Hello,
Have you been affected by the carer’s allowance scandal?
Good Law Project is a non-profit that uses the law to build a fairer future. We think the government may be acting unlawfully in the way that it is clawing back money from carers.
We would like to find examples of how the Department for Work and Pensions has tried to reclaim overpayments to help us build a legal case.
We’d love to hear from you if you have been overpaid since 2018/in the past four years.
We are particularly keen to hear from people who have received any of these in the last two months:

• a decision that an overpayment has been made (and that it will be recovered);
• a decision on a mandatory reconsideration of an overpayment decision;
• a decision on appeal against an overpayment decision in the First Tier Tribunal.

You can contact us via our online form here: https://goodlawproject.org/about/contact/, selecting the “Carer’s Allowance Scandal” option from the dropdown menu.
We won’t share your details or personal data with anyone without your permission.*
Many thanks,
Bekah, legal manager
Good Law Project
*Your personal data will be processed in line with GLP’s privacy notice. If you have any queries or concerns regarding how we process your data, please get in touch with us via our website form.

French philosopher Jean Baudrillard once wrote about the effects of private telematics on the living subject (preferably metropolitan or suburban, like the majority of this sub and myself), and I've always found his account acutely prescient,

"today one's private living is conceived of as a receiving and operating area, as a monitoring screen endowed with telematic power, that is to say, with the capacity to regulate everything by remote control. Including the work process, within the prospects of telematic work performed at home, as well as consumption, play, social relations, leisure. One could conceive of simulating leisure or vacation simulations in the same way that flight is simulated for pilots [...] We know that the simple presence of a television transforms our habitat into a kind of archaic, closed-off cell, into a vestige of human relations whose survival is highly questionable."

Jean Baudrillard, The Ecstacy of Communication, 1987:88, pp. 17-8
As the sub is aware, the sharp decline in office occupancy in our downtown finds its immediate cause in the severity of the pandemic. I believe, however, that what is underemphasized in this reorientation is the total reconsideration of the logic of business communications that's happened. In an article about the history of office buildings, published by Morgan Lovell (a British firm specializing in interior office design), there is an idea of the administrative necessity of physical centralization. The article uses historical examples to undergird this point,

"Organisations such as the Royal Navy and East India Company were established to further Britain’s interests overseas. A central base of operations needed to be built to manage their incredibly varied tasks and organisation. East India House was built in 1729 on Leadenhall Street in the City of London as the HQ from which the East India Company administered its Indian interests. Thousands of employees were based in the building to process the necessary paperwork [...] Like the Roman politicians, The East India Company understood the necessity for centralised administration, and the efficiency this brought to what was essentially a process of making and distributing vast amounts of money. In this way, many non-political organisations followed suit – such as Sir John Soane’s Four Percent Office in the Bank of England, erected in 1793."

While centralized organization seems to remain essential for modern business, this centralization is growing less dependent (through contemporary technics) on a final site in three dimensional space, whose utility has always been founded on its ability to concentrate resources and information. Urbanists will (and probably already have) descend on the post-pandemic office landscapes of D.C. to articulate the rational blunder of such a monofunctional zoning schema, and why shouldn't they? Now is the most opportune time for advocating new zoning possibilities. It ought be maintained, however, that considering this downtown contraction to simply be the result of bad zoning, is incomplete. This development is only possible through the timely innovations of communications technology, which have engendered a change in what private telematics are good for.
Simply put, the local economy in this section of town was still too predicated on the necessity of the physical presence of labor-power, for work to ensue. For a long time, the purpose of communications tech was to close interpersonal gaps, lessening relational latencies between various 'nodes' in an organizational network. A filmic example of this would probably be something like Demon lover (don't watch this with children), where you have this mobile business class who use telematics and telephonics to compensate for the fact that their physical presence is not instantaneous; a phone call to Tokyo is followed up by a business trip, &c. Furthermore, they return back to their offices, and still conceive of their itinerary as beginning and ending in the office. Personal interface was still superior, mediated interface ameliorative. This state/conception of technology still works in confluence with a "presentist" mindset that values a physical center, hence the relatively high pre-pandemic occupancy, even with more complex informing networks.
The burgeoning logic constitutive of the continued lacking occupancy is one where telematics and telephonics no longer compensate for interpersonal latencies, but totally supplant a classic conception of presence, forcing a logical reconsideration of the utility of forced travel and physical convention. Perhaps, in the vein of Jean Baudrillard and Umberto Eco, telematics offers us something BETTER than the the real of classical presence, that being the variable hyperreal of omnipresence, of being here, there, and everywhere else by way of "remote control." One of Baudrillard's great themes is the demand of capital surpassing the limits of the real, and the terrestrial real of geography becomes, as Baudrillard would later write, a "vast, useless body." In summary, what has happened in D.C. since the pandemic is precisely another instance of a larger movement in media relations, which is the making-superfluous of physical spaces, redrawing new lines of relation for business and the social reproduction of the worker.

I was inspired by this interview of the Mathematician Terence Tao. When asked if he is trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis (Timestamp 9:36 onwards), Tao gave the analogy of climbing, likening certain problems in Mathematics to sheer cliff faces with no handholds. Tao explains how the tools or theories to tackle certain problems have not emerged yet, and some problems are simply way beyond our reach for it to be worthwhile for mathematicians to pursue with the current level of understanding. Mathematicians usually wait until there is some sort of breakthrough in other areas of mathematics that make the problem feasible and gives them an easier sub-goal to advance.
In the natural sciences, under most circumstances when enough empirical evidence challenges a paradigm, this leads to a paradigm shift or a reconsideration of previously dismissed theories. Instances which prompt such paradigm shifts can either be tested under normal science or come as serendipitous discoveries/anomalous observations. But are there cases where explanatory frameworks which work well enough for our applications ignore certain anomalies or loopholes because exploring them may be impractical or too far out of our reach?
For example, I read up about Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) in physics, which proposes modifications to Newtonian dynamics in order to account for the observed rotation curves of galaxies and other gravitational anomalies without using the concept of dark matter. However, MOND has faced challenges in explaining certain observations and lacks a fundamental theoretical framework. In a way, MOND and most Dark Matter models are competing frameworks which seek to make sense of the same thing, but are incompatible and cannot be unified (AFAIK). Not a perfect example but it can be seen that conflicting ideas purposefully disregard certain anomalies in order to develop a framework that works in some cases.
TLDR: Are there instances in any discipline of science where scientific inconsistencies are purposefully (ideally temporarily) ignored to facilitate the development of a theory or framework? Scientists may temporarily put off the inconsistency until the appropriate tools or ideas develop to justify their exploration as being worthwhile.

It will be a cold day in hell when LTB treats deadbeat tenant like this. Anyone that ends up with more than 35K in arrears needs to get away from LTB trash and get their justice in proper court that will treat them with fairness and dignity to the process. Here we see all the "rights" dissolve in the light of a judge and not a LTB lackey
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2024/2024onsc2536/2024onsc2536.html?resultIndex=4&resultId=a3deeb6dc59149f9bf60f4b71d534f5f&searchId=2024-05-13T15%3A09%3A52%3A761%2Ffc362c6027fa479aa0b42762adc39dc9&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAcZXZpY3Rpb24gdGVuYW50IGFwcGVhbCBib2FyZAAAAAAB
[5]()] Fearing that Mr. Green might be trying to use the court’s process (particularly the stay pending appeal) just to remain in his unit for free while the appeal is heard, I set terms for him to pay his rent when due and to pay his arrears as conditions of maintaining the stay of proceedings.
~Breach of the previous order~

1. The Tenant did not dispute that he failed to meet a condition specified in the order issued by the LTB on December 19, 2023 with respect to application LTB-L-054274-23. The Tenant failed to pay the lawful rent for December 2023 on or before December 29, 2023.

[[15]()] The most telling point is that this tenant does not pay rent. Even while agreeing that he must keep his rent current during this appeal, Mr. Green has not paid April’s rent. Rent was due April 16, 2024. I directed that he pay it by April 19, 2024 at noon. He requested an extension of time to pay April rent from last Friday to Monday the 22^nd as it would be “more feasible” for him. I have yet to hold a further case conference or to amend the directions. Yet, here it is Wednesday, May 1, 2024, and Mr. Green has still not paid his April rent.
[[16]()] I note as well that the tenant’s notice of appeal raises no issue of law that can succeed in invalidating his eviction in light of his admitted arrears. He sought reconsideration based on his hope to receive money to start paying down his arrears and his view that he had nowhere else to go.
[[17]()] Mr. Green breached the payment schedule to which he agreed before the board. Under that agreement he was ordered evicted without further notice to him. He paid no rent while challenging the eviction order. He paid no rent through the reconsideration process. Now he has failed to pay on the date that I ordered and even by the extended date that he sought. His personal circumstances are unfortunate. But no amount of procedural unfairness at the hearing at which Mr. Green sought to set aside the board’s eviction order will form a basis to require the landlord to keep providing him exclusive possession of her property for free.
[[18]()] I therefore quash the appeal in accordance with the landlord’s motion. The appeal cannot possibly succeed and I am satisfied that it is not brought in good faith. With the appeal quashed, the landlord is no longer stayed form enforcing the board’s orders.

[[19]()] If the appeal continued, I would lift the stay in any event. It is utterly unfair for Mr. Green to continue to have the benefit of the court’s stay of the eviction order without keeping his rent current and paying down his admitted arrears. This is an example of a tenant gaming the system. Such inequity cannot be tolerated.

Introduction We are the developers of a job portal app that allows employers to post jobs and candidates to create resumes, facilitating direct connections between employers and potential candidates. Unfortunately, our app was recently removed from the Google Play Store, and we are facing challenges in getting it reinstated even after submitting an update. We need advice and suggestions from the community to resolve this issue.
Issue Description Our app was removed from the Google Play Store, and the reason provided (detailed at the end of this post) remains consistent even after our recent update submission. In the update, we revised our privacy policy to clearly state that we do not access the user's contact list; we only access personal contact information necessary for employers to connect with candidates.
Despite a thorough review of our codebase, we confirmed that our app does not request access to the user's contact list, nor does it require such access for any functionality.
Possible Reasons for Removal

1. Code or Third-Party Library Error: There might be an unknown issue in our code or within a third-party library causing the rejection, although our investigations, including checks of the manifest files, have not indicated any request for contact permissions.
2. Misunderstanding of "Contact List": There is a possibility that Google's definition of "Contact List" might differ from ours, leading to this confusion. It might be that personal mobile numbers are being classified differently or something else.
3. Error in Google's Review Process: We are considering the possibility of an error in Google's review process, though we are unsure about this.

Sought Solutions

1. Update Privacy Policy: We could explicitly state in the privacy policy that the app accesses contact list information, but we are uncertain if this will resolve the issue since we do not actually access such data.
2. Code Review and Correction: We might need to conduct another detailed review of our code or consult with a specialist to identify any hidden issues.
3. Appeal the Review Process: We are considering appealing the review decision, hoping for reconsideration or further clarification.

Request for Community Input We are appealing to the community for any insights, similar experiences, or technical advice that could help us address this problem. Any feedback on our current understanding or approach would be immensely valuable.
Following is the Email from Google when app was removed:

Your app is not compliant with the User Data policy.
Your app is uploading users' Contact List information to {URL to our server used for all data post/fetch} without a prominent disclosure.
As per Google Play’s User Data policy, in cases where your app’s access, collection, use, or sharing of personal and sensitive user data may not be within the reasonable expectation of the user of the product or feature in question, you must provide an in-app disclosure of your data access, collection, use, and sharing and seek affirmative user consent.

