JSA Hardship payments

dookar

In my experience, any sanction related target fro job centre staff has been related to successful referrals.

Job centre staff have no control over sanctions, so the target for successful ones was in place to ensure good quality and appropriate referrals were made.

Targetting numbers of referrals would ensure the opposite so I don't really see the point in it

sniggings

dookar wrote: »

In my experience, any sanction related target fro job centre staff has been related to successful referrals.

Job centre staff have no control over sanctions, so the target for successful ones was in place to ensure good quality and appropriate referrals were made.

Targetting numbers of referrals would ensure the opposite so I don't really see the point in it

The jobcentre staff doing the targeting for sanctions didn't know what the point was either but they still did it.

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

The DWP have admitted targets for sanctions were in place

dookar

I've not said otherwise, neither have I suggested job centre managers are not the type of idiots that would do this.

sniggings

dookar wrote: »

I've not said otherwise, neither have I suggested job centre managers are not the type of idiots that would do this.

I misunderstood what you meant then in your above post.

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

you must have forgotten making post 48 then :rotfl:

Not at all. You seem to have a rather loose interpretation of what some folk say.

Perhaps you'd like to point out the contradiction. I ridiculed the idea of managers having staff find "any way" to stop or hold up claims. (damaging their other target rates)

Perhaps you should be reminded that someone was suggesting a member of staff deliberately lied to someone to fool them into not signing when they should have done.

The article refers to staff going over JSAGs and the like in fine detail to find reasons to sanction people. If they can't find anything they can't do it.

Again, as you missed it before, sanctions will involve quoting the relevant rules, showing how it's considered that conditions or agreements haven't been met and the applicant's input.

It's just not going to fly without this stuff. You seem to think it can be done willy-nilly.

I note the target rate of 5% was mentioned. Five in every hundred. Spend any time in a job centre and you'll see a damned sight more than five people in every hundred missing appointments, not applying for a job vacancy they've been given, failing to turn up on various referrals, abandoning courses, placing unreasonable restrictions on job search or availability etc

5% seems a somewhat conservative target.

seven-day-weekend

missapril75 wrote: »

Not at all. You seem to have a rather loose interpretation of what some folk say.

Perhaps you'd like to point out the contradiction. I ridiculed the idea of managers having staff find "any way" to stop or hold up claims. (damaging their other target rates)

Perhaps you should be reminded that someone was suggesting a member of staff deliberately lied to someone to fool them into not signing when they should have done.

The article refers to staff going over JSAGs and the like in fine detail to find reasons to sanction people. If they can't find anything they can't do it.

Again, as you missed it before, sanctions will involve quoting the relevant rules, showing how it's considered that conditions or agreements haven't been met and the applicant's input.

It's just not going to fly without this stuff. You seem to think it can be done willy-nilly.

I note the target rate of 5% was mentioned. Five in every hundred. Spend any time in a job centre and you'll see a damned sight more than five people in every hundred missing appointments, not applying for a job vacancy they've been given, failing to turn up on various referrals, abandoning courses, placing unreasonable restrictions on job search or availability etc

5% seems a somewhat conservative target.

... and abusing staff, using foul language, threatening physical violence....I used to work in a Housing Office and got all that in there. I pity the Jobcentre staff.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

Not at all. You seem to have a rather loose interpretation of what some folk say.

Perhaps you'd like to point out the contradiction. I ridiculed the idea of managers having staff find "any way" to stop or hold up claims. (damaging their other target rates)

Perhaps you should be reminded that someone was suggesting a member of staff deliberately lied to someone to fool them into not signing when they should have done.

The article refers to staff going over JSAGs and the like in fine detail to find reasons to sanction people. If they can't find anything they can't do it.

Again, as you missed it before, sanctions will involve quoting the relevant rules, showing how it's considered that conditions or agreements haven't been met and the applicant's input.

It's just not going to fly without this stuff. You seem to think it can be done willy-nilly.

I note the target rate of 5% was mentioned. Five in every hundred. Spend any time in a job centre and you'll see a damned sight more than five people in every hundred missing appointments, not applying for a job vacancy they've been given, failing to turn up on various referrals, abandoning courses, placing unreasonable restrictions on job search or availability etc

5% seems a somewhat conservative target.

At least now you admit you were wrong to say they do not try and trick people into making mistakes and sanctioning them for no/little reason.

The numbers involved are unknown as yet, but if true and the numbers going to CAD have gone up by 200- 300- 400% then it looks to me this is more than just sanctioning for cause.

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

At least now you admit you were wrong to say they do not try and trick people into making mistakes and sanctioning them for no/little reason.

You really do have a problem with understanding don't you.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

You really do have a problem with understanding don't you.

You really do have a problem remembering what you said in post 48 don't you.

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

You really do have a problem remembering what you said in post 48 don't you.

*sigh*

You appear incapable of seeing the difference between a sanction which involves evidence gathering according to a legal process and the deliberate denial of entitlements which staff get dismissed for.