The Work Programme New Thread

out_of_cash

donnajunkie wrote: »

the problem comes about when comparing a mobile to a landline. if you dont answer their call on a landline you can say you were out and that is believable. with a mobile you cant say that. if you say things like i didnt hear it ring or i was on the toilet they are going to think you are fibbing. they will, also expect a call back within 10 minutes. with a landline you can put them off until the next day if you wish. this means you have more control if you dont give them your mobile number.

if you signed the original data consent form when first signing upto the workprogramme then they have all your details for contact,if you withdraw that consent which you can do at anytime by writing to the provider their stuffed.

Its your right to specify as to how you want to be contacted.

They have zero control of your rights ansering a telephone whether that be a landline or mobile.I would not give a stuff as to if they did think if i was fibbing and more worrying for them would be i would like them to suggest that.

donnajunkie

Sy1972 wrote: »

Thanks for replying Donna. Yes she stated that the 2 and a half hours per day were meant to be done in the office however because I said that I had access to the internet at home I could do the hours at home however I would have to show them proof that I have been taking to steps to look for work from home. My jobseekers agreement is to take 3 steps a week to look for work, use the internet twice and look in the local papers once, my worry is that the provider will tell the jobcentre that I haven't been taking the steps they have issued and I will have my money stopped.

just keep a record of what you do including jobs applied for. if they bring up time spent again just say you spent 2 and half hours looking through local papers and looking on the internet for jobs.

donnajunkie

out_of_cash wrote: »

Anything that is sanctionable has to be applied in a strict way,they have guidelines and are bound by them.If they are contacting someone and say they havent been able to,then they better ba able to prove this if they are going to apply a sanction. If they pick on the wrong person,that person may see fit to kick all kinds of crap up for them via media.

There is nothing in their guidelines that i have read that specifies a time ine, only that if something is mandatory it has to be given in written format first,so they wont be able to rely upon peoples mobiles etc as an easy excuse,they may well try this but ultimately will have to prove.Being unemployed its highly likely that many wont be usingtheir phone credit to contact these goverment cash cows.

from what i know of people being sanctioned the decision makers have a guilty until proven innocent approach. so the jobcentre etc could make a baseless accusation and unless you can prove them wrong the sanction will stand.

donnajunkie

out_of_cash wrote: »

just by refusing or overlooking to answer your mobile isnt proof that your are then acting to be unavailable.They can use email and write for anything important.There are no legal requirements for you to even give them your phone number or email, i had this confirmed to me by DWP , when they write to me i attend.I available 24/7 as is confirmed when i sign the declaration every 2 wks for jsa.

perhaps a sanction wouldnt result if someone didnt answer a call on a mobile but they would assume there is no excuse and probably start giving you a harder time and have you in their office more. unfortunately that is the kind of mentality providers often have.

Lith

i have a question about these 'decision makers'

is it a group or just one person ? at the end of the day they love to stop money because they get off on affecting people's lifes

i know people who have been 'sanction' for the VERY WRONG REASONS it also went to court the whole place is corrupt.

donnajunkie

Lith wrote: »

i know people who have been 'sanction' for the VERY WRONG REASONS it also went to court the whole place is corrupt.

yes its because it is like i said. it is guilty until proven innocent. if you cant prove you are in the right you are stuffed.

scooby088

I have had 2 phonecalls today from my provider and picked up first call there was intermittent signal and my provider ended the call but rang back within a few minutes when i had better signal. The second call I ignored until he had left a voicemail for which i had to put £5 credit on my phone to retrieve.

Lith

scooby088 wrote: »

I have had 2 phonecalls today from my provider and picked up first call there was intermittent signal and my provider ended the call but rang back within a few minutes when i had better signal. The second call I ignored until he had left a voicemail for which i had to put £5 credit on my phone to retrieve.

Should never give them ya real number if ya don't want the hassle it's what i did years ago.

b@stards tried to call ya and sometime do tricks to do there VERY best to sanction

Vincent_Buenisedes

Lith wrote: »

i have a question about these 'decision makers'

is it a group or just one person ? at the end of the day they love to stop money because they get off on affecting people's lifes

i know people who have been 'sanction' for the VERY WRONG REASONS it also went to court the whole place is corrupt.

I believe that there is a hidden pressure on decision makers to apply sanctions at every opportunity by those above. Of course when you ask them this they deny it, but from my own personal experience they do seem to shoot first and ask questions later.

As for contact details, I NEVER correspond with a WP/FND provider other than by letter.

looby75

I'm probably going to tempt fate here by saying this but my WP providers have been nothing but reasonable and fair to me.

They know I've got health problems which mean I have a lot of doctors/hospital appointments and have told me they are happy and willing (in writing) to fit their appointments round my appointments and the one time I had to "phone in sick" they simply marked it down as a phone appointment so as not to affect my JSA.

The staff are friendly and as helpful as they can be (which isn't very but to be fair that isn't really their fault) and they certainly don't seem to be out to trick people into sanctions. I've heard them on the phone to people who just haven't turned in and even when it's obvious they are taking the mick they still try to avoid sanctions.