Your use case requires a Prominent Disclosure in accordance with this policy.
The in-app Prominent Disclosure:

Must comprehensively disclose how your app collects, uses and shares user data.
To meet policy requirements, it’s recommended that you reference the following example language format for Prominent Disclosure when it’s required: “[This app] collects/transmits/syncs/stores [type of data] to enable [”feature”], [in what scenario].”
Must be within the app itself, displayed in the normal usage of the app and not require the user to navigate into a menu or settings.
Cannot only be placed in a privacy policy or terms of service.
Cannot be included with other disclosures unrelated to personal and sensitive user data collection.
Requests for user consent:
Must be clear and unambiguous.
Must require affirmative user action (for example, tap to accept, tick a check-box).
Must not interpret navigation away from the disclosure (including tapping away or pressing the back or home button) as consent.
Must not use auto-dismissing or expiring messages as a means of obtaining user consent.
Must be granted by the user before your app can begin to collect or access the personal and sensitive user data.

Hey! So, I would really appreciate some help here.
I have appealed my PIP Mandatory Reconsideration because they have put me on the standard rate of PIP when I really feel I should be on the higher rate (and I am only a couple points off!). And I have received the text message that the DWP has responded to my appeal (hopefully meaning that it will go to tribunal and I can argue my case).
However, I need to write a (opening?personal?) statement to read aloud at the tribunal since I don't have a representative. And! I have just found out a statement from my mum as my primary carer that I could upload as supporting evidence would really help my case (but English is my mum's second language so I would need to help her write it).
The thing is I have no idea how to write a statement for a PIP appeal tribunal. How do I lay it out? What do I include? In what order? Any specific words to avoid or include (e.g. I was told by Citizen's Advice not say 'sometimes' in my PIP Review application form but instead other words like 'often' and 'daily')?
Some instructions and even examples would be really helpful. The more I know what I am doing, the better I will do.
Thank you.

To clean up the subreddit, post all inquiries about USTET recon here. This post will now also cover WAITLIST questions.
You can also post all your tips for our USTET takers. If you want to help, please consider changing the sort mode of comments to New.
Thank you!

RESOURCES

• Recon Letter Template example
• "Ask me any recon questsions" by u/nainainaiii
• "Helping USTSHS Applicants for Recon by OhNoItsEmi
• "What to do if you failed the USTET/Reconsideration Process" by aifosin

Meanwhile you can SEARCH the subreddit and there'll be TONS of resources for your concerns.

FAQs: (Will post FAQs as they come here)

• What requirements do I need for reconsideration? > The usual requirements for reconsideration include the ff: > * Good Moral Certificate > * Grades Form (Your Current Form 138/137) > * A screenshot of the page of your USTET result > * Reconsideration Letter
• What is the process for SHS recon? > Here's a comment from hotlinesun about how they did their recon for SHS
• Do I need to write a letter if I'm waitlisted? > No, you are already qualified. You just have to... wait.
• Is it possible...? > It's most likely possible, but for your concerns, it's better to reach out to the department you have concerns with.

What was your experience of applying for PIP for being autistic? Did the assessor record what you said accurately? Did the assessor give you the right points? Did you have to appeal to get PIP?
You don’t get PIP for just being diagnosed autistic but for how being autistic affects you. You’ll probably either be turned down or get the low rates, as you'll be "assessed" by some nurse or paramedic who doesn‘t bother reading your medical evidence or even your PIP form in the allocated 1 hour they have to write your PIP “report”. The assessor will blatantly lie about everything you said and did or didn't do at your assessment because they fill in most of the PIP report before your assessment by selecting multiple choice paragraphs on their computer screen, so are guessing what you're going to say and do but don't know the first thing about autism. You’ll have to appeal to get what you should get.
This website explains how PIP points are decided and all the caselaw for each activity:
https://pipinfo.net/#activities
The difficult part is becoming aware and understanding how autism affects you not being able to do each of the PIP daily living activities so that you can explain it to the DWP. How sensory issues, crowds, changes, unexpected things happening, disruption to routine, being in unfamiliar place, hyperfocusing on special interests, having to interact with strangers, having to talk with strangers, sensory overload, shutdowns and meltdowns impact on you not being able to do each of the daily living activities. Analyse all the PIP daily living activities against this criteria and you should get points for all the daily living activities, even the ones you initially thought you have no issues with at all, which will get you the high rate of PIP. Probably not the first time round or at Mandatory Reconsideration, but you probably will when you appeal.
You think you have no difficulties with managing toilet needs? You do when you need someone to prompt you to go to the toilet whenever you’re hyperfocusing on your special interest and noticed 1 hour ago you need to go to the toilet but still haven’t. You avoid public toilets because of the noise of the hand dryers and other people flushing the toilet unexpectedly. When you’re in a public place, your senses are swamped and you’re in autistic shutdown and can‘t function, and can’t see the toilet sign right in front of you so need another person to show you the way to the toilet.
Search for #actuallyautistic videos on YouTube about each activity - cooking, food, washing, clothes, communication, social interaction, budgeting - and make notes of whatever you identify with.
This website is good as a prompt to write about how sensory issues stop you being able to do the daily living activities: https://spdlife.org/symptoms/general.html
For example, I become engrossed in one single activity for a long time and tune out everything else, I spend all day watching YouTube videos about herbs and don't do anything else all day and don't do any of the PIP activities. It takes me more than twice as long to get dressed due to severe hypersensitivity to certain clothes materials, tags and seams. It takes me more than twice as long to eat because of hypersensitivity to the taste and textures of food and because certain foods are touching other foods on the plate. I avoid washing due to sensory issues with the feel of water from the shower on my skin. I avoid washing my hair due because I can't stand touching my scalp and my wet hair touching the back of my neck and back.
You should get the higher rate for PIP mobility activity 1f “Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person due to overwhelming psychological distress” - for sensory overload, autistic shutdown and meltdowns caused by having to go on public transport.
I can't follow the route of a familiar journey without another person "repeatedly" because I can't use public transport in the rush hour or school run hour because of the noise, fluorescent lighting and crowds.
I can't do it "safely" because public transport causes me shutdown or meltdown and I can't function for the rest of the day. I get lost and go into shutdown or meltdown. I step onto the road without looking distracted by small details, or engrossed in my own thoughts. If there is an expected change in the journey such as the bus stop is closed, I abandon the journey and go into shutdown or meltdown.
I can't do it "repeatedly" because I can only go out once a day and can't function for the rest of the day.
Hacks for getting PIP
A PIP descriptor applies if it applies at least once a day on 50% of days, not all day every day.
Regulation 4(4) of PIP regulations says you can only be considered able to do an activity if ALL of the following apply: https://pipinfo.net/issues/reliably
- Safely - in a manner unlikely to cause you harm or another person, either during or after completion of the activity, ie without causing you distress, sensory overload, shutdown or meltdowns.
- Repeatedly - as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed. For "preparing food" you must be able to do it 3 times a day on at least 50% of days, if you can only do it once a day, or a few times a week, then you're not legally able to do it.
- In a reasonable time period - no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a person without a physical or mental condition which limits that person’s ability to carry out the activity in question would normally take to complete that activity. For example, if washing takes you more than twice as long because you have hypersensitivity to cold and won't get out of the warm bath. Due to hypersensitivity to touch you spend ages picking individual hairs off your skin from washing your hair.
You argue that under section 4(4), you can’t be considered able do any of the activities safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period without assistance from another person at least once a day on 50% of days, so should get points for all the activities. You can’t do it safely because it’s causing you harm (sensory overload, shutdown, meltdowns). You can‘t do it repeatedly because you can‘t do it whenever you want to or need to because you can’t function due to sensory overload, shutdown and meltdowns. You can’t do it in a reasonable time period due to sensory issues, or because you can’t function due to sensory overload, shutdown and meltdowns. Which will hopefully get you the higher rate of PIP.
There is not enough space on the PIP form to explain why you can't do activities, I copied and pasted the activities onto Word and described in detail why I can't legally do each activity without assistance from another person and emailed it to the DWP. I had their email because they agreed for communication to be by email and not phone as reasonable adjustment under Equality Act 2010 public sector duty and Autism Act 2009 on the basis that communicating verbally with a stranger on the phone is going to cause me a meltdown or shutdown and leave me unable to function for the rest of the day. Their email is called "Alternative Format" https://design-system.dwp.gov.uk/patterns/alternative-formats Use this as evidence for daily living activity 7 "communicating verbally" 7c or 7d.
Ask for a permanent PIP award so DWP doesn’t keep reassessing you, on the basis that autism is from birth and incurable so you'll never stop being autistic and be able to do the PIP activities. I asked for a permanent PIP award at appeal and the judge agreed, though the DWP went against the judge’s decision and wrote to me that they would reassess me in 7 years “if my circumstances have changed”.
I’m autistic, ADHD, have dyspraxia and am physically disabled, not just autistic so got points for that too. All of the above are what I personally struggle with. Autistic people are all different so you will struggle with different aspects of each activity, struggle more than me in some activities and struggle less in others.
If in addition to being autistic, you have ADHD or a mental health condition, google the diagnostic criteria and online screening tests and use them as a prompt to write about why you can’t do each of the activities safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period without assistance from another person at least once a day on 50% of days.
The same if you have a physical health condition, google the symptoms and use them as a prompt.

