JSA Stopped for doing the right thing?

kevinUK_2

Mupette wrote: »

how you running your t'internet and pc?

My fathers internet

john539

kevinUK wrote: »

@ morganedge: Yes i sat down, went to sign paperwork as she asked, then she said apparently that i had not done enough to look for a job and i didn't argue because i'm not the type. I went home and thought nothing of it, a few days later they sent me a letter saying they couldn't pay me for the period of 2 weeks i had just signed for. This letter said i will not be getting paid and my claim is being looked at to see if it is still relevant.

Didn't she discuss or give chance for you to explain or justify ?

Sounds like she had lightbulb moment, thought I need to meet my target and was looking for someone to makeup numbers for referral. She wants to keep her job and do what manager has her told her to do.

Also sounds like you are doing a lot more than steps you listed in your record which you should be able to prove. Many people don't list every step as it would be too many to list.

real1314

This "target to refer people for not actively seeking" thing seems to be gathering momentum, linked to another thread where it has been suggested.

But there's no evidence for it.

I would think it's a complete fabrication. There are enough people who work for JCP that post on here, I'm sure if it was true it would have been mentioned.

Adereterial

To clear up the doubt then.

There is a target for percentage referrals to Decision Makers for each office - it is a percentage target across ALL the things customers can be referred for: Actively Seeking, Availability, Refusal of Employment, Failure to comply with a Direction, Fail to Attend. There is no specific target for ASE.

That target is for UPHELD referrals - those that result in a disallowance or sanction. Not spurious referrals, or ones where there is no sanction or disallowance applied. So if you've been referred and it's been upheld, the JCP has done the right thing.

Decision Makers generally err on the side of caution and side with customers rather than JCP staff, so if you have been properly disallowed for a period of time for Actively Seeking Employment you can't have done anywhere near enough to look for work in the period they're looking at.

john539

real1314 wrote: »

This "target to refer people for not actively seeking" thing seems to be gathering momentum, linked to another thread where it has been suggested.

But there's no evidence for it.

I would think it's a complete fabrication. There are enough people who work for JCP that post on here, I'm sure if it was true it would have been mentioned.

It seems clear that the DWP is happy for Jobcentres to conveniently misinterpret guidance or turn a blind eye in the "big push".

cassieB57

Sardine, every jobseeker will have been given a copy of their 'jobseeker's agreement' which sets out the steps the jobseeker has agreed to take each week. I'm not sure yet that the op has had a sanction- it usually takes a couple of weeks to make a decision. This only got picked up on the 9th of March?

real1314

john539 wrote: »

It seems clear that the DWP is happy for Jobcentres to conveniently misinterpret guidance or turn a blind eye in the "big push".

Is this comment based on evidence or just observation of comments from people who have been given some sort of sanction?

real1314

kevinUK wrote: »

Thanks for all the reply's. I have had a letter through today saying that i can't be paid for the 24th of february, but will be paid from the 10th march. The period i wasn't allowed to be paid was from the 24th of february-9th of march(my 2 week period in doubt).

There is nothing that says my appeal has been successfull but this letter says they will pay me from the 10th of march so does that mean my appeal was a success? or am i just hoping and reading it wrong.

I'd reckon you have been sanctioned for those 2 weeks, and can now be paid again, but you will have to ensure you do everything that could reasonably be done to seek work.

In your first post you said you'd taken 4 steps, 1 above the 3 you were required to take. The question might be; were these reasonable steps that could have led to an offer or potential offer of work?
I could apply for 200 jobs a week, that I would not be qualified for and would never get - astro-physicist, michellin chef, chairman of ICI - but I doubt JCP would see these as "steps" in relation to my employability. I could send off 500 CVs, but if in doing so, I ignore 5 actual advertised vacancies, am I really doing all i can to seek work?

So, were the 4 steps genuine attempts to get a job?
Or, as another poster suggested, did you feel that the "minimum" (or 1 more "step") should be enough? :cool:

real1314

sardine wrote: »

But quite honestly he only is REQUIRED to do the MINIMUM!
What you think, what I think is immaterial. It cannot be the case that someone from the jobcentre has a personal opinion that the minimum is not enough. Even accepting that with more effort, employment might be found.

If I were the poster, I would get a copy of the contract and establish what the minimum requirements are and match that with the actions that he has taken. Unless there is an over riding clause that the personal opinion and whim of a clerk can increase the minumum whenever they feel like it, then I would be creating holy hell down there!

It is human nature when you find something difficult or distasteful, you only put in the minimum of effort. I have done that myself in jobs that I have done - just enough that was required of me.
I know if I was only marking time, or happy whilst on benefits, the last thing I would be doing is more than was required of me.

As I say, get a copy of the contract and then it can be seen who is right.

The clerk only refers for a decision. The decision is made separately. From what I understand, the rate of referrals being upheld is monitored to avoid spurious referalls being made - admin for no valid reason is a waste of everyone's time. :cool:

cassieB57

real1314 wrote: »

I'd reckon you have been sanctioned for those 2 weeks, and can now be paid again, but you will have to ensure you do everything that could reasonably be done to seek work.

In your first post you said you'd taken 4 steps, 1 above the 3 you were required to take. The question might be; were these reasonable steps that could have led to an offer or potential offer of work?
I could apply for 200 jobs a week, that I would not be qualified for and would never get - astro-physicist, michellin chef, chairman of ICI - but I doubt JCP would see these as "steps" in relation to my employability. I could send off 500 CVs, but if in doing so, I ignore 5 actual advertised vacancies, am I really doing all i can to seek work?

So, were the 4 steps genuine attempts to get a job?
Or, as another poster suggested, did you feel that the "minimum" (or 1 more "step") should be enough? :cool:

This is what the Decision Maker's Guide says (the bold type is my own addition)


The steps claimants are expected to take in any week are those steps that
1.they can reasonably be expected to have to take and
2.offer them their best chance of getting employment1.
1 JS Act 95, s 7(1)

In order to have the best chance of getting employment claimants are expected to have to take more than two steps in any week unless taking one or two steps is all that it is reasonable for them to do in that week1. 1 s 7(1); JSA Regs, reg 18(1)

Legislation provides
1.examples of steps to seek employment1 and
2.circumstances that the DM should take into account in deciding whether claimants have taken the steps that they can reasonably be expected to take to give them their best chance of getting employment2.
1 JS Act 95, s 7(2)(a); JSA Regs, reg 18(2); 2 JS Act 95, s 7(2)(b); JSA Regs, reg 18(3)