JSA Hardship payments

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

I believe there are sanction targets?

this inevitably means some may be unfairly sanctioned. if the target was 10 per day there may not be 10 people deserving of a sanction one day but 10 would still get refered because thats the target. if they arent clued up the sanction will go through and therefore they will have been unfairly sanctioned.

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

And once again, I said no such thing.

I said there is a legal procedure for submitting evidence for a sanction and it has to include references to where entitlement conditions are not met and/or an agreement has been broken.

I said deliberately misinforming someone or doing something else outside of rules that denied them entitlements was dismissible. By no stretch of the imagination (except yours it seems) does a submission for a sanction (decided by someone else) come within that.

we both know sanctions are done on a guilty until proven innocent stance by dwp. dwp would only need evidence if they wanted to counter your appeal. if you arent clued up enough to know what to put in your appeal or if you cant show evidence that you are innocent then you are stuffed whether you are guilty or not.

dookar

No. The job centre refer a 'doubt' it's up to the independant, impartial decision making authority to decide if a sanction is appropriate

Job centre staff don't have sufficient knowledge so they should refer all doubts

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

No. The job centre refer a 'doubt' it's up to the independant, impartial decision making authority to decide if a sanction is appropriate

Job centre staff don't have sufficient knowledge so they should refer all doubts

are you really suggesting that clueless people are able to refer people for sanction knowing it will stand if the sanctioned person isnt clued up. is there really many situations were a refered sanction isnt agreed with if it is unchallenged by the sanctioned person?

dookar

donnajunkie wrote: »

are you really suggesting that clueless people are able to refer people for sanction knowing it will stand if the sanctioned person isnt clued up. is there really many situations were a refered sanction isnt agreed with if it is unchallenged by the sanctioned person?

No, they don't know 'it will stand' they have a reasonable belief a sanction may be appropriate and refer it to the appropriate authority.

Yes, the decision will be made based on the evidence

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

No, they don't know 'it will stand' they have a reasonable belief a sanction may be appropriate and refer it to the appropriate authority.

Yes, the decision will be made based on the evidence

they must get trained regarding what claimants can and cant do otherwise people would be getting refered for all sorts of daft reasons. sanctions always stand if they arent appealed by someone who is clued up. jobcentre staff will know this. anyway in your words you say they must have reasonable belief. if you were told by someone that they did not apply because they could not get there would you think there would be grounds for sanction? in my opinion only an idiot would think so.

dookar

donnajunkie wrote: »

sanctions always stand if they arent appealed by someone who is clued up.

There is literally no truth in this whatsoever.

donnajunkie wrote: »

if you were told by someone that they did not apply because they could not get there would you think there would be grounds for sanction? in my opinion only an idiot would think so.

That's not the job of the staff in the job centre though. They know a person should apply for all jobs notified or if they don't they should have good cause for not doing so. So if the person doesn't apply, they have a doubt and refer it to the decision maker to make the good cause decision.

missapril75

donnajunkie wrote: »

the decision maker applies the rules. if they find the rules say the persons sanction shouldnt stand then the person wins the appeal. that means the person who refered the sanction was wrong to do so.

Not quite. See, rules don't apply to opinion.

It most likely means that the person ruling in favour of the job seeker has a different opinion about whether the job seeker had a good reason to do or not do whatever caused the referral.

There is no right or wrong answer as to whether someone has a good reason for something.

It's also likely the person making the referral will have had prior dealings with the job seeker. They may have referred them for appropriate job vacancies previously that the person hasn't applied for. They may have accepted what was said and not referred but on the fourth time it doesn't sound so reasonable.

or

When they mentioned the job they were referring for, the job seeker might have said "you must be joking....I'm not working for that wage" and if the wage is in the normal range for work of that type and work of that type is what the job seeker is looking for, then that would be sanctionable.

But when the job seeker (in the first example) gives the reason that they gave before, the person making the decision may be unaware of that reason given before and might believe it just as the referring person did the first three times. Or they'll get a different reason to the "I'm not working for that wage" because the job seeker knows not to put that in writing.

How would you feel if someone told you one thing and said something different to someone else making you look vindictive?

donnajunkie wrote: »

t.. if the target was 10 per day there may not be 10 people deserving of a sanction one day .

Quite right. That's presumably why the target mentioned was so low. 5%.

As I said earlier, one would have to be very naive to think that the numbers of people not applying for jobs; not keeping appointments; dropping out of training courses; placing unreasonable restrictions on availability and all those sorts of things were fewer than five in every hundred.

missapril75

dookar wrote: »

....they don't know 'it will stand' they have a reasonable belief a sanction may be appropriate and refer it to the appropriate authority.

That is exactly what I said several times, most recently when I said the referring person believed they could show the agreement or conditions hadn't been met.

missapril75

donnajunkie wrote: »

if you were told by someone that they did not apply because they could not get there would you think there would be grounds for sanction? in my opinion only an idiot would think so.

Really? Newsflash. People don't always tell the truth. People have different opinions as to what is or isn't reasonable.

What if you believed they could get there?

I used to work in an office of about 80 and more than a third of them traveled to work from towns of between 15 and 20 miles away, most of them by public transport.

What if your knowledge told you that it was nonsense that someone couldn't get there.