* Current credit cards you are the primary account holder of: Discover IT $4k limit 6/2020, Chase Freedom Flex $10k limit 7/2021, Citi Custom Cash $4.5k limit 12/2021, Ollo Optimum (now Ally Unlimited Cash but with same 2.5% CB) $4.8k limit 4/2022 (was closed for a brief period before being reopened, still shows as closed on Experian report), Curve $500 limit 7/2022 (came with the Curve card, haven't used the credit but I think it may still count), Affinity Cash Rewards Visa $6.5k limit 11/2022, Chase Ink Business 1/2024 (don't think its relevant since its a business credit card)
* FICO Scores with source: Experian8 775, Transunion8 833, Equifax8 769
* Oldest credit card account age with you as primary name on the account: 3 years 10 months
* Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 6 months: 0
* Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 12 months: 0
* Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 24 months: 3
* Annual income $: ~$90.4k (excluding bonuses)
CATEGORIES
* OK with category-specific cards?: Yes, but unless higher than 3% cashback won't be the draw since I already get 2.5% on everything with the Ally Unlimited grandfathered from Ollo (technically 2.75% with the 10% loyalty bonus right now)
* OK with rotating category cards?: Yes
* Estimate average monthly spend in the categories below.
* Dining $: $310
* Groceries $: $150 (prefer HEB, Walmart, or wholesale. Not Target or wholefoods)
* Gas $: $42, electric and mostly free charging
* Travel $: ~5k in June, my parents book and I pay them back so not something I'm looking to earn on right now
* Do you plan on using this card abroad for a significant length of time (study abroad, digital nomad, expat, extended travel)?: No
* Any other categories (examples: phone/internet, insurance) or stores (example: Amazon) with significant, regular credit card spend (the more you specify, the better): ~$200 Amazon (though I don't want to encourage that)
* Any other significant, regular credit card spend you didn't include above?: No
* Can you pay rent by credit card? If yes, list rent amount and if there's a fee for paying by credit card: 2.95% fee for rent, $1600, not sure I'm interested in Bilt right now, I want Cash back, SUBs, & benefits more
MEMBERSHIPS
* Current member of Amazon Prime, Costco, Sam's Club, or a Verizon postpaid customer?: No (I'm a family member of Amazon Prime member, so I get the benefits w/o paying)
* Current member of Chase, US Bank or any other big bank?: Sofi, Schwab, Wells Fargo, Fidelity, Capital One
* Active US military?: No
* Are you open to Business Cards?: Yes
PURPOSE
* What's the purpose of your next card (choose ONE)?: Getting benefits/money
* Do you have any cards you've been looking at? US Bank Altitude Connect (no more AF, $500 SUB, $100 value Global Entry reimbursement, 1 year Priority Pass Lounge access I can use on my Trip in June, and the ability to product change to the Cash+), AAA Daily Advantage (5% grocery so I can set my Citi Custom Cash to always be Restaurants), Kroger card/variant (5% mobile wallet)
I have a trip in June and I think this is a rare opportunity to fall within US Bank's recent Credit Card rules and get the benefits of the Altitude Connect with no AF. I don't have an account open with them and I don't like the requirements or interest rates on their checking account, I'd have less than a month before I fall out of their age bracket and need to start paying the annual fee. But I'd really like to get this card now. Do I have to open a checking account with them? If so, can I close it without consequence if I don't get the card (since I'd have to pay the fee on the account if I don't get the card)?
I'm open to getting credit cards with 0% introductory APR periods, put my rent (or a couple of months worth) on the card, then earn interest via a MMA/HYSA/CD for that intro period, then pay off the balance before the 0% period expires. That way I could earn a year or more's worth of interest on a year's worth of rent, I talked to a financial advisor and he said he wouldn't recommend this strategy to anyone except me. But that was when the fee was 2.2% instead of 2.95% so I'm not sure its worth it versus churning now.
I think I'd prefer no AF or a downgrade path to a no AF card.
I was thinking of looking at buying a house January next year, but I live in Austin and really like my apartment so that's a longshot.
Update: I got denied Update 2: The letter said I was denied due to "insufficient length of time since oldest account was open" which didn't make sense. I called the reconsideration line and apparently they wanted 2 years of credit history (which I had) and they saw I did so they put the application back into review.

Clarification: they didn't meet your standards before but maybe you reconsidered them when you turned 30.
Example: she already had a kid (or more) and you weren't very open to being with her until you turned 30.
Put in the comments if you did have this kind of reconsideration but at a different age.
I'm honestly just curious to see if yall get lonely like the stereotypical midlife crisis for women when they turn 30.
I would still like to hear from other genders just out of curiosity - so if you're reading this feel free to engage whether you are a man or not

