JSA Hardship payments

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

I think you should look at the post again.

I laughed at the idea of targets to find any way of stopping or holding up claims for the reasons explained. I didn't laugh at the idea of a target for sanctions.

unless you are totally naive, targets for sanctions will lead to people getting sanctioned unfairly, which is stopping a claim or holding it up.

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

unless you are totally naive, targets for sanctions will lead to people getting sanctioned unfairly, which is stopping a claim or holding it up.

That rather depends on the target.

But sanctions, whether you agree with them or not, whether they are unfair or not, have to be justified. Evidence has to be obtained as to what the person did or didn't do that might or might not have been against the conditions of entitlement or contrary to, or falling short of their agreement.

Rules that will allow such things have to be referred to and quoted.

They will have had the opportunity to put their version of events and then a decision is made.

It's not naivety that sees a difference between that and finding "any way of stopping or holding up" a claim; It's common sense.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

That rather depends on the target.

But sanctions, whether you agree with them or not, whether they are unfair or not, have to be justified. Evidence has to be obtained as to what the person did or didn't do that might or might not have been against the conditions of entitlement or contrary to, or falling short of their agreement.

Rules that will allow such things have to be referred to and quoted.

They will have had the opportunity to put their version of events and then a decision is made.

It's not naivety that sees a difference between that and finding "any way of stopping or holding up" a claim; It's common sense.

common sense and the truth are two different things.

watch this and maybe you will see what is really the case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/08/jobcentres-benefits-sanctions-targets


http://www.goodadvicematters.co.uk/index.php/jsa/the-nasty-world-of-the-jsa-sanction/

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

watch this and maybe you will see what is really the case

I'm already well aware of that, thanks. It doesn't contradict what I have said in any way at all.

donnajunkie

Laughlyn wrote: »

I've had very bad experiences with my recent advisers and i lost my money for a fortnight and wasnt told about hardship payments so basically had zero money to live on.

My recent advisor hadn't told me the job search requirements had changed from 6 a fortnight to 18

what counts is what it says on your jsa agreement. if you were meeting the requirements on that then you should have appealed the decision. always send the appeal forms recorded as well.

donnajunkie

Laughlyn wrote: »

also in the past 4 times i've been to sign, i've not been given my new job search sheet 3 times now. To an adviser its a simple mistake but if it was someone signing on, we'd lose our money for it.

you can record what you do on any piece of paper. it doesnt have to be an official form.

donnajunkie

Laughlyn wrote: »

I've had very bad experiences with my recent advisers and i lost my money for a fortnight and wasnt told about hardship payments so basically had zero money to live on.

hardship is generally not paid for the first fortnight of a sanction anyway except in certain circumstances.

donnajunkie

pickpocketlocket wrote: »

If you did the equivalent in work you would be sacked, and receive no money full stop.

no you would probably recieve a verbal warning then written warning etc.

donnajunkie

1940sGal wrote: »

My agreement is minimum 3 per week. Can't speak for OP obviously but that's been standard here for a while. It was the same when sis claimed.

the legal minimum is 3 actions per week. if that changed they would have to inform you and change your jsa agreement accordingly. of course if you have agreed to more on your jsa agreement then you have to do that.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

I'm already well aware of that, thanks. It doesn't contradict what I have said in any way at all.

you must have forgotten making post 48 then :rotfl: