Paying for advice and help when claiming benefits.

I accidentally started an argument the other day, and I was too busy to return to it, however, seeing as it has just become national news again, I thought I would give it a go..

Is it right to pay for benefits advice?

I don't think it is. Purely on principle. I really genuinely believe that at the point that someone needs to claim benefits is a time that they are in a vulnerable position and prone to being exploited. Although I know there are some genuinely decent ways to get benefits advice, someone who has just lost their job, recently become disabled etc. is in no position to work out who and what is decent.

In recent years the citizens advice bearau and similar have become increasingly rare. Thanks to government cuts the trend is likely to continue. These services are funded in various ways, but at the point of delivery they are free.

The people who need benefits advice are those who have had an unfair decision against them, or perhaps even applying for the first time. Money isn't generally something they have a lot of, otherwise they wouldn't be applying for benefits.

To expect them to pay for the privilege of getting a benefit to which they should be entitled to, is attacking the problem from the wrong angle. Surely, instead of is it right to pay for benefits advice, its better to ask, why are people in need of benefits advice in the first place?

Unfortunately, however the government try to simplify benefits it will always be inherently complex. There will always be conditions of entitlement, and always exceptions to the rule, and rules to the exception. Not only will there be conditions of entitlement, there will be other factors motivating the claim to go a particular way. As is the case with the new sick benefits, where the government has time and time again said that they want to reduce the case load. However, it results in stories like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/19/sickness-benefit-try-avoid-paying

What is even more sickening is the current trend in the jobcentres that results in the most vulnerable being sanctioned because they are seen as 'easy targets'. This coming from a DWP whistle blower in this article here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/01/jobcentres-tricking-people-benefit-sanctions. These claimants, often with complex needs are being denied benefits for up to six months at a time. It would sicken me further to think that these people who have been screwed by the government would then be denied access to any advice because they can't afford to pay.

I know these things cost money, and I know that has to come from somewhere, but shouldn't it come from the very government who administers the benefits and not the people who need the benefits?

I am against charity too, mainly because it then becomes about the deserving and non deserving.  Benefits advice should be free at the point of need, available to all who need it. Especially with the increase of appeals against some benefits, without some serious investment, or increases within legal aid and other sources of income then people will be forced to pay for a service they desperately need. My question is, what will they pay with?