(This essay was originally published in Boundless Magazine in March of 2020, which is no longer available to read. This post is an archival attempt).
Novelist Samantha Shannon writes about old stories, new readings and how the legend of Saint George and the Dragon led her to a feminist retelling
New takes on familiar narratives seem to be enjoying a renaissance in recent years – the flood of them shows no sign of abating – but they are part of a tradition as old as storytelling itself. From the small variations in oral lore to the never-ending conveyor belt of film reboots, human beings have longed to both revive and modify the stories of the past.
Retellings have, in fact, been ubiquitous in the literature of the last decade. Beauty and the Beast alone has inspired Heart’s Blood (2009) by Juliet Marillier, Of Beast and Beauty (2013) by Stacey Jay, Cruel Beauty (2014) by Rosamund Hodge, A Court of Thorns and Roses (2015) by Sarah J. Maas, Barefoot on the Wind (2016) by Zoë Marriott, In the Vanishers’ Palace (2018) by Aliette de Bodard, A Curse So Dark and Lonely (2019) by Brigid Kemmerer, and more – the story has been reworked on an almost annual basis for several years.
The Little Mermaid has also sparked its own mini-genre, including The Seafarer’s Kiss (2017) by Julia Ember, To Kill a Kingdom (2018) by Alexandra Christo, The Surface Breaks (2018) by Louise O’Neill and Sea Witch (2018) by Sarah Henning.
Famous Western fairy tales – particularly those that have received the Disney treatment – remain popular sources, but more and more, as publishing diversifies and broadens its horizons, authors have branched out into lesser-known folk tales from Europe, and into myths and legends from the rest of the world. Beowulf gets an all-female reboot in The Boneless Mercies (2018) by April Genevieve Tucholke; Scheherazade weaves her stories again in The Wrath and the Dawn (2015) by Renée Ahdieh; and the ancient Indian epic, the Mahābhārata, is played out as a space opera in A Spark of White Fire (2018) by Sangu Mandanna. There are numerous retellings of authored historical works that have passed into the public domain, and others that revise history itself. Blood and Sand (2018) by C. V. Wyk imagines the Thracian warrior Spartacus as a young woman; And I Darken (2016) by Kiersten White gives Vlad the Impaler the same treatment.
We thrive on the timeless and familiar tales that speak across decades, centuries and millennia. At the same time, we like to have our expectations thwarted, and to see these stories defamiliarised. The joy of tropes lies not just in recognition, after all, but in subversion – and destruction. Within a single retelling, an author usually remains faithful to the original and breaks away from it. The number and nature of the changes depend on the author, and give clues as to their motive in re-approaching a story.
Sometimes that motive is to create a homage, sometimes to entertain or inform a new generation. Often, however, it is a need to respond to the source material – to wrestle with it, to correct it, to flesh out its gaps, and to otherwise interrogate it. Wide Sargasso Sea (1966) by Jean Rhys is perhaps the most famous example of this category of retelling, directly intervening in and re-framing Jane Eyre in a postcolonial and intersectional feminist context. ‘When I read Jane Eyre as a child, I thought, why should [Charlotte Brontë] think Creole women are lunatics and all that?’ Rhys recalled. ‘What a shame to make Rochester’s first wife, Bertha, the awful mad woman, and I immediately thought I’d write the story as it might really have been. She seemed such a poor ghost. I thought I’d try to write her a life.’ More recently, The Silence of the Girls (2018) by Pat Barker gives us the female perspective that Homer failed to provide in the Iliad. ‘[Briseis] has no opinion, she has no power, she has no voice,’ Barker points out. ‘It was the urge to fill that vacuum that made me go back and start retelling the myth yet again.’
Feminist retellings have been on the rise, and for good reason. We are recovering and reclaiming the women of history and literature, giving them the voices they have long been denied. We are breaking their silences, gifting them control of their own fates, and leading them into narratives that were once closed to them. For me, the desire to write such a retelling first stemmed from frustration, then anger, with a legend and a figure that have loomed over my country for almost a thousand years.
In April 2015, I started a novel, The Priory of the Orange Tree. One of my aims in writing it was to contest and rework the story of Saint George and the Dragon – a story I first encountered at my Anglican primary school. The ultimate illustration of the ‘damsel in distress’ trope; most people will know it only for its three key ingredients, which have endured for centuries. There is a brave knight, a princess in need of rescue, and a dragon bent on destroying them both. In a selfless act of courage and gallantry, the knight slays the dragon, either with a lance or a sword. It’s the story told by the 1931 hymn, When a Knight Won His Spurs, which I often sang at school. This is the morality tale we tell again and again, easy for both children and adults to understand and absorb. The knight is the good guy, the dragon is the bad guy, and the princess … well, she’s the not-guy, the trophy in the middle. Tale as old as time.
‘St. George was typical of what a Scout should be,’ wrote Robert Baden-Powell in Scouting for Boys (1908). ‘When he was faced by a difficulty or danger, however great it appeared, even in the shape of a dragon – he did not avoid it or fear it but went at it with all the power he could […] That is exactly the way a Scout should face a difficulty or danger no matter how great or how terrifying it may appear.’
Baden-Powell sums up what many people like about Saint George, and why his legend endures. At its heart, after all, his story seems to be about overcoming adversity. About good and evil. Surely there is no more ancient or relatable tale. Scratch beneath the surface, however, and you will find that its roots are infested with rot.
The story had never sat right with me. As a child, I remember stubbornly remaining silent as other pupils sang the lyric ‘and the dragons are dead’ in When A Knight Won His Spurs, such was my love of all things draconic. I resented the knight for destroying what was magical and thrilling. As I grew older and discovered feminism, the seed of rebellion against Saint George began to blossom. Now it was the passivity of the princess that troubled me. I knew I wanted to give this story a much-needed feminist update – to give the damsel a voice and a story – but to best decide how to approach my retelling, I first had to go back to its beginnings.
There are many variants of the legend of Saint George. The historical figure, if he existed, is thought to have been a Christian soldier from Cappadocia – a part of what is now modern-day Turkey – who was executed by the Roman emperor Diocletian in 303 AD. Various sources tell us of his acts, his suffering at the hands of his persecutors, and his martyrdom. In 1098, Frankish crusaders at the Siege of Antioch claimed Saint George had appeared to them in white armour, leading a heavenly host. In 1348, Edward III made George a patron of the Order of the Garter alongside Edward the Confessor. He displaced Edmund the Martyr and today remains the patron saint of several countries, including England.
The confrontation with the dragon is thought to have been an eleventh-century addition to the narrative that originated in Georgia. In Christian symbolism, the dragon – like the serpent – is associated with Satanic evil; we see this in the seven-headed dragon of the Book of Revelation. One can see how a military saint ended up with such an enemy. The famous deed was introduced to Europe in The Golden Legend; or, the Lives of the Saints (1265) by Jacobus da Voragine.
The Golden Legend tells us that in Libya, in the city of Silene, a dragon is poisoning the water and the air. The people send it sheep to appease it, and when their supply of sheep is exhausted, they start to sacrifice their children by lottery. Eventually, the king’s daughter is chosen. Her father dresses her as a bride before he sends her to her doom. Saint George, who is passing on his way back to Cappadocia, grievously wounds the dragon and tells the princess to tie her belt around its neck, which tames it. (This event can be seen in a 1470 oil painting by Paolo Uccello, which has the dragon already on a leash by the time George strikes it with a lance). So far, so relatively familiar – until George has the princess lead the dragon back to Silene and declares to its people, ‘Doubt not. Believe in God and Jesus Christ, and be baptised, and I shall slay the dragon.’
Saint George has a reputation as a courageous gallant. Here, his gallantry comes with conditions. Only after the people agree to accept Christianity does George behead the dragon. In their pain lies opportunity.
The impression of Saint George as a heroic figure was forged, in part, by The Golden Legend. Of course, nowadays we neglect to mention that in this famous origin story, our patron saint expected a city of frightened and traumatised people to convert to his religion before he had the decency to rid them of a child-eating monster. We also neglect to mention the active role of the princess. In the earliest surviving version of the legend, which is set in the fictional city of Lasia, the king is identified as Selbios, while his daughter is referred to only as kórē (‘girl, maiden’). Da Voragine chooses not to give her or her father a name in his retelling. However, in both versions, what took me by surprise was that the maiden speaks – in fact, she advises George to leave her and save his own skin – and that she has the mettle to lead the wounded dragon back to the city. George invites her to participate in its downfall. He also, notably, does not claim her as his bride, even though her father has dressed her up like one.
The princess seems to have received the name Cleodolinda, later Cleolinda, at some point in the fourteenth century. While the reasons this name was chosen are unclear, it suited the new story I wanted to write for my update on the character – Cleo presumably derives from the Greek kleos (‘glory, enduring renown’), while Linda could refer to the Germanic lind (‘soft, mild, gentle’). It speaks of two natures. I decided to adapt this as a character name, Cleolind, for the courageous princess who refuses to marry my George-figure, Sir Galian Berethnet, in The Priory of the Orange Tree – even though most of the world believes she was his bride, and a meek damsel.
The princess in the legend of Saint George sometimes appears under another name – Sabra. Chasing the origin of this name led me to a second distinct tradition of George and the Dragon stories, shaped by the chivalric romances of the Middle Ages, which distanced it somewhat from the Greek original.
Saint George’s roots in modern-day Turkey often seem to be forgotten or ignored by his supporters, who vehemently defend his red cross and appear to view him as a divine defender of Europe and Christianity in much the same way the Frankish crusaders did in 1098. While this wilful blindness is clearly due to racism and xenophobia in the majority of cases, one local myth specifically links the saint to Caludon Castle in Coventry. This myth can be traced back to a dense, prolix, and deeply problematic text from 1596, The Most Famous History of the Seven Champions of Christendom – also known as The Renowned History of the Seven Champions of Christendom – by Richard Johnson. Although Johnson was prolific, little is known of his life. Obscure today, but a hit among Elizabethan readers, The Renowned History does away with the idea of George as a soldier in the Roman army and rewrites him as an Englishman.
Born in Coventry to noble parents, bearing symbolic birthmarks, the Renowned History incarnation of Saint George is abducted not long after his birth by a ‘fell enchantress’ named Kalyb – also known as ‘the wise lady of the woods’ and, in a later retelling, ‘the weïrd lady of the woods’ – who raises him. After fourteen years, Kalyb, who has by now fallen in love with her young ward, gifts him a trusty steed, fine armour, and a Cyclops-made sword, Ascalon. She also reveals to him that she’s been hoarding a collection of dead children in her cave and has imprisoned six men – the patron saints of France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Scotland and Wales. Repulsed, George tricks Kalyb into surrendering her silver wand, traps her in the cave, and liberates the captive knights. The Seven Champions of Christendom then head into the world to forge their legacies. Kalyb, meanwhile, is left to be torn apart by evil spirits.
Kalyb – variously reincarnated under the names Kalyba, Calyb(a) or Calyt – is a ghostly footnote in the Saint George mythos. A powerful witch and oracle who gives George the tools he needs to survive the dragon, she becomes infatuated with him to the point that her happiness is dependent on his returning her love (‘she placed her whole felicity in him, and lusted after his beauty’). Her name is reminiscent of the Ancient Greek kalúbē (‘hut, wedding bower’), suggesting a domestic chokehold. George despises her from the start, apparently able to sense her wickedness despite the gifts she lavishes on him. This female magician who predates Prospero could have made for a deeply compelling villain, but instead, Johnson stuffs her into the proverbial refrigerator soon as her sole narrative purpose is fulfilled.
Separating from his new companions, George rides to Egypt, where a king named Ptolemy, like Selbios before him, is plagued by a flesh-eating dragon. This one is appeased only by the bodies of virgins – and the last virgin in Egypt happens to be Ptolemy’s own daughter, Sabra. Whomsoever slays the beast will have her hand in marriage. During the ensuing battle, George takes shelter under an orange tree, which is of such ‘rare virtue’ that it heals, protects and refreshes him. After he slays the beast, the lovesick Sabra tells George that she will ‘leave her parents, country, and inheritance, though that inheritance be the Crown of Egypt, and would follow thee as a pilgrim through the wide world’. George decides to test her patience. ‘Lady of Egypt,’ he baffles, ‘art thou not content that I have risked my own life to preserve yours, but you would also sacrifice my honour, give over the chase of dazzling glory; lay all my warlike trophies in a woman’s lap, and change my truncheon for a distaff.’
He suggests that she should accept the suit of the Moroccan king Almidor. When she chafes at the idea, George states that he could never marry a pagan (‘I honour God in heaven; you, shadows earthly of a vile imposter here below’). Sabra immediately agrees to ‘forsake [her] country’s gods and become a Christian’ if only they can wed. She is willing to throw away her entire life – everything that defines her, from her royal inheritance to her faith – to become his bride.
When it isn’t slipping into the realm of the ridiculous, The Renowned History paints an ugly and disturbing portrait of Saint George. He is not someone you would ever wish to meet. Throughout the nightmare he calls the ‘adventures’ of the saint, Johnson mimics the racial and religious Othering of medieval romances, often linking both Christianity and whiteness to integrity. (His knowledge of non-Christian religions, and the world in general, can only be described as deplorable. More than once he mentions Termagant, a violent deity erroneously ascribed to Islam by Christians in the Middle Ages). Whatever actions George takes, no matter how repugnant, Johnson continues to present him as a worthy national hero. Incredibly, he describes George as an ‘innocent lamb’ almost immediately before he commits a horrifying massacre of Persian knights.
Here ends another telling of the age-old confrontation between man and wyrm, with George languishing in prison for this crime. He is eventually reunited with Sabra, who bears him three sons. After many trials, including an attempted rape by the Earl of Coventry that almost sees her burned at the stake (George rescues her, naturally), Sabra dies by falling off her horse during a hunt, right into a bramble bush. Its thorns – ‘more sharp than spikes of iron’ – soon finish her off. Once again, a woman is fridged. Note that Johnson breaks away from The Golden Legend by turning the foreign princess into a trophy, a reward after the dragon fight – she might have a name, but unlike the princess in The Golden Legend, Sabra does not participate in quelling the dragon, or speak before or during the fight.
After Sabra dies, George becomes obsessed with a nun, Lucina. When she declines to yield her virginity to him, George musters his six companions and marches on the monastery, promising to kill everyone within if Lucina does not relent: ‘Except she would yield to St. George her unconquered love, they would bathe their weapons in her dearest blood.’ Johnson takes pains to remind us that George ‘intended not to prosecute such cruelty’ – but Lucina is so aggrieved by the threats that she takes her own life in protest. In her introduction to a scholarly edition of The Renowned History, published in 2003, Dr Jennifer Fellows points out, ‘Johnson seems to take a salacious delight in tales of rape and violence against women.’ The attempted rape of Sabra is graphic, reminding a reader horribly of the rape of Lavinia in Titus Andronicus: ‘I will ravish thee by force and violence, and triumph in the conquest of thy chastity; which being done, I will cut thy tongue out of thy mouth […] I will chop off both thy hands.’ It was erased from later retellings.
Johnson appears to have borrowed many elements of his story from earlier classical and medieval sources, including Sir Bevis of Hampton and possibly The Faerie Queene (1590) by Edmund Spenser, his contemporary. Both of these texts involve a knight, a battle with a dragon, a beautiful damsel, and a natural resource that provides succour. Yet The Renowned History was novel and popular enough to have endured in the English popular imagination for centuries. It inspired ballads, morality plays, chapbooks and abridged retellings by numerous authors. Churchill’s personal aircraft was christened LV633 Ascalon – a name that has since been used for swords in the Final Fantasy franchise and the American animation series Ben 10.
The young Queen Victoria watched a Christmas performance based on The Renowned History, which so captured her imagination that she painted some of her favourite scenes in watercolour. Dante Gabriel Rossetti depicted Saint George and Princess Sabra twice, using the name Johnson bestowed on the damsel. The Renowned History is even thought to be the story that helped Dr Samuel Johnson learn to read – certainly he owned a copy of it. Its influence can be seen as late as 2011, when artists Christian de Vietri and Marcus Canning created a sculpture of a lance for Cathedral Square in Perth and named it Ascalon. All of this can be traced back to the Johnsonian tradition of Saint George – but for more than four hundred years, it appears to have gone unchallenged.
In 2009, the editor of This England – a quarterly magazine aimed at people who are ‘unashamedly proud to be English’ – was troubled by the idea that many young people knew very little about their patron saint, or were embarrassed by him. ‘St George stands for everything that makes this country great – freedom of expression, helping those less fortunate, tolerance of other people’s beliefs, kindness and standing up for what you believe to be right,’ he said. He is certainly not the only person to hold this belief.
I have personally found little material evidence that Saint George merits any special association with kindness, tolerance or freedom of expression. Not now, not in The Renowned History or The Golden Legend, and not in our very earliest account of the battle, where George expects a mass conversion before he will help the people of Lasia. It is intolerance of other beliefs that has played a key role in his story. A ballad in Reliques of Ancient English Poetry (1765) begins by announcing that George has been fighting ‘against the Sarazens so rude’ – a constant of the legend is his persistent dislike of non-Christians. This is not a peculiar addition by one or two authors.
‘Come on,’ I hear you say. ‘You’re getting worked up over nothing. No one knows any of this stuff. Is this not just a fairy tale for kids about a man killing a dragon?’
I hope I have demonstrated that the answer is a resounding no.
You might want to argue that the legend of Saint George has transformed into a simpler one over the centuries, and that his problematic incarnations in history are now so little-known as to be almost meaningless. You might want to argue that nowadays, we honour the idea of the saint, and that nothing else is relevant – but I believe you would be wrong. The idea is not the whole story, and the whole story matters. Saint George, after all, is most famous for a fight with a mythical beast. It is the fiction of him, not what little fact we have, that has driven his popularity and established him as a cultural icon. It is the fiction, therefore, that must be challenged, and worked through, if there is to be any serious reconsideration of his legacy. Dragons – regrettably – exist only in the realm of imagination, and it is in the realm of imagination that the idea of Saint George has grown. We must ask ourselves if we have been imagining him in the right way, and how he might look if we imagine him differently.
He has never been a more significant or dangerous figure than he is now, as right-wing nationalism rises once more across Europe and America and Brexit emboldens those whose patriotism does not embrace the diverse reality of modern Britain. There should be no misunderstanding: anyone who invokes Saint George in the name of intolerance is building on a long-established tradition. Now is the time to expose and confront that tradition.
Neil Gaiman once said, ‘We have the right, and the obligation, to tell old stories in our own ways, because they are our stories.’ There are those in England who continue to believe the story of Saint George is integral to our collective national story. In writing The Priory of the Orange Tree, I was driven by that sense of obligation – a desire to answer the story that created the ripples I first encountered in a song as a little girl. A desire to re-assemble and expand on it in a way that made sense to me as a woman and a human being. I wanted to resurrect and shine a light on its lost women, whose names have all but disappeared. I wanted to make them a gift of the orange tree. I wanted to hit back at the George I met in the stories of old, and to wonder what the people of Lasia would have said about him, if only anyone had written his intervention from their perspective. And I wanted someone else to have a chance to slay the dragon.
The tales of the past have already been told. That does not mean they are set in stone. Storytellers now have a chance to decide what we love about old stories, and what we would prefer to change. We have a chance to say, at last, ‘This was wrong, and here is why.’ The transformative act of retelling allows us to shout back at the past. I mean to keep doing that.

decided not to drag out a decision i've already made. applied to all schools mid-late october. 180/3.9x/URM/LGBTQ, 1 year work experience in non-law (STEM) field, interested in environmental PI/gov work and probably clerking. sent a diversity statement and did all optionals/why Xs except the berkeley video response.
As:

