The Government fails to help over one million vulnerable elderly people

[natalie]

The Government has a scheme helping elderly citizens heat their houses through tough winters, namely the Warm Front Scheme. This, in theory, sounds like a good thought through idea. However, when investigating if pensioners need help with heating their houses the Scheme uses means- testing. This obviously means that elderly people that have been saving money all their lives, elderly people not already getting benefits from the government, fall through the cracks of the system, leaving over 1 million pensioners excluded from getting the help they need.

The pensioners that are allegeable for the grants get up to £2700 which pays for both central heating and loft insulations. However, according to a report from the Nation Audit Office (NAO), nearly 2 million people were left without any assistance as they did not claim the relevant benefits, such as Pension Credit, Housing benefit or Council Tax benefits, and so where not qualified to receive the grant.

Joe Harris, NPC general secretary said: “It’s about time the government realised that means-testing and pensioners simply don’t mix. At worst it means that millions of older people who are living in fuel poverty, but don’t claim benefits, are missing out on getting help to keep their homes warm. The most efficient way of getting help to the poorest in our society is not through some Victorian notion of having a deserving poor – but through universal schemes that give people support in a dignified way.”

The failure of the scheme coupled with the current financial situation has had a devastating outcome; one in three elderly people can’t afford to heat their houses, and so large numbers of elderly people die of cold related illnesses.

What does everyone think? Is this really tolerable?

[Midas]

The Government has a scheme helping elderly citizens heat their houses through tough winters, namely the Warm Front Scheme. This, in theory, sounds like a good thought through idea. However, when investigating if pensioners need help with heating their houses the Scheme uses means- testing. This obviously means that elderly people that have been saving money all their lives, elderly people not already getting benefits from the government, fall through the cracks of the system, leaving over 1 million pensioners excluded from getting the help they need.

The pensioners that are allegeable for the grants get up to £2700 which pays for both central heating and loft insulations. However, according to a report from the Nation Audit Office (NAO), nearly 2 million people were left without any assistance as they did not claim the relevant benefits, such as Pension Credit, Housing benefit or Council Tax benefits, and so where not qualified to receive the grant.

Joe Harris, NPC general secretary said: “It’s about time the government realised that means-testing and pensioners simply don’t mix. At worst it means that millions of older people who are living in fuel poverty, but don’t claim benefits, are missing out on getting help to keep their homes warm. The most efficient way of getting help to the poorest in our society is not through some Victorian notion of having a deserving poor – but through universal schemes that give people support in a dignified way.”

The failure of the scheme coupled with the current financial situation has had a devastating outcome; one in three elderly people can’t afford to heat their houses, and so large numbers of elderly people die of cold related illnesses.

What does everyone think? Is this really tolerable?

Hi Natalie, and welcome to the forum - may your stay be full of support for the right wing

But as regards your comment, this government does indeed seem to be letting many people, and not just the elderly, slip through cracks in its policies, I suspect because many of the schemes like Warm Front have been rushed through so as to 'be seen to be doing something' but without too much thought as to whether the schemes themselves work properly. It's all front but no substance.

I'm not so sure that means-testing doesn't work though. You have to define some criteria by which to apply the rules, and income and savings are the only ones which are applicable. I will agree that the thresholds would appear to be way out and the baseline figure of what's regarded as a livable income is way too low, but how else can you make an assessment?

If it's based on age alone there'll be tens of thousands of pensioners who have substantial incomes and assets qualifying, undoubtedly accompanied by shouts of "why should they get free or subsidised... whatever" from those who haven't. Given that grants are going to be made available, what other option is there?

The issue of whether people who might qualify for benefits is really a separate one. There's no shortage of government advice and information on who can claim what and under what circumstances available to the public. If someone who does qualify either doesn't find out what they're entitled to or doesn't claim it, that's not the government's fault if they subsequently miss out. The phrase "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" springs to mind here; you can't physically search out everyone who might qualify for some benefit or other. A degree of personal responsibility on the individual's part comes into play.

