JSA Hardship payments

dookar

this part

donnajunkie wrote: »

they get refered to a decision maker based on the jobcentre workers judgement that they have broken the rules. what a decision maker really does is back up the jobcentre workers judgement. you then need to prove your innocence in an appeal to beat it.

nonsense.

Firstly, there's no 'judgement' there's a doubt. The job centre worker doesn't know so they ask an expert.

Secondly, which part of impartial and independant do you not get? There is no conspiracy, the role of the DM is not to give a negative decision on everything. It's to make the correct decision

sniggings

dookar wrote: »

this part



nonsense.

Firstly, there's no 'judgement' there's a doubt. The job centre worker doesn't know so they ask an expert.

Secondly, which part of impartial and independant do you not get? There is no conspiracy, the role of the DM is not to give a negative decision on everything. It's to make the correct decision

independent :eek: they work for the same government department, if you think that is independent you are crazy.

dookar

Independent in the sense that they mostly will be in a completely different office to the advise, never have met the adviser and have no interest in keeping the adviser happy or helping then achieve any targets and will have no prior knowledge of the claimant

mannaroth

tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »

actually ive heard the same too and they do try to trick people

last time me and my OH were on JSA when it was coming up to christmas, they told him he didnt have to sign on until after the new year, i thought this was a bit fishy so i double checked and a good job i did because he did have to sign on, that would have been our money stopped had i not been there to check or had he been claiming himself!

I don't think they have the intelligence to try and trick people, judging from my experience with them.

Dunroamin

mannaroth wrote: »

I don't think they have the intelligence to try and trick people, judging from my experience with them.

And yet they're the ones who have jobs and neither you nor your partner do.;)

missapril75

I remain bemused (and amused) by this idea that if a sanction decision is overturned the original one was "wrong" or that a doubt is referred and is followed by the "correct" decision.

Obviously there are times where something is clear and (even though a job seeker, advisor, decision maker or advocate may disagree with the result) it's cut and dried as to whether a sanction is appropriate, regardless of length.

But the DM Guide is full of "can be" and "may be" and "taken into account" and this shows that many times opinion is going to be the deciding factor.
There are references to "unreasonable" (according to whom?) and "compelling reasons" for a particular course of action - again, according to whom?

Provide two identical cases requiring a yes or no and one advisor will refer and another won't; one DM will sanction and another won't; if it gets to appeal, one tribunal will confirm the sanction and another won't.

Often there is no right or no wrong.

Look at this from the DM Guide:
Driving offences and road accidents

If claimants committed road traffic offences which had a direct effect on their ability to do their jobs, then this is misconduct. This will be the case, even where the offence was committed outside the employment. But if the offence was an isolated and minor act of negligence or was trivial or merely technical, it will not be misconduct. An offence should not be regarded as minor, trivial or technical if, on
conviction, claimants
1. have their licences suspended or
2. are disqualified from holding a licence.

So suspension or loss of licence will never be minor but then a lack of prosecution, let alone, conviction, doesn't mean a sanction wouldn't apply.

That's one big grey area there. Particularly when even prosecution decisions and the courts (not to mention employers) aren't consistent. There's even an example given of someone driving illegally but the employer turns a blind eye.

What about this one relating to whether someone had good reason not to start a particular job:

Pauline Gordon is offered a job. She says that she wants three weeks holiday within a month of starting. The employer withdraws the offer of a job. In this case her attitude is unreasonable, and Pauline has refused an offer of a job without good cause

I imagine most people would agree that's not reasonable.

But what about one week? I'll bet some would think it reasonable while others wouldn't. One might even take account of whether a holiday had been paid for or how long the job seeker had been out of work.

What if the week they want to take off includes a bank holiday so it's only 4 days off? Or it's Easter and includes Good Friday and Easter Monday and, so, is only really three days? Is that more reasonable?

Some might even wonder if they should arrange a holiday while they're out of work. (or was it arranged during previous employment prior to an unexpected loss of the job)

What about prior knowledge of the job seeker?

It might be borderline unreasonable to want a week off in the first month and would, no doubt, result in a sanction from one DM but not so with another.

What about prior examples of restrictions, be they borderline or not? What if there's a pattern with a particular job seeker?

Is this right or wrong or opinion as to what's reasonable or not?

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

Firstly, there's no 'judgement' there's a doubt. The job centre worker doesn't know so they ask an expert.

yes its described as a doubt but surely the worker only refers people when they think there is good reason to? or are you really saying they think i dont have a clue whether this person has done anything wrong but i will refer them anyway? if you dont challenge that doubt you will get sanctioned.

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

Secondly, which part of impartial and independant do you not get? There is no conspiracy, the role of the DM is not to give a negative decision on everything. It's to make the correct decision

impartial? they do work for dwp dont they? yes it is supposed to be to make the correct decision but unless you challenge it and prove you are in the right you will get sanctioned. for example if you dont provide the jobcentre with evidence of jobsearching you will get refered for sanction. all the decision maker will be provided with is a statement from the jobcentre worker saying they didnt provide jobsearching evidence. the person may have good reason why but unless they challenge it how exactly is the decision maker going to find against the jobcentre workers decision to refer?

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

Independent in the sense that they mostly will be in a completely different office to the advise, never have met the adviser and have no interest in keeping the adviser happy or helping then achieve any targets and will have no prior knowledge of the claimant

being part of the same organisation means they have the same agenda. why do you think people are advised to send their appeals via recorded delivery?

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

And yet they're the ones who have jobs and neither you nor your partner do.;)

indeed. when you are sat their being dealt with by a total moron. it does make you wonder how the f*** they have a job and you dont. if there is one thing that can make being unemployed worse it is the people who are paid to help you being totally clueless.