• yale (.5$$.5 after convo with finaid, interviewed nov, A in march) attending
• chicago ($, interview nov, A in jan)
• penn ($$, levy alternate, toll finalist and rejected)
• duke ($$$$, A in jan and scholarship interview/mordecai in feb)
• NYU ($$, A in november)
• columbia (no interview, no scholarship in acceptance, didn't apply for scholarships)
• UVA ($$$, A in october after interview)
• northwestern (didn't apply for scholarships, A in feb)
• berkeley (no initial scholarship, didn't submit recon form, rejected for PI scholarship, A in march)
• michigan ($$$.5, A in nov, scholarship in dec)
• gulc ($$.5, sent unsolicited scholarship form in first round)

R:

• harvard (no interview, rejected january)

surprising but great end to my cycle--i was pretty set on penn, but after the levy alternate dean's scholarship offer (38k/year) and toll rejection, and being told my dean's scholarship could only increase by 5k/year, it just didn't work out. denied reconsideration at chicago and UVA (other top choices), and didn't ask for reconsideration elsewhere.
advice: 1) if you're PI, look very closely at LRAPs--very few will actually ensure that your loans will be paid off at the end of 10 years, and most will require you to enter an IDR plan. my ug loans are in an IDR, and i now owe more than i did at graduation (the save plan helps with this, but it's basically adding and erasing interest every month--i haven't touched the principal balance). some that might have a higher income cap (NYU, UVA, for example), won't actually guarantee that your balance is $0 at the end of the program. 2) don't be afraid to talk to financial aid offices and tell them what you need, especially if you're applying for need-based aid. 3) only apply to schools you're genuinely interested in attending. i applied to some schools i was not at all interested in because i didn't want to get in nowhere, but wasted a lot of money and time, and did not get significant scholarships from those schools because i think that was evident in my why Xs.
future applicants feel free to reach out with any questions and i'll try to be as helpful as possible!!
https://preview.redd.it/lgpo1cr7w8vc1.png?width=994&format=png&auto=webp&s=0df6bb1ef14143565dc7d0d0b5524cd35a32416d

We are in the middle of a complex situation with UC in England, and somebody may be offer us some advice, or if nothing else then perhaps just writing it out will help me process it...!
Some background; in September 2021 I started Ordination training for a Church. This involved us moving to where we live now. For my three years of training, I do an academic degree alongside a weekly placement & additional teaching specific to Ministry work; I also undertake several longer term placements during the holidays. The Church gives us a living grant, calculated on a national level & additionally pays rent on a house for us to live in. The grant from the church is means tested, however, as we had no significant savings, no property, and my wife had given up work in May 2021 (due to the birth of our first child), we receive a full grant - however, it is not a significant sum, and is calculated with a portion covering some specific costs (travel to College, travel to placements, materials needed for placements, books, study equipment etc).
After a few months it was clear things were beyond tight for us financially. We were advised by others who had been through the process to try applying for benefits. Most people who trained in recent years recommended working tax credits, however, these were obviously now behind the wider UC wall.
Here has been the timeline of the last 2 years;
Feb 22 - we applied for UC & were both called in for meetings. In my meeting, I explained to the advisor that we did not believe we'd be entitled to any payments, but there were things behind the UC wall that would hugely benefit us. For example, access to Healthy Start, potential Childcare hours so my wife could try to earn money or help with things like prescriptions. The advisor said our situation was odd in that I was a student but one funded through vocational grants, and my wife would potentially be elligible for support. He said he would apply for all available benefits and see what happened; I repeated that we did not believe we'd qualify for any specific payments, and would be inelligible for HB, but that any support would be huge for us - including the various sub-supports UC gives you. I took with me information about my course, and my grant calculation for the year - and pointed out the specific parts of the grant that were meant to cover study costs.
March 22 - We are notified of a UC calculation on our account; it's zero. The amount of income input by the advisor was just the full amount of the grant, entered as a salary.
April 22 - We are sent a new council tax bill; my wife's now no longer needing to pay council tax as she's classed as on Universal Credit. They refund our payments for Feb & March 22, and put our payments for 22-23 as 0. Also in April, my wife starts to do some home-baking, alongside full time mumming, to try to sell in order to help financially as things are pretty desperate (Especially with the increases to energy bills & food at this time - neither of which are reflected in our grant. For example, our Energy costs were calculated at £800 for Sept-Sept, and by April 22 our billls were at £195 a month).
July 22 - I am seriously stressed about our finances. A friend who received UC whilst in training suggests contacting them about our income calculations. I write a note in our journal asking whether this can be considered.
August 22 - having heard nothing from UC throughout the 6 months, we get a notification text. I logged in thinking it might be a reply on the journal, but instead they've closed the claim (presumably, now, due to it being 6 months of 0).
September 22 - our grant calculation for the new year rises by about 5%; our costs in general have skyrocketed. We also get a letter from the council saying we now owe full council tax for 22-23 & for Feb & March 22. Same friend who previously had UC suggested appealing, to ask whether our income had ever been reviewed. I complete the appeal; noting that the grant is a vocational grant given by a charitable body, with specific parts for study & placements costs, and a smaller amount left for living costs.
January 23 - My wife stops her home-baking work, as she not only has an active 18 month old at home all day, but is also pregnant. Over the period she took in ~1500 in income, with a profit after costs of ~320.
February 23 - after months of stomach pain & then finally some chest pain, I'm diagnosed with either gastritis/stomach ulcer and place on medication. The Doctor thinks stress is at least a factor.
April 23 - out of the blue we receive a UC text. Log into our account & see a mandatory reconsideration notice. They have decided we are elliglbe from UC from the beginning of our claim (Feb 22) & have worked out the amount owed. The next day days we're paid 6 installments of UC in 1 lump sump, then a further 8 on the same day as individual payments. The calculation includes HB. The figure is just under 20k, paid in arrears as monies owed.
We're asked to come into the JC for a meeting, to verify our identities etc. In the meeting we discuss our immense relief that support is being offered, but also concern that we've been given so much. The advisor looks at our case & says that it's been given to a specialist team in Middlesborough who have calculated our amount & will be correct. I say I had said in my initial meeting I didn't think we were due HB as the church covered the cost, but he said the specialist team had taken it all into account & made their decision. He also said I'd be asked to provide my grant amounts for for 22-23 & upcoming for 23-24 when they looked at those, if there was any issue, they'd readjust our payments.
May 23 - After we'd been liable for 8 months of missed Council Tax payments, which we ended up paying with the remainder of all our emergency savings, I had 0 trust in UC & was concerned still they had overpayed us, or could again at any point close our account. We therefore sent the arrears payment to a relative for safekeeping, so we wouldn't be tempted to spend it - and also to pay back ~2500 that incredibly generous family members had lent / given us in the previous 18 months.
I was asked for my grants documents & gave them in. A slight adjustment was made after this for the 22-23 year.
August 23 - I have a phone interview with UC, to confirm my details for the upcoming year. I again mention that we do not know how our income has been calculated, or whether the amount is correct. She assures me the case is being handled by a specialist team, and once I hand in my grant calculation for this year they'll calculate it again. Ironically she called on the day my wife gave birth to our 2nd child. My wife was in early labour when she called but I didn't want to miss the interview and face sanctions. I asked her, jokingly if she coud pre-update our account to having 2 children and she laughed and said no but she hoped it all went well. When we updated our information about a second child, she sent a note back congratulating us and wishing us well. I also sent in my grant amount.
September 23 - I'm expecting the grant calculation from UC to throw up issues & be required to pay back money - but instead it's calculated and monthly amount adjusted slightly. Our first child, now 2.5years old, receives 2 days a week of childcare from a local provider due to our low income, based on UC. This is massively important for us, as my course has changed & my final year is a huge amount of work, and our 2nd child has had some issues from birth requiring extra care.
October 23 - My wife's account is updated asking her for a compliance interview. I also get an alert from Credit Karma that an insurance group (on behalf of DWP) have carried out an insurance credit check on me. We write back saying that the process with UC has been v stressful, and we don't understand what the interview is for. The advisor writes back saying it is a standard procedure and he didn't mean to cause any stress. In the interview, he asks my wife a number of standard questions. He asks about rental amount and my wife confirms the figure & she says again that we have been paid HB but do not think we should necessarily have been. Instead of the usual stuff about a specialist team, he asks her a few more questions about this, and then says yes he thinks we've been incorrectly paid HB but he'll look into why the team paid us it. My wife also tells him in the interview that she did the home-baking work, and he asks why we didn't report this on UC. She explains that for the first 2 months she did it, she made hardly any money but also we were not receiving any UC payments; and for the remaining 6 months our UC claim had been closed. He said he understands that, and asks no more questions. My wife says we'll be completing her tax return in the new year & can give exacty figures then if he wants them. He says that will be helpful. Just before the end of the conversation he casually asks 'and what about the ISA?' My wife is confused and says we don't have any ISA.
I'm concerned by this, and write a message on our journal explaining we have an ISA each which are the Help to Buy ISAs. We opened each & put £1 in as Martin Lewis advised doing this before the deadline. We don't have any money in either one. I ask if this is a problem, and he replies saying he's updated his records.
November 23 - Our new calculation no longer includes HB, and we have had a note on the journal previously confirming from the advisor we were not elligible.
January 24 - On the first day of term back, after being a bit unwell over Christmas, I am very unwell. Long story short, I have Kidney Stones but also am diagnosed with post-viral fatigue & the Dr signs me off from my studies. I'm bed/sofa bound with a variety of symptoms, and unable to even look at a laptop. As this has progressed, the GP has shifted their view & by end of March has referred me to a specialist for Functional Neurological Disorder, brought on by stress; she remarks financial pressure has been a major factor.
March 24 - After being confused about how to do it for a long time, my wife completes a tax return for her home-baking, but puts that her income is under £1000 & she's therefore not asked any specifics.
A week after this, a new UC notification comes through from the person she spoke to in October. He says he is reviewing our case & now wants all our bank statements from the beginning of our claim till now; failure to provide them will close our claim from the beginning. He fails to provide an upload link. My wife & I reply, asking for the link & writes on her journal asking if anybody else can also provide a link. We also say we are close to breaking point as a family; I've been signed off from my studies ill since January, and we believe the interactions with UC over the last 2 year have been a significant factor in my ill health. If this is regarding the overpayment, we have sent that money to a family memebr for fear of this & are ready to repay it. If there is some other issue, can they just speak to us straight and let us help them work it out as at this point, fear of UC & their constant changes to our circumstances are outweighing any benefit of being on UC.
A week later we get a notification of an overpayment of ~17000 in HB. We pay this back 2 days later after having the family member send us it. Alongside this, with me feeling slightly better, I finally tackle fully my wife's accounts for her home-baking period, and work out the exact amounts of income, expense & profit. We update her tax return to include these, and then copy them over the UC & ask for an upload link for her tax return.
April 24 - Having heard nothing for several weeks, we're notified my wife has an appointment booked for her to hand over bank statements in person, as the person who requested them 'unfortunately' failed to provide a link, and so we have to hand them in in person. I messaged back asking about whether we can know what is actually going on with our claim, and receive no response.
We are pretty stressed about the whole thing. If they close our claim, even after the HB payment, we would be owing UC ~10000 we don't have. Alongside that, we presumably would then be liable for Council Tax for the last 18 months, as well as for paying back childcare money for the last 9 months, and Healthy Start payments on our card?
From the beginning, the onus has been on UC to decide what counts as income for us. We've not hidden anything from them, responded prompltly whenever asked, and have questioned at each opportunity the amount we've received.
We are assuming there are various issues at play, but know nothing. One obvious fact is that they paid us a substantial arrears payment - that would technically have immediately pushed us over the threshold for savings. However, that was also an overpayment - and I believe we did the right thing by putting the money somewhere safe in order to repay it as we were 90% sure we'd have to. It feels a bit chicken and egg to say we would be above the savings threshold, as they paid us 14 months of UC in arrears after appeal, and also miscalculated it. We feel we've done the right thing, where others may have just used the money on immediate needs like a new car. Another factor is my wife's earnings from home-baking. Which, as we mentioned both on the journal & in her compliance interview, happened in a period we were not receiving UC. We've said too we're obviously happy to have reductions made based on now calculating the exact amounts; we've never been asked to provide the figures & have instead had to ask to give them in.
We are fearful that the UC situation over the last 2 years, is going to leave us in financial difficulty for the foreseeable. I finish training in June, and start full time work; God willing, we hope we will never have to be involved with UC again after that (though we know closing a claim doesn't close any ongoing investigation of error).
We understand that the UC's rules are that even if they've made an error in calculation, we're still responsible for paying it back - but it feels like a huge burden to bear. We are also frustrated that if there was an issue with our claim in October, they've still given us a further 6 months of payments (and they've still not stopped), before asking for more information from us.
At this point, the next two things we are thinking to do are (a) contact our MP to begin gathering their support for if we need to challenge whatever UC decide, and (b) begin a formal complaint with UC for their handling of our claim from the beginning. Do these seem reasonable responses?
Of course, it may just be that they want to deduct money from my wife's self-employment, which is of course fine. But the language being used when we do get messages on our journal seems much more severe than that - and having had the whole claim closed previously, we just feel completely stressed.
Our UC claim is obviously different from the ordinary ones, and has so many moving parts to it. Even to the fact that my Grant is paid in 3 chunks over the course of the year, which UC are aware of from my Grant paperwork (and they've just amortised the annual amount over the course of the year as a monthly amount). But this means at different points we have been over the savings threshold, because for example in April each year we've been given 5 months of our rent (which is paid monthly) & the living grant in one payment. And, as I mentioned, aside from our original application in Feb 22, we have never inputted the income amounts ourself; we have just sent in my grant calculations, and UC themselves have decided what we should be paid.
Also, in order to help us with budgeting we have 3 different bank accounts & one of those accounts is split into 'pots,' like Monzo - which help us distinguish what each piece of money is for. As & when they finally receive our bank statements for our UC account, they will presumably then want us to send in the other accounts. We are already beyond tired, and beyond stressed. And dread to think how long it will take them to comb through over 2 years worth of 3 accounts. We just want this to end, and can't face it taking months and months more to find out if they are going to decide they themselves made an error in our payments.