The whole system is wrong, that much I'll readily agree, and like so much else in government, irrespective of party politics, it needs a total overhaul from the ground up. What we have at the moment is the usual tinkering around the edges, which is almost guaranteed to make a bad situation even worse.

[Amelia]

To be honest guys, i think this is fair enough. Pensioners on state benefits must be struggling more, else they wouldnt need state benefits! how else is the government supposed to do it?!

[Midas]

To be honest guys, i think this is fair enough. Pensioners on state benefits must be struggling more, else they wouldnt need state benefits! how else is the government supposed to do it?!

Hi Amelia, and another welcme to the forum

Perhaps part of the problem with pensioners not knowing their entitlements is due to the fact that an increasing number of payments, both benefits and pensions, are made by direct transfer to their bank account, so the opportunity of including advisory leaflets when either cheques were sent out or people called at their local Post Office has diminished significantly.

I've been giving this a little more thought, and I really can't see any other fair way of assessing entitlement other than means testing. Simply saying "You're over 65 therefore you can get these grants" will inevitably diminish the pot by virtue of those who could pay, simply not doing so.

[Opinionated]

I believe that everybody who is claiming a state pension is entitled to some level of fuel allowence regardless of individual wealth, the amount is dependent on age, income, health etc. Of course if the energy companies were nationalised then it wouldn't be a problem giving cheaper energy to the vunerable!

[Midas]

Of course if the energy companies were nationalised then it wouldn't be a problem giving cheaper energy to the vunerable!

Absolutely, let the tax-paying public pick up the bill yet again...

[Citizen Smith]

Well, at least we now know that competition doesn't necessarily mean low prices.

[natalie]

Midas- I can totally see your point. But when 90% of all excess deaths, 23.300 elderly people died of cold related illnesses between December 2007 and March 2008, and at the same time £1.3 billion in Pension Credit goes unclaimed there must be something wrong with the system! I am aware that pensioners probably are not aware, or unable to claim the money and instead 'make due' as you said, but maybe just that makes means-testing inefficient!

Something is wrong, and if we can't find a better solution then maybe it is up to us, the tax-payers, to make sure the weakest and most vulnerable people in our community don't die of reasons that are easily fixed.

What do you think?

[Midas]

Midas- I can totally see your point. But when 90% of all excess deaths, 23.300 elderly people died of cold related illnesses between December 2007 and March 2008, and at the same time £1.3 billion in Pension Credit goes unclaimed there must be something wrong with the system! I am aware that pensioners probably are not aware, or unable to claim the money and instead 'make due' as you said, but maybe just that makes means-testing inefficient!

Something is wrong, and if we can't find a better solution then maybe it is up to us, the tax-payers, to make sure the weakest and most vulnerable people in our community don't die of reasons that are easily fixed.

What do you think?

I totally agree with you that something is wrong with the system; that's pretty self-evident. What I do personally find strange, even though there mightn't be the degree of communication between pensioners (or welfare claimants come to that) and the government there could/should be, is that there are still so many people in ignorance about what they can or can't claim. Short of physically going round on a door by door basis to every registered OAP or claimant to actually guide people through their entitlement, I can't see a (cost effective) solution other than to rely on people taking responsibility for themselves, or having another member of their family do so if they're incapable in any way.

Part of the problem is that a lot of older people are very proud and refuse to ask for help even though they might be entitled to it; how do you handle that one? I certainly don't know short of physically putting money, assuming you know whether they're entitled to it, in their hands and relying on them to spend it accordingly.

The subject of means testing though is a rather different one, but again I can't see a better solution to determining exactly how much each and every claimant should get than to assess their financial state and scale the benefit/grant on that. But as I already pointed out, thresholds certainly do need to be reassessed quite substantially, both as regards income and assets.

A government can only do so much, beyond that it's down to those involved to speak for themselves.