that were not registered with Ofsted, the children’s social care watchdog, in 2022-23.

Most of the providers that staff or operate unregulated homes are private companies. The investigation found that providers received nearly £105m from English councils last year – equating to almost £150,000 a child.

It is an offence under the Care Standards Act 2000 to operate a children’s home without an Ofsted registration, which the watchdog says prevents unsuitable people from owning, managing or working in homes. But the Observer has discovered that Ofsted did not prosecute a single provider in 2022-23, despite launching 845 investigations into suspected illegal children’s homes.

The children’s commissioner for England, Rachel de Souza, said she was appalled by the findings. “Some of these children will have experienced the worst trauma, abuse and neglect, with multiple and complex needs requiring genuine care – but instead they are placed in inappropriate settings which do not meet their needs, with little say in what happens to them, often miles from loved ones and sometimes denied basic rights like education.”

The illegal care system has expanded in recent years as local authorities have struggled to accommodate increasing numbers of vulnerable children, who pose a risk to themselves or others, or are being criminally or sexually exploited.

Many of these children, who often have troubled, traumatic pasts and histories of running away and getting into dangerous situations, are subject to court orders restricting their freedom, in order to keep them safe. However, there is a shortage of secure local authority-run homes that can provide therapeutic care in locked buildings. There are typically about 50 children each day awaiting a place.

As a result, family courts are having to authorise severe restrictions on children in unregistered homes, which range from rented properties and short-term holiday lets staffed by agency workers and security guards to supported accommodation designed for older children with minimal care needs. The staff, who are frequently required to restrain children, are not checked by Ofsted.

The new figures, compiled by the Observer and the charity Together Trust, show a 277% rise in numbers placed in illegal children’s homes in England between 2020 and 2023.

De Souza is particularly worried about children deprived of their liberty in unregistered placements: “These are the children with the highest level of need, in the country yet I often hear from children placed in makeshift, rented flats with no appropriate care in place.”

Few councils were prepared to name the companies involved, but the Observer obtained payment records from a handful of local authorities. Swindon borough council placed a child in a rented Airbnb property for a “short time” in 2022-23. The council said it placed the child there, with qualified staff, while it looked for suitable accommodation. Another council hired staff that year from two security companies to work alongside care workers in illegal children’s homes.

Ofsted said it needed new powers to take action against illegal providers, as it remained concerned that children were “at risk of harm” in unregistered homes. “The government promised additional powers in 2021 that would enable us to take action against illegal providers more quickly – these powers are urgently needed in the interests of children,” said a spokesperson.

Together Trust said council funding cutsleading to decline of community services, coupled with long delays for children in accessing mental health and disability support, have led to increased levels of need. “There remains a national shortage of safe, regulated homes for children in care, particularly those with complex needs,” said Lucy Croxton, the charity’s public affairs and campaigns manager.

The government has pledged to increase funding for secure children’s homes in recent years, including the building of two new secure homes in London and the West Midlands. The chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, announced in the March budget that the government would invest £165m over the next four years to increase the capacity of the children’s homes estate.

The Association of Directors of Children’s Services welcomed the funding but warned that it was a “drop in the ocean”. Andy Smith, its president, said councils were forced to use unregistered homes because of the lack of suitable places. “We know that 15 secure homes have closed since 2002 … there is a need for more than just two homes.”

The Department for Education said that all children in care deserve to live in settings that meet their needs and keep them safe.

“Local authorities are responsible for providing safe, appropriate homes for children, and are held to account for the quality of care they provide,” said a spokesperson.

The department added that all providers of care for children under 18 must be registered with Ofsted, which it said had powers to prosecute.

It said that the funding announced in the budget built on £259m previously announced by ministers to “expand the capacity of children’s homes”.