Just had a great experience calling into Barclays, and wanted to share my experience/info in case it's helpful to anyone else:
I applied earlier this week for the Barclays Aviator Red Mastercard to take advantage of the 60k + 10k (adding authorized user) AA miles intro bonus with no minimum spend. I was hoping for approval online, but instead got the "Thanks for your application....we're in the process of reviewing....it may take up to 10 business days" message. For the last few days, I've been checking Barclays' online app status page, but it just showed the same "10 day" message. I tried to be patient but got antsy today and decided to call the reconsideration line for more info (4 business days since applying).
The first agent asked basic verification info to pull up my application, and within 5 minutes said "I see you've been approved but the account just hasn't been created which is why you're seeing the status message online." She transferred me to the Card Services department who would help create the account. Due to some system issues (no one's fault), the agent in Card Services said she couldn't create the account immediately, but that it was escalated and I'd hear back via email within 24 hours. She reiterated that I was approved and that it wasn't anything to do with my application. I asked if she could just confirm the intro bonus offer was noted, and she confirmed the 60k +10k with adding an authorized user. The whole call was just 15 minutes with pleasant jazz hold music for about 2 minutes of that time. The agents were SO friendly, helpful, and kind.
When I was speaking with Card Services, she mentioned that she saw I was approved by "all 3 departments" so I asked for more info just out of curiosity. The 3 departments are:

• Credit Services
• Security
• Card Services

If there's an issue with one of the departments, the application is flagged and it's likely if you call in for reconsideration you'll be speaking with that specific department for details. For example, if there were some discrepancies in your address, you'd likely be clarifying this with Security.
Some DPs about my approval:

• Agents told me I was approved for $22k credit limit
• Inquiry status (not including this app)
  • 2/12, 4/24
  • Most recent approval was January 2024
• $127k income
• FICO 808, TU 812, Experian 798 (from Chase)
• I don't bank with Barclays and only have 1 Barclays card that I only use once every year or so.

​
​
​

Do you think snake particularly ball pythons are discriminated based on their colouring? Hear me out, I have a piebald banana and when I tell people I get the usual mixed reactions but weirdly the type who “hate” snakes usually relax once they actually see her. I’ll get a “it’s still not for me but she’s kind of cute”. Most recent example, have been looking for a new flat and been rejected a lot for having a snake. Decided to bring it up in text accompanied by a few pictures and got a reconsideration (hopefully I get it).
My hypothesis is that is that maybe if she had more of a normal colouring people wouldn’t be as receptive and people would think she’s more scary? I only have one ball python so I can’t exactly test this hypothesis.

Call me crazy, but since I've been more in touch with pre-columbian american history, more and more events from the series looked like references to the pain that native inhabitants felt when Europeans invaded their lands and health.
First and the most obvious one: The migration of the creatures after Trollberg was secured. Greatly important to the series' lore, it's source of questions for Hilda, because WHY couldn't Edmund Alhberg JUST make peace with the creatures? In modern times, this is obvious, but back centuries ago it wasn't. Instead, the opinion was to KILL them to provide further expansion of the humans. Sounds familiar? The creatures are the Native Americans (which Europe treats stereotypically as creatures) and the humans are limited to European colonizers and its descendents. In decorrence to this:
Second metaphor: The (almost) extinction of giants. The taller giants, as revealed in "The Giantslayer", felt that the world wasn't their place anymore, that they needed to go, feeling that transcends universes (because remember, Hilda was at an alternate universe in that episode), and they simply disappeared never to be seen again. Some shorter giants survived, even if their population is also scarce. The first act, in this case, is the extinction of cultures that were once strong and flexible, those dying along with its populations, with little to no further trace. The indigenous that do survived in real life struggled (and still struggle) to maintain its culture apart from the invasors, being treated as all the same thing by Europe, similar situation to the modern giants which are compared to its predecessors.
Third and final metaphor: The trolls' resistence and pacification. Whatever the situation was, some surviving natives were in fear and feared by colonizers, even invading villages. Same thing with trolls, which atttack human settlements at night. Here we go back to the old indigenous thinking of extermination, to make further colonial progress. Erik Ahlberg's plan was to make trolls to fell so much pain with bells (which could be equivalent to diseases, traps or the europeans themselves) that they would cease to exist, or flee far from Trollberg at minimum, not even realizing that WE humans INVADED their ancestral lands with no second thinking and reconsideration. And to make matters worse, history about rational thinking was and is (in real life) censored by governments, like how the Trollberg Safety Patrol does to the news. Because of this, the rocky creatures were enough of suffering and decided to invade Trollberg to retake lands. It was only with Hilda showing truth to the situation that trolls and humans were pacified, even with some disagreement. One example of "Hilda" is Brazilian Marechal Cândido Rondon, who created the Serviço de Proteção aos Índios (SPI) or in english, "Service of Indian Protection" to pacify the already declining populations under the thinking of "Die, if necessary. Kill, never", influenced by positivist philosophy. Of course, pacification was way harder than in Hilda's universe, and be in Brazil or New Zealand, acceptance in relation to these first nations of sorts is growing only now, since the end of the 20th century.
Side note: One edgy metaphor for those rock-eating bugs in the Stone Forest is the exploration of natural resources in already inhabited areas, like rubber from rubber trees or agriculture/livestock like coffee, soy and meat, taking swaths of land in the name of global economy.
What do you think of these metaphors? Did I go too far for a simple show or it's too focused in Brazil, where I live? Let me know in the comments!

Here is a back and forth comment from me and another person. I just filled out my app and submitted it. But i didn't see no wherd to state why i couldn't work any longer or why. Can i edit it some way or am i screwed for sure. Thanks in advance for any help or information.
His comment Just to reiterate a couple of points you made: 1. Not writing about the correct things on the initial application... You need to specifically state how long you can stand, sit, walk. You may be able to walk into a Dr appt., but can't go further than 100 yards. Examples like this need to be written into the application. MAGIC WORDS!

1. The denial rate is crazy! Upon first application, only proven catastrophic disabilities are approved. The only person I know who passed at this step had stage 4 cancer. You HAVE to apply for reconsideration. Even then, the majority of people are still denied. Most people who are successful win at the hearing level.
   
2. Dr., Dr., Dr. You have to be able to show what you're saying is legitimate. Make sure your Dr knows you can only walk so far, you can only lift so much, you can't use a phone, etc
   

Mine What do you mean the initial application? The one you fill out online? I didn't see anywhere to write about what you can and cant do. Did i completely blow it? Because my application is being reviewed right now for several mental disabilities that meet the ssa requirements. And also scoliosis that hasn't been properly documented as well.

