‘Abuse’ of section four voucher scheme leads to more asylum changes
Housing providers cut out of £91m support system
The government has overhauled the way it pays financial support to failed asylum seekers because of suspicions some unscrupulous housing providers were defrauding the system.
The Home Office used to hand out vouchers - like gift cards - via housing providers to failed asylum seekers who receive section four support.
Now it will give electronic cards pre-loaded with money directly to failed asylum seekers to buy items such as food and clothing.
The Home Office said it altered the system because it believed staff at some housing providers were exchanging the vouchers for cash - and taking a cut in the process.
It started to roll out the ‘azure card’ scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland in November. The midlands and the east of England will be the last places to get them in February.
At the end of the third quarter of 2009, 12,020 people were in receipt of section four support.
A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘We have evidence that these vouchers are open to abuse and fraud by service users and accommodation providers and we know they are being traded for cash at reduced values.’
The government was unable to pursue fraud investigations, he added, as it could not cancel lost or stolen vouchers nor track where they were spent. The Home Office paid out £73 million in section four support in 2007/08 and £91 million in 2008/09.
Edin Hromadzic, co-coordinator of destitution services at charity Asylum Support and Immigration Resource Team, said he believed some accommodation providers were simply inefficient and others might have been keeping the money.
A source from section four accommodation provider United Property Management said the decision removed a ‘burden’ from them by freeing up resources. There is no suggestion that anyone working for UPM has done anything wrong.
Sandy Buchan, chief executive at Refugee Action, said it had come across situations where people had not received the correct amount of support under the voucher system.
The move comes just weeks after Inside Housing revealed asylum charities’ fury that other changes to immigration rules mean failed asylum seekers must travel unfunded to Liverpool to make a new submission if they have fresh evidence that could back their claim.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (5)
johnbull | 30/01/2010 9:29 pm
£91 million spent in 2008/9.
Lets make it fraud proof and save money. Stop all these payments. Failed should mean failed.
Why give people false hope. We should stop admitting anymore aslum seekers for at least 20 years and remove those who failed and review those who have been given asylum in the last 20 years.
The masses at Calais will go away if they no there is no chance whatsoever.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alastair Murray | 11/02/2010 2:42 pm
The other issue which needs to be highlighted is that many asylum seekers can make the (tiny amount of) support given under section 4 go much further if they can convert the vouchers to cash. Markets and ethnic food shops are always much cheaper than supermarkets and carry the right foods for people from ethnic monrities. The voucher exchange schemes that I know about - supported by churches and refugee groups - give full face value in exchange.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Smith | 15/02/2010 8:29 am
Point of Fact - People in Section 4 accommodation are those who cannot be returned home due to chronic ill health, or because there is no safe route, or because they have a fresh asylum claim with new evidence. Why then is it necessary to treat them so badly? The new Azure scheme may prevent unscrupulous housing providers from ripping off their clients, but so would a simple cashcard with a chip and pin. It would also mean that the asylum seeker could use the £35 cash for things like bus fares, which you can't get from Tesco or Asda.
No, the real reason behind the Azure card is to force asylum seekers to consider returning home by making them thoroughly miserable. I use my friend's Azure Card each week, and I give him £35 cash in exchange, and I can tell you from experience that the scheme is an absolute farce. Firstly, it only allows you to carry over a maximum of £5 per week, so you can never save up for anything that costs over £40. If you haven't spent it by Monday morning, you lose it, so it's tough if you get the flu on the weekend.
Secondly, if you spend a penny over the amount on your card, it is declined (with no reason given), even if you want to pay the extra with cash. So you have to take a calculator with you every time you shop, to make sure it doesn't exceed what you have on the card.
Thirdly, there was virtually no training in the supermarkets. Some of the till staff had never seen an Azure card before, and had no idea what they were. Some still don't.
And fourthly, the whole system went down last Wednesday from 4.30 to 8 pm - I know, because when I got to the till, the card was declined, even though I had spent only £34.97p of my generous £35. Thankfully, being employed and British, I have a debit card, so I was able to pay for my shopping by other means. If I was an asylum seeker, I would have had to leave my shopping there, and walk home with nothing - and then phone the scheme administrators on my mobile on an 0800 number (which costs), but not until the next day, because they close at 5!
That, my friends, is how asylum seekers are treated in the UK. Shame on us!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 02/03/2010 4:19 am
I have seen people been underpaid when service users are recieving the vouchers.I regret to say this,but a woman i knew was paid five pounds likes by a certain city council housing provider.I was disgusted.This was a well documented fact.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Almamy Taal | 12/04/2010 3:33 pm
What a waste of money!
"The Home Office paid out £73 million in section four support in 2007/08 and £91 million in 2008/09."
1. If UKBA accepted to allow asylum seekers to work, less than a quarter (1/4) of this amount would have been enough to support the most vulnerable with disbilities, serious health problems and unable to work amongst them. The vast majority would have worked, paid taxes, rented accommodations and looked after themselves rather than depending on state support or starving and destitute. UKBA got options to cut this money by 3/4 through human, responsible, sustainable and transparent programmes that would benefit local communities, local councils, businesses, NHS and British economy.
2. Azure card will not contribute to any positive changes but to render a volatile situation worse. The way UKBA deals with immigration (asylum claimants to be precise) are about anything but business. It's an unethical business and no one is held responsible. I.e. (a) people have been detained; others deserted or were evicted from their accommodation while UKBA continued to pay for their accommodation and support to accommodation providers. (b) Many families have not received their maternity grants and additional support allocated by UKBA; (c) some families were accommodated in shared houses while UKBA paid for the equivalent rent of a house for each of them; (d) Missing vouchers is a current dodgy practice; however helping service users to get their back payments is a stressful "ping pong" game contest between UKBA, accommodation providers and charity organisations. This has been made possible because of Home Office stocky bureaucracy, lack of communication and clarity. The Home Office paid out £73 million in section four support in 2007/08 and £91 million in 2008/09." It would be interesting to know how they spent the money and who benefited from it. For the records, i spent 2 years investigating Section 4 complaints, interviewed hundreds of section 4 service users and visited hundreds of section accommodations situated in the West Midlands. Many charity organisations would welcome the implementation of an independent Enquiry Commission for accountability and transparency.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment