Universal credit sanctions more ‘severe’ and ‘damaging’ than criminal fines, report finds

Universal credit sanctions are “higher and more severe” than the average criminal court fine, new research has revealed.

Claimants lose 100% of their universal credit standard allowance as a result of a sanction. Public Law Project’s new report found that this equated to a loss of £525 for a single claimant over the age of 25 sanctioned for the median length of time in May 2025.

The average court fine issued to people who had been convicted of a crime in single justice procedure cases was £283 in 2024, by comparison.

These are minor, non-imprisonable criminal offences, such as driving or TV licence offences, that are decided by a single magistrate and a legal adviser in private.

Read more:

• Universal credit sanctions ‘undermine’ Jobcentre employment support, DWP warned by MPs
• DWP penalises universal credit claimant despite getting new job: ‘Congratulations – you’re sanctioned’
• Don’t listen to JP Morgan. Britain’s benefits system is dire 

Researchers at Public Law Project also argue that the sanction is likely to be “more damaging” than criminal court fines. While universal credit claimants lose 100% of their benefit, criminal court fines can often be paid in instalments.

The weekly sanction amount for a single universal credit claimant over the age of 25 is £91.70. In contrast, the recommended weekly instalment for a count fine for someone receiving benefits is £10.

The government said in its Pathways to Work green paper that sanctions should be used as a “last resort” and that there should be “safeguards to ensure vulnerable people are properly protected”. However, Public Law Project has found that sanctions are frequently applied for first-time ‘failures’.

This includes in circumstances where something has happened which is out of the claimant’s control – such as a health emergency or when digital and language barriers have made it difficult to navigate the benefits system.

Caroline Selman, senior researcher at Public Law Project, said: “Government must be mindful of the experience and realities of individuals who face additional barriers to engaging with the system, including where people are digitally excluded, face language barriers or who are navigating an unfamiliar system, for example as a refugee.

“The solution is not to simply improve access to appeals or make tweaks to the safeguards that apply (although those things are also needed) – the current regime has been shown to fail on its own terms and should be revoked or failing that, fundamentally reformed.”

Public Law Project found that more than four in five cases (86%) that were supported to appeal were decided in favour of the person sanctioned.

Claire Stern, deputy chief executive of Central England Law Centre said: “When 86% of appealed sanctions are overturned, the issue is not individual non-compliance – it is a system that penalises people for circumstances they cannot control, blocks access to justice and ignores the barriers they face.

“The government’s claim that sanctions operate as a last resort is wholly at odds with the lived reality of the people we support. Until this regime is revoked or fundamentally reformed, people will continue to experience avoidable hardship, worsening health, and prolonged exclusion from work. Meaningful change requires a system that understands people’s lives, not one that punishes them.”

Sanctions have led to claimants needing to use food banks, incurring debt and suffering with their mental and physical health – which can lead to a reduced ability to search for and undertake work.

A DWP spokesperson said: “We’re determined to get more people into good, secure jobs. That’s why we are stepping up our plan to Get Britain Working with the most ambitious employment reforms in a generation, as well as modernising Jobcentres and providing tailored support through the Connect to Work programme.  

“As we shift our focus from welfare to work, skills, and opportunities, it is right that there are obligations to engage with employment support, look for work and to take jobs when they are offered.”

However, Selman said that the DWP’s sanctions regime is “counterproductive – knocking people back and blocking their pathway to work rather than opening it up”.

The average time for Central England Law Centre cases to reach a tribunal hearing was seven months. Selman claimed that “reimbursement of unlawful sanctions at that stage, does not adequately compensate for the harm caused by a period of extreme financial hardship already experienced”.

Public Law Project and the Central England Law Centre are recommending that the current sanction regime be entirely revoked or fundamentally reformed to ensure sanctions are only ever applied as a genuine last-resort measure, after a clear warning. Sanctions should also be less severe, it said.

It also wants to see stronger safeguards to protect people, particularly for those who face additional barriers when engaging with the system, and for there to be a more accessible review and appeals process.

Researchers are additionally urging the government to take action to understand and be more transparent about who is impacted by universal credit policies, including sanctions and conditionality.

Stern said: “Sanctions are stripping people of the security they need to live, let alone to move into work. Our casework shows the current regime is not only failing on its own terms but driving people into crisis through no fault of their own.”

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

Change a vendor’s life this Christmas.

Buy from your local Big Issue vendor every week – or support online with a vendor support kit or a subscription – and help people work their way out of poverty with dignity.