why would anyone need an excuse?
the audaciousness is actually disrespectful as fuck.
why would someone have to generate an excuse to leave a relationship?
i feel like that’s not the type of thing someone comes to lightly, like maybe things can take place to make situations take place prematurely. but i don’t think anything like leaving a relationship would actually happen abruptly or carelessly unless it had long been an intention.
maybe the same boundaries no longer apply after reconsideration?
i’ve seen pushing people away work several times over. honestly the only way i’ve ever been able to push people away is to tell people directly how i felt about them (which honestly doesn’t usually work they just come back)
or by showing them the way they have made me feel. this is where i can see why retaliation is wrong, because it would be crossing your own boundaries. its one of the few things that genuinely put a bad enough taste in people’s mouth to where they no longer have to wonder what it is that you’ve been trying to get across to them, especially when you’re not very good at conveying it. you can show people things much better than you can tell them.
it’s not really about loosening the grip that someone has on you. because they don’t truly have one.
it’s more about actually conveying messages that you have otherwise been unable to convey. i think that being unable to communicate certain messages to people over an extended period of time led me to discover that you can communicate through action much more effectively
i don’t really have any people that are interested or invested enough in communicating to actually bring things to resolve in that fashion. in which cases showing them better than i can ever tell them is the only thing that has ever gotten their attention. otherwise they just dismiss the situation, assign their own meaning and walk away. it’s always been the case that i couldn’t let on exactly what i thought my feelings were. because this is the only way i was able to keep from being repeatedly mistaken and misunderstood. and eventually i stopped trying to be understood by them altogether
i don’t give give a fuck who feels what way about that. cry to your mama about it.
sometimes things are not guilt tripping. it may just be calling them as you see them.
and making someone cross their own boundaries is probably manipulation. but that’s something that’s been done to me for my whole ass life
i had been trying to communicate basic shit to the people around me for so long that when i decided i no longer gave a shit, for it to be a problem is almost laughable.
most of the things i’ve seen the people around me do are laughable.
like so much so that i genuinely have no desire to continue my relationships with them.
they have always been fucking full of shit and self absorbed ass individuals who have no ability to consider view points outside of their own.
and they’ve always taken my own ability to look at things and not really see them one way or another and tried to force direction on them.
and so it’s really hard to see why retaliation in situations like that aren’t an acceptable way to respond.
people who have demonstrated their willingness to communicate or their feelings towards others in the past with repetition and unwavering stillness always coming back to the same places over and over again will never be the kind of people who i feel okay with allowing into my inner world.
it’s always been that way and honestly i’m really happy that i’ve allowed it to take place this way.
the priorities that i had as a child weren’t for no reason. they have never changed even when i wanted to change them, because of a lack of willingness of those people to be brought into certain shit
as much as they may want to deny things that interfere with their own narratives that they’ve always had for themselves, i don’t actually operate in that same way. which is why they are so grossly unaware of the actual values, feelings and events that make up the person that i am.
and i find it ever funnier that i could have struggled so immensely in their faces so long even telling them along the way, that they suddenly feel a need to try and express or dictate anything.
its the same way that things have always been because they are the exact same people that they have always been.
and i really hate that for them and myself. the difference now is one of the biggest influences ive ever had in letting things go for the sake of the family is no longer alive
and ive been able to more reasonably examine some of those priorities that i upheld for and on her behalf
and while there are lots of those i still feel called to uphold, i feel the need to intervene on what and how those same ideals are continued going forward.
i personally couldnt give a fuck about so many of the things that held her back in her own life.
but what i won’t do is sit back and let absolute bullshit be conveyed on my behalf. especially because i never did it to anyone else.
you can prioritize people forever but they will never do that shit for you in the same way.
and instead of betray anyone i decided to keep my own business to myself.
i couldn’t give a fuck how that makes anyone else feel. especially people who have never given a fuck how i feel.
and to go to extreme lengths to convey a message that i have earnestly tried to discuss with them is just another example of the type of fuck ass fickle ass adults that raised me.
and there are so many times where i have fantasized about leaving them and never seeing them again.
its only because of them repeatedly expressing a desire to make changes repeatedly to me over my whole ass life that i continue to go around in the same cycles with them.
but i stopped believing them a while ago. people who have had several chances to actually do things differently will never really do that shit.
they do the things that are convenient to them when they are convenient to them. this has always and probably will always be the case.
they are full of fucking shit and i don’t care about how they feel anymore.
if my grandma can lose her life behind the same bullshit that caused me to wanna take mine for my whole life then clearly these people will never understand their own roles or positions in anything.
and they will always go great lengths to stay the spoiled ass fucking stupid ass adults that they are. and this is why they will never deserve to know the person that i have become over time and i couldn’t give a shit how righteous and validated they feel. they always have felt this way.
they have their good moments but ultimately they are the same people they were 22 years ago.
that same thing doesn’t apply to me. i have changed a lot over time in many ways that they have not been able to witness.
and my values and beliefs have largely stayed in tact.
i still don’t believe in just telling a story in someone’s absence. and its funny because you can use facts to quiet noise when there’s a bunch of static. i chose keeping them out of things over the other options a long time ago because the family that i have was never meant for me. it was never built for me, and it’s so convenient that the people who raised me remember things much differently then they occurred.
as i’ve gotten older i’ve noticed that there’s no point in trying to get them to agree to the things that have been my experience. even in shifting and adjusting those things to fit into their own lens, they still have refused to show any consideration for a perspective that doesn’t belong to them.
so i said fuck it completely, especially as my own personal life began to come apart and i was never able to get the help that i was seeking out.
i’ve always handled my own issues on my own because that’s the hand that i’ve been dealt. so ive been pretty far removed from giving a damn about how other people feel about the way i move when it comes to my family. but what i haven’t been able to shake is the amount of anger i feel from them continuing to chose not to see me when i have done so much fucking back bending for their selfish asses. it’s like people not providing them the same amount of space to be stuck up their own asses has always been an attack on them.
so it made a lot of sense when keeping the same energy they have had for me had such a profound effect on them.
they have never been me, and they have never had any insight into most of the shit that has to do with me. and for the longest amount of time i have said fuck it.
but i don’t care anymore about their feelings or about supposed roles and relationships and im saying fuck it.
ive always had the concerns i’ve had for very valid reasons and i love how validating eventuation is.

Disability Rights UK (DRUK) says that the government has failed to create any transformative change in progressing disabled people's rights
Reporting on evidence provided to the UN Committee for the Rights of Disabled People, charity says government's failure to properly engage with the process is an 'insult to all disabled people'.
In 2016, the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of Disabled People carried out an inquiry examining the cumulative impact of legislation, policies and measures adopted by the UK since 2010 on social security, work and employment, directed to or affecting disabled people.
With the Committee having concluded that the UK Government's welfare reforms had led to 'systemic violations' of disabled people and hindered their right to live independently, an evidence session was held yesterday in which government representatives were questioned further on subjects including benefit related deaths and the 'trauma-inducing' effect of the social security system.
However, despite the 'detailed and thoughtful' questioning, DRUK CEO Kamran Mallick observed that the government's response 'lacked any substantive answers' -

'Although we are not surprised by the UK Government’s response today, we still feel that their refusal to properly engage with this process is an insult to all Disabled people whose experiences are reflected in the evidence we’ve provided to the UN. Despite requesting a delay last year, they have provided us with no new evidence – instead signposting to plans and policies that create no transformative change. The delegation shared all the ways they believe they’ve created progress for Disabled people’s rights - but they know, just as we do, that no progress has been made. In fact, we have gone backwards. Accessing our basic support is not a luxury – whether that be getting a GP appointment on the day that you call, or having a social security system that works for all of us. Just because our Government refuse to take responsibility on their failure to deliver this, that doesn’t mean that it’s not unacceptable.'

In response to questions in the House of Commons about the right to social protection under article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled People, DWP Minister Mims Davies said -

'I am pleased to have this opportunity to make it clear to the House that the Government are committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and we look forward to outlining the UK’s progress on advancing the rights of disabled people across this country. Our National Disability Strategy and the Disability Action Plan are delivering tangible progress. This includes ensuring that disabled customers can use the services they are entitled to, as we have spelled out today. Disabled people’s needs are better reflected in planning for emergencies as well. We are making sure that this country is the most accessible and, importantly, equal place to live in the world.'

For more information, see UN Rapporteurs question UK government over benefits deaths and austerity from disabilityrightsuk.org
​
​
​
Parliamentary Ombudsman recommends that DWP compensates women affected by its failure to adequately communicate changes to state pension age, and asks Parliament to intervene to hold it to account
'Unacceptable' that the Department has clearly indicated that it will refuse to do the right thing, Ombudsman says, calling for Parliament to act swiftly in making make sure a compensation scheme is established.
The Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman (PHSO) has published its final report on the DWP's failure to adequately inform women about changes to their state pension age, recommending that it compensates those affected. With the Department also clearly indicating that it will refuse to comply, the Ombudsman has asked Parliament to intervene to hold it to account.
Note: the proposed changes to women's state pension age were introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 (which provided for a rise in women's pension age from 60 to 65) and the Pensions Act 2007 (which included provision to increase both men's and women's pension age to 66 between 2024 and 2026, to 67 by 2036, and to 68 by 2046). However, the Pensions Act 2011 sped up the timetable and, for some women born in the 1950s, the combined effect of the 1995 Act and 2011 Act meant an increase in state pension age of up to six years at relatively short notice.
Further to its stage one report on complaints from women born in the 1950s - which found maladministration in how the DWP failed to make reasonable or prompt decisions in 2005 and 2006 about targeting information and contacting individuals affected by the changes - the PHSO shared its provisional views for the second stage of its investigation that focused on injustices resulting from the maladministration delay. While the Ombudsman conceded that this report was 'legally flawed' following legal action by the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign group, it has today published its final report that combines stages two and three of its investigation.
Setting out its conclusion about the maladministration identified during stage one, the final report says that -

'DWP failed to take adequate account of the need for targeted and individually tailored information when making decisions about next steps in August 2005. That was maladministration. In 2006, DWP first proposed direct mail to women whose state pension age was between 60 and 65. It then failed to act promptly on that proposal, or to give due weight to how much time had already been lost since the 1995 Pensions Act. That was also maladministration.'

As to the injustice caused by maladministration, the report says -

'We find that maladministration in DWP's communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control. We do not find that it resulted in them suffering direct financial loss.'

In relation to the Ombudsman's thinking on remedies for affected individuals, the report highlights that -

'... there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have also suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP's communication about the 1995 Pensions Act. We would have recommended DWP remedy their injustice.'

To that end, the Ombudsman takes account of guidance on financial remedy and its 'severity of injustice scale' -

'We have explained our thinking about where on our severity of injustice scale the sample complainants’ injustice sits. We would have recommended they are paid compensation at level 4 of the scale.'

Ranging between a nil award at Level 1, to £10,000 or more at level 6, the Ombudsman decides that a level 4 award (of between £1,000 and £2,950) is appropriate for affected individuals in order to provide compensation for lost opportunities to make different choices. A level 4 award is made where there is -

'... a significant and/or lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a relatively normal life. The injustice will go beyond 'ordinary' distress or inconvenience, except where this has been for a very prolonged period of time. The failure could be expected to have some lasting impact on the person affected. The matter may ‘take over’ their life to some extent.'

Looking ahead to how the DWP should respond to the recommendations in its final report, the Ombudsman highlights that, while it is unusual for an organisation it investigates not to accept and act on its recommendations -

'What DWP has told us during this investigation leads us to strongly doubt it will provide a remedy. Complainants have also told us they doubt DWP's ability or intent to provide a remedy.'

As a result, the Ombudsman advises that -

'Given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, we are taking the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene. We are laying our report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act and asking Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice. We think this will provide the quickest route to remedy for those who have suffered injustice because of DWP's maladministration.'

PHSO Chief Executive Rebecca Hilsenrath said 21 March -

'The UK's national Ombudsman has made a finding of failings by DWP in this case and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. This is unacceptable. The Department must do the right thing and it must be held to account for failure to do so. Complainants should not have to wait and see whether DWP will take action to rectify its failings. Given the significant concerns we have that it will fail to act on our findings and given the need to make things right for the affected women as soon as possible, we have proactively asked Parliament to intervene and hold the Department to account. Parliament now needs to act swiftly, and make sure a compensation scheme is established. We think this will provide women with the quickest route to remedy.'

