JSA Hardship payments

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

the deliberate denial of entitlements which staff get dismissed for.

i doubt many people who refer someone for sanction unfairly get sacked.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

*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.

You said you were aware of the link I posted, maybe you should have watched the video and read the report then.

I guess rape and murder don't happen in your world as it's against the law so no one does it.

Or is if do then the will always get caught!

missapril75

donnajunkie wrote: »

i doubt many people who refer someone for sanction unfairly get sacked.

But you cannot refer someone for a sanction unfairly. Or an unfair sanction.

It's impossible. You, I or any of us might think something unfair. But the staff have to show what part of conditions of entitlement someone hasn't satisfied; what part of their JSAG they have contradicted or not met; what restriction they have applied on availability.

It can't be made up. There has to be proof provided.

The applicant has their opportunity to put forward their case and all that information is submitted for consideration, using manuals, guidelines, the law, precedence etc.

If a sanction is thought appropriate by the person specialising in that area of work it will be applied and there will be an appeal right.

It's a legal process.

What I have been talking about is the difference between that legal process and things like the allegation of deliberately misleading people and wrongly stopping/delaying claims "in any way" for which staff do get dismissed.

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

as it's against the law so no one does it.

Who said anything about nobody breaking a law or a rule?

Telling someone they can't claim (when they can); knowingly underpaying someone; deliberately misinforming someone into an action that causes them to lose benefit; delaying their claim for no good reason (something which damages the JC target performance)....all of these things have been mentioned here.

None of them assist in achievement of targets (quite the opposite) and they are all against the rules. Staff do break those rules and that's why they have been disciplined/dismissed.

It's just not the same as a sanction.

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

But you cannot refer someone for a sanction unfairly. Or an unfair sanction.

clearly anyone who wins an appeal was unfairly refered for a sanction. i know someone who was sanctioned for not applying for a job they couldnt get to and wasnt qualified for. they won their appeal obviously. they had explained clearly to the jobcentre worker why they didnt apply but obviously the worker wanted to get them sanctioned and didnt think they had the brains to be able to ensure their appeal was correct.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

Who said anything about nobody breaking a law or a rule?

Telling someone they can't claim (when they can); knowingly underpaying someone; deliberately misinforming someone into an action that causes them to lose benefit; delaying their claim for no good reason (something which damages the JC target performance)....all of these things have been mentioned here.

None of them assist in achievement of targets (quite the opposite) and they are all against the rules. Staff do break those rules and that's why they have been disciplined/dismissed.

It's just not the same as a sanction.

We understand what you are saying but what you don't understand is all people(DWP) do not follow the rules, also a lot of decisions are at the discretion of the DWP employee or the decision maker, no set rule has to be broken.

missapril75

donnajunkie wrote: »

clearly anyone who wins an appeal was unfairly refered for a sanction.

Really? That's just a different opinion isn't it? And quite often just a different perspective or even something new to be considered or given a bit more weight.

It doesn't mean someone was wrong earlier.

If someone has to apply for three jobs a week and they don't and when asked why not, they say because they were hoping to get the job from a different application already made, a sanction submission would include the relevant information and their answer.

If they then appealed and said "look, I have applied for 5 jobs every week for three months, this is the first time I've fallen short" and/or they said "I have reached the third interview stage for this other application and they are just going through the formality of checking my degree"....well then they might very well win their case.

Would that make the referral wrong? Or might they simply have left out some rather important information?

What about when someone wins an appeal but the DWP appeals that and wins? Which decision is the right one then? Was the original appeal decision wrong?

i know someone who was sanctioned for not applying for a job they couldnt get to and wasnt qualified for. they won their appeal obviously. they had explained clearly to the jobcentre worker why they didnt apply but obviously the worker wanted to get them sanctioned and didnt think they had the brains to be able to ensure their appeal was correct.

And you know the worker "obviously wanted to get them sanctioned" how? And why? It would all be a waste of time.

Not to mention that any submission made by the worker including the job seeker's statement that they weren't qualified would have been thrown straight back.

Unless of course the job seeker simply got angry and failed to write down their reasons.

dookar

missapril75 wrote: »

But you cannot refer someone for a sanction unfairly.

Sorry, but you can.

I've had countless conversations with job centre staff aftr I've allowed a case and they've said something like 'but he's always taking the !!!!, I thought I had really got him'

referrals can certainly be vindictive, that's why there is an independant, impartial decision maker. Pretty sure you told me you were one once, you should know that

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

... what you don't understand is all people(DWP) do not follow the rules,.

Uh....so why would I say "Staff do break those rules" in the post of mine you just quoted if I didn't understand not all staff follow rules? :rotfl:

And on that point I think we should finish up.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

Uh....so why would I say "Staff do break those rules" in the post of mine you just quoted if I didn't understand not all staff follow rules? :rotfl:

And on that point I think we should finish up.

because your whole argument has been sanctions are not given unfairly, and that there aren't tarets for them, or have you forgotten that :eek:

now we can leave it there.