We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Crazy JSA Sanction
Comments
-
I disagree, I am in regular contact with a number of ESA claimants that have suffered sanctions wrongfully in connection with Work Programme providers. I post regular updates on what progress I make in an attempt to help others in the same situation.
It needs to be understood that this is a relatively new issue, previously ESA claimants weren't mandated to the Work Programme. HM Gov moved the goalposts after WP providers went whining to the DWP that they weren't getting enough (potentially lucrative) ESA referrals.
Sorry, must be getting confused here, I'm referring to JSA claimants that are capable of work, i have no experience of ESA (i have an idea about what it is, but again, no experience).Professional Data Monkey
0 -
What amuses me is the people that refer to figures and numbers and use it to manipulate their point.
We have figures in my work place, I, along with a few others, do fee-earning work for the unit. A percentage of time per month is used based on what activity we get up to, for example, 60% of my time was used doing fee earning work in November, does this mean I spent 40% of that time doing nothing? I'm sure people could manipulate that to make me out like I spend nearly half of the time doing nothing, when in reality, essential admin and supporting the helpdesk and project managers, attending meetings etc that month accounted for more time than usual. Granted, 60% is about right, but I have been at around 80-90% before.
In the same way that you just did?
Considering that you are passive-aggressively referring to me, perhaps you can highlight where I have manipulated any figures.0 -
In the same way that you just did?
Considering that you are passive-aggressively referring to me, perhaps you can highlight where I have manipulated any figures.
The figures you quoted are meaningless unless you can break it down to the % of those sanctioned where the sanction was not upheld and whose benefits were withheld. For all you know it could be none !Play nice :eek: Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me.:j0 -
I doesn't really matter, the differences between ESA and JSA claimants as far as sanctions are concerned is the conditionality attached to the claims, both groups have to abide by different rules.Sorry, must be getting confused here, I'm referring to JSA claimants that are capable of work, i have no experience of ESA (i have an idea about what it is, but again, no experience).
For example, ESA claimants cannot be forced to look for, or apply for a job.
The other major difference is that a sanction for a JSA claimant means 100% loss of benefit for the duration, a sanction for an ESA WRAG claimant means the loss of the main component of ESA, (the same basic rate as JSA) the claimant would still receive the WRAG element of around £28 per week.
An unfair sanction is unfair regardless of what claimant group receives it, and bad advice applies equally to both groups.0 -
Confuseddot wrote: »The figures you quoted are meaningless unless you can break it down to the % of those sanctioned where the sanction was not upheld and whose benefits were withheld.
Only if you assume that the reason I quoted them was to prove some claimants have been unfairly sanctioned and have had their benefits stopped.
The only reference I made was stating that many of the 777,000 will have had their benefits stopped for no good reason. If that number is a only a hundred claimants, it is a hundred too many.0 -
In the same way that you just did?
Considering that you are passive-aggressively referring to me, perhaps you can highlight where I have manipulated any figures.
I'm sorry, but please refer me to where I manipulated a figure and presented it as some sort of fact? My posts are my opinion, if I wanted to start throwing figures around, I'd at least back it up with hard evidence.
My example was a point whereby, yes, you can take a figure and make it look bad (the government and opposition do this to each other in the house of commons on a daily basis) but without really understanding mitigating circumstances, especially if you cannot back up this mitigating circumstances, any opinion on that figure becomes moot.
However, stating that a minority have problems with the JCP, is just me using logic and common sense to derive an outcome, and as such, is my opinion, i have not said anything like "5% of people are sanctioned, therefore it's a minority" <- (I just made that up by the way). Some people would have you believe everyone has an issue with the JCP, when that is just not true at all.
And I am not passively-aggressively referring to you at all, I don't recall reading any post by you whilst skimming through earlier, I'm actually referring to the OP who, to be quite honest, has been incredibly rude to people and later starting linking to random media, the figures comes from seeing various people over the last few months using this against people negatively as a way to try and insult them (such as cmsw) when all they have tried to do is help.Professional Data Monkey
0 -
And I am not passively-aggressively referring to you at all, I don't recall reading any post by you whilst skimming through earlier, I'm actually referring to the OP...
I don't see any figures or numbers in the OP used to manipulate a point. Considering I'm the only person on this thread to have referred to figures and numbers, who else could you have been referring to?0 -
Well the Work Programme is an anathma to me, bunch of profiteering companies set up to leech money off the taxpayer...I disagree, I am in regular contact with a number of ESA claimants that have suffered sanctions wrongfully in connection with Work Programme providers. I post regular updates on what progress I make in an attempt to help others in the same situation.0 -
Confuseddot wrote: »For all you know it could be none !
It's difficult to give an exact figure because the figures do not include claimants whose benefits were stopped upon referral to the decision maker, where the decision maker consequently found no good reason to sanction and made a non-adverse decision.
But for those whose benefits were sanctioned, and then successfully had the decision reversed upon appeal or reconsideration, the number is 89,850 between Oct 2012 and June 2013, not including those which were cancelled for whatever reason.
http://i.imgur.com/WUOySik.jpg
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255568/sanctions-nov2013-update-2.xls0 -
I don't see any figures or numbers in the OP used to manipulate a point. Considering I'm the only person on this thread to have referred to figures and numbers, who else could you have been referring to?
Really? You're just going to quote half of paragraph?
Read the rest of that paragraph instead of selecting bits that suit your side of the debate.
I'm on my phone so I'm not going to go find every post by people who link some random news site with figures. Just look around a little, it isn't hard to find many examples.Professional Data Monkey
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards