jsa sanction

dookar

trevormax wrote: »

1. Was the job he was told to apply for permanent?
If not, RE action can not be taken against him

2. Was it 25 hours/week or more?
If not, RE action can not be taken against him

3. Is the job still available for application?
If so, RE action can not be taken against him unless he point blank refused to apply for it. If he has just failed to apply for it and it is still open, he can apply for it and the sanction can be removed.

1. I'd like to see this proven. There must have been a change to the law.

2. Do we know the claimants pattern of availability? Oh, and its fewer than 24, not 25 or more

3. Misleading. The claimant must apply, until (s)he does, RE action is appropriate

trevormax

dookar wrote: »

1. I'd like to see this proven. There must have been a change to the law.

2. Do we know the claimants pattern of availability? Oh, and its fewer than 24, not 25 or more

3. Misleading. The claimant must apply, until (s)he does, RE action is appropriate

1. I have always been told by my manager that we do not carry out RE sanctions if the job is not permanent and 25 hours per week or more. In fact we were issued with guidance showing this.

2. My question was about the number of hours not the pattern of availability. It may be 24 hours or more or it may be 25 hours or more, if I am off by one hour then whatever, my question is still valid. The job issued to the OP's husband might have been 1 hour per week. If that were the case, then the sanction would probably be removed.

If the claimant has restrictions on the times they can work on their JSAG as you have pointed out, and the hours on the job issued to them required them to work at times they have said they are unable to work, then that is something different to what I was asking.

3.By that logic, a JCP employee could issue a job and then sanction the claimant for RE the next day as they have failed to apply for it. If the job is still open and the claimant has not yet applied for it, the correct course of action is to warn the claimant that they must apply for the job before it closes or face possible sanctions. If they refuse to apply, that is a case of RE. If they fail to apply in time, that is a case of RE.

What you are saying is like saying the police should give someone a speeding ticket because they have a fast car and they might go over the speed limit.

laurenweird

In the same position right now.

Partner failed to apply for a job he was not qualified for (he has asked for the number to see if the company had any jobs he COULD do, and they took it as he is applying for that job)

We've been put on a sanction for 3 month. I rang up after my appeal had taken three weeks and was told it could take up to 4 weeks.

Rang up after 4 weeks and was told 52 days.

Sent off hardship about two weeks ago and have yet to hear anything.

My partner is applying for loads and jobs, he is even on a college course to improve his chances, and with two young kids to support we are in a really horrible position and getting no answers :mad:

Hope things are all sorted soon, for both you and I!

NickyBat

Hardship applications should be done in a matter of days not weeks, the fact you have children puts you in the criteria of qualifying so chase them up, keep on their back about it.

laurenweird

NickyBat wrote: »

Hardship applications should be done in a matter of days not weeks, the fact you have children puts you in the criteria of qualifying so chase them up, keep on their back about it.

Oh I did not know this, I'd have presumed it would have been the same as an appeal. Thanks, will ring them and try to finds out.

NickyBat

Good god no, like i say they should be done in a few days, the fact you are having to apply for hardship means it's urgent. Good luck, let me know how you get on with it.

dookar

trevormax wrote: »

1. I have always been told by my manager that we do not carry out RE sanctions if the job is not permanent and 25 hours per week or more. In fact we were issued with guidance showing this.

Fair enough, I can't comment on internal guidance. But the guidance is wrong, a decision maker has decided the case and no amount of guidance can change that. DMs follow the law not guidance.

trevormax wrote: »

2. My question was about the number of hours not the pattern of availability. It may be 24 hours or more or it may be 25 hours or more, if I am off by one hour then whatever, my question is still valid. The job issued to the OP's husband might have been 1 hour per week. If that were the case, then the sanction would probably be removed.

I meant number of hours when I said that. I meant if the person is available for 24 hours then of course a job of fewer than 24 hours can be referred.

If the claimant has restrictions on the times they can work on their JSAG as you have pointed out, and the hours on the job issued to them required them to work at times they have said they are unable to work, then that is something different to what I was asking. [/QUOTE]

trevormax wrote: »

3.By that logic, a JCP employee could issue a job and then sanction the claimant for RE the next day as they have failed to apply for it. If the job is still open and the claimant has not yet applied for it, the correct course of action is to warn the claimant that they must apply for the job before it closes or face possible sanctions. If they refuse to apply, that is a case of RE. If they fail to apply in time, that is a case of RE.

What you are saying is like saying the police should give someone a speeding ticket because they have a fast car and they might go over the speed limit.[/QUOTE]

The employee could do that, that's why there are impartial decision makers in place.