For more information, see DWP failed to adequately communicate changes to Women’s State Pension age from ombudsman.org.uk
​
​
​
Work and Pensions Committee has called for an 'uprating guarantee' for working-age benefits and local housing allowance (LHA)
In addition, highlighting the 'fundamental inadequacy' of social security support, Select Committee recommends developing a framework of principles for setting benefit levels that links to living costs as well as work incentives.
In its 2022 Cost of Living Report, the Committee highlighted evidence that suggested a root cause of the financial challenges faced by households lay in the 'fundamental inadequacy' of social security support and recommended that the government should review the adequacy of benefit levels and publish its findings. However, with the government having rejected the recommendation arguing that there was no objective way of deciding what amount benefits should be, the Committee decided to launch an inquiry into whether working-age UK benefit levels are adequate to meet the need of claimants.
Publishing the resultant report on 21 March, the Committee sets out a wide range of evidence which suggests that benefit levels are too low, and that claimants are often not able to afford daily living costs and the extra costs associated with having a health condition or disability. While acknowledging that the experience of claimants has been exacerbated by recent cost of living pressures, the Committee finds that a key difficulty in evaluating the adequacy of benefit levels is that the government has not set objectives for what benefit levels ought to achieve or prevent. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the government's first action should be to develop a framework of principles to inform how benefit levels are set, and to outline objectives linked to living costs as well as work incentives. By way of example, it suggests that the DWP could consider the methodology used in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell Trust’s ‘Essentials Guarantee’.
In addition, the Committee considers what improvements might be made to be made to the procedures used to uprate and scrutinise benefit levels and makes a series of recommendations, including that -

• the DWP should be part of the Extra Costs Taskforce committed to in the government's Disability Action Plan, and use its findings to set a benchmark for the health and disability related costs it intends personal independence payment (PIP) to cover - it should then set out how it intends to reach this benchmark alongside annual uprating;
• the Department should introduce further levels of support through PIP and the new health element of universal credit in time for the start of 2025/2026;
• the government should devise and bring forward further opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise its decisions on benefit uprating;
• from 2025/2026, the government should make an ‘uprating guarantee’ to increase benefits annually in line with a consistent measure, for example prices and, if it decides to deviate from the guarantee, it should clearly set out its reasoning to Parliament;
• the government should commit to uprating the capital limit rules in means-tested benefits, the benefit cap and the earnings threshold in carer’s allowance on an annual basis;
• in the longer term, and following the completion of migration to universal credit, the government should aim to reduce the length of time between the measure of inflation used for uprating, and the uprating implementation date;
• the Household Support Fund should be made a permanent feature of the social security system so that local authorities are better able to plan their provision of discretionary support to households; and
• there should be a commitment to annually uprate the LHA so that it retains its value at the 30th percentile of rents in a Broad Rental Market Area.

Also highlighting the range of measures announced in the last year that increase the focus on employment support and conditionality for claimants, such as proposed increases to the Administrative Earnings Threshold and the expansion of Additional Jobcentre Support, the Committee expresses concern that there is not sufficient capacity in the system to absorb the increased workload, and it recommends that -

'To improve transparency, the Department should include in its quarterly statistics release, the number of work coaches and the average number of claimants they are responsible for. This would help inform an understanding of the pressures on work coaches, provide information on the number of Work Coaches working in Jobcentres and help inform an assessment of whether there is sufficient work coach capacity in the system.'

Chair of the Committee Sir Stephen Timms said -

'It is right that our benefit system incentivises work, but it should also provide an effective safety net for jobseekers, people on low incomes, carers and those with disabilities. We have heard plenty of evidence that benefits are currently at a level that leaves many unable to afford daily essentials or meet the unavoidable extra costs associated with having a health impairment or disability. The government has previously said that it is not possible to come up with an objective way of deciding what benefits should be. Our recommendations are a response to that challenge, and the ball is now back in the Government’s court. On top of acknowledging and acting on a new benchmark and objectives linked to living costs, Ministers should commit to consistent uprating of benefits each year. It is time to end the annual ‘will they or won’t they’ speculation and all the worry that brings to those who rely on the social security system for financial support. The Household Support Fund has provided a vital layer of additional support for households during the cost of living crisis. The government should build on the extension announced in the Budget, and make it a permanent part of the social security system to allow councils to continue to reach those in their local areas who most need help.'

For more information, see Benefit levels in the UK: MPs call for cost of living benchmark and annual uprating guarantee from parliament.uk
​
​
​
New poverty and low income statistics suggest that this parliament is on course to be the worst on record for living standards, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)
The IFS also highlights that 'absolute poverty' has now reverted to around its pre-pandemic level of 18 per cent, or 12 million people, as have poverty rates for groups including children, workers, pensioners and private renters.
In the annual Households below average income statistics published 21 March, the DWP highlights there was a decrease in real terms median household income between the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 financial years of 0.5 per cent before housing costs (BHC) and 1.5 per cent after housing costs (AHC), reversing the broadly equivalent increases reported last year. The figures also show that most of the income distribution experienced a fall in real household incomes BHC, with slightly larger reductions (averaging around 2 per cent) seen in the bottom half of the income distribution.
Commenting on the poverty rates, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlights how many individuals are affected, noting that -

• 600,000 more people in 2022/2023 compared to 2021/2022, half of them children, are living in absolute poverty, the government's preferred measure of poverty;
• in comparison to 2020/2021, 900,000 more people are living in absolute poverty, 400,000 of them children; and
• 100,000 more children are living in relative poverty since 2021/22.

For further analysis of the figures in relation to child poverty, see Child poverty reaches record high - failure to tackle it will be 'a betrayal of Britain's children’ from cpag.org.uk
Turning to consider food insecurity data, the statistics show that 89 per cent of working-age adults lived in a food-secure household in 2022/2023, compared to 93 per cent last year. In addition, 24 per cent of relative low income working-age adults BHC were living in households with low or very low food security, up from 17 per cent last year, and 21 per cent prior to the pandemic.
Providing analysis of the figures in broad terms, the IFS highlights that despite the huge amount of government spending to support incomes during both the Covid-19 pandemic and the cost of living crisis -

'… this parliament is on course to be the worst on record for growth in average incomes, with real incomes falling across the majority of the distribution, and average disposable income growth projected to remain low by the Office for Budget Responsibility. ... whilst these figures take account of average inflation, inflationary pressures since late 2021 have not hit everyone equally... Digging further into other indicators of material living standards suggests that the cost of living crisis has been even harder for low-income families than headline income statistics suggest.'

Looking ahead to 2024/2025, the IFS says -

'... it is difficult to predict how well living standards will recover from the significant hit experienced during the cost of living crisis, but there is a significant chance they will remain lower on average than at the beginning of the parliament ... Benefits are set to rise faster than inflation in April, compensating for the withdrawal of cost-of-living payments, and the state pension even faster as a result because of the triple lock. On the other hand, taxes have risen for lower earners and pensioners over the parliament, food price inflation remains higher, and rising rents on new lets and higher mortgage interest rates mean renters entering new tenancies and those coming to the end of fixed rate mortgages are likely to see further increases in their housing costs. All this presents significant challenges for the incoming government, with the OBR forecasting that real incomes are unlikely to return to 2019 levels until 2025. The options for turning things around are limited, given the lack of scope to cut personal taxes or increase benefits due to the public finance challenges. Incomes have risen very little right across the income distribution for a period of fifteen years now, and without greater than expected growth in national income per capita that is unlikely to change soon.'

For more information, see Households below average income: an analysis of the income distribution 1995 to 2023 and Cost of Living Support - impact on Households Below Average Income FYE 2023 low-income statistics from gov.uk
While the new DWP statistics present information on living standards across the UK, the Scottish Government has published its own figures in Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland and Persistent Poverty in Scotland, saying that these show that poverty levels in Scotland have remained broadly stable. In addition, the Welsh government has published Relative income poverty: April 2022 to March 2023.
​
​
​
DWP published a new document outlining its policy and practice for supporting claimants with additional support needs
The new publication outlines current policy and practice and plans including for the use of AI and speech analytics to identify vulnerable claimants.
Introducing Additional Support for DWP Customers, the Department says that -

'Building on the work of DWP’s Customer Experience teams, this document sets out how DWP is currently supporting customers with additional support needs and explains what we have planned and our future aspirations, considering new technology and modernisation of our services.'

The document goes on to set out DWP policy and practice in the following areas -
Ensuring claimants get the support they need, including -

• additional support for claimants at serious risk of harm, neglect or abuse through frontline operational staff and Advanced Customer Support Senior Leaders;
• a Six Point Plan for DWP staff to follow when they identify a claimant who may be at risk of harming themselves;
• identifying those who may need additional support, including those who are digitally excluded, when reviewing universal credit claims for accuracy;
• as of January 2024, providing personal independence payment claimants who require email as a reasonable adjustment with access to some letters via the GOV.UK Notify online portal;
• partnerships including the Operational Stakeholder Engagement forum and the Reasonable Adjustments Forum;
• the Serious Case Panel and the Independent Case Examiner; and
• a DWP Debt Management Vulnerability Framework to provide guidance for staff on how to support claimants who are or are at risk of becoming vulnerable, including sign posting to specialist support.

The use of technology and changes in practice, including -

• the establishment of a Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) Lighthouse Programme to focus on the adoption of AI in a 'safe, transparent, ethical and considered way';
• exploring how AI can help identify claimants who need support at the earliest opportunity;
• using speech analytics software to transcribe and analyse calls to provide insight, including where a claimant may be at risk of harm, with plans to expand the capability to identify claimants experiencing vulnerability within the new telephony system the Department is procuring; and
• implementing a web portal that will allow claimants to self-serve simple information enquiries relating to their benefits and to notify changes of circumstances.

Providing claimants with 'fair access and opportunity', including -

• modernising services making use of technology to improve the customer experience, through activities such as the Service Modernisation Programme and the Health Transformation Programme;
• plans to integrate a more trauma informed approach which will support the delivery of better outcomes;
• using partnership networks to identify the changing needs of claimants and inform service delivery; and
• providing additional information regarding the support the Department provides to vulnerable claimants through its Advanced Customer Support Teams - this is expected to be published in late 2024.

The Additional Support for DWP Customers: booklet is available from gov.uk
​
​
​
3.3 million claimants entitled to personal independence payment (PIP) in England and Wales in January 2024, according to new DWP statistics
New DWP statistics also show that more than a third of claimants receive the highest level of award.
In Personal Independence Payment statistics to January 2024, the DWP highlights that the number of PIP claimants has increased by around 100,000 in the three months to 31 January 2024, continuing an upward trend and representing a similar increase to that seen in the previous quarter.
Providing further details of claims activity during the quarter, the figures also show that there were -

• 210,000 registrations and 210,000 clearances for new claims;
• 30,000 changes of circumstance reported and 32,000 cleared;
• 21,000 registrations and 21,000 clearances for disability living allowance (DLA) reassessments;
• 130,000 planned award reviews registered and 120,000 cleared; and
• 71,000 mandatory reconsiderations (MRs) registered and 63,000 cleared.

In addition, the statistics break down the level of PIP award granted to the 2 million successful new claims and 1.3 million successful DLA reassessments currently in payment, highlighting that 36 per cent of all claims with entitlement to PIP as at 31 January 2024 received the highest level of award, with both daily living and mobility components received at the enhanced rate.
The DWP also confirms that the top five recorded disabling conditions for claims under the normal rules were -

• psychiatric disorder (38 per cent of claims);
• musculoskeletal disease (general) (20 per cent of claims);
• neurological disease (12 per cent of claims);
• musculoskeletal disease (regional) (12 per cent of claims); and
• respiratory disease (4 per cent of claims).

Elsewhere, the DWP provides details of review outcomes for changes in circumstances and planned reviews at the end of award periods for the last five years that reflect how outcomes of the two review types vary. For example, almost half (46 per cent) of change of circumstances reviews led to an increased award compared to 19 per cent of planned reviews; more than half (52 per cent) of planned reviews resulted in no change compared to 37 per cent of change of circumstances reviews; and twice as many planned reviews than change of circumstances reviews resulted in a disallowance (20 per cent and 9 per cent respectively).
For more information, see Personal Independence Payment statistics to January 2024 from gov.uk
While the DWP also reports separately on PIP for Scotland, the Scottish Government has also published its own quarterly statistics Personal Independence Payment to January 2024: summary statistics and Adult Disability Payment: high-level statistics to 31 January 2024.