We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

JSA Hardship payments

145791029

Comments

  • dookar
    dookar Posts: 1,654 Forumite
    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
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    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
    dookar Posts: 1,654 Forumite
    I've not said otherwise, neither have I suggested job centre managers are not the type of idiots that would do this.
  • sniggings
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    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
    missapril75 Posts: 1,669 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited 29 August 2012 at 3:35AM
    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
    seven-day-weekend Posts: 36,755 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 29 August 2012 at 8:12AM
    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.
    (AKA HRH_MUngo)
    Member #10 of £2 savers club
    Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton
  • sniggings
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 29 August 2012 at 3:14PM
    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
    missapril75 Posts: 1,669 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    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
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    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
    missapril75 Posts: 1,669 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    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.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.