JSA Hardship payments

dookar

What happened to my post?

dookar

sniggings wrote: »

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.

You don't understand the process. Sanctions are not given unfairly and there are targets for referrals.

There's a very clear difference

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

because your whole argument has been...that there aren't targets for them, or have you forgotten that :eek:

Did I not say in my very first post on this thread - the one you keep "reminding" me about (no. 48) - that I believe there are sanction targets?
Here it is.

I can well believe there are sanction targets now

It's really quite funny how you announce what I think or say but quote me saying the opposite.:rotfl:


Dookar has illustrated perfectly what I've been saying.

sniggings

missapril75 wrote: »

Did I not say in my very first post on this thread - the one you keep "reminding" me about (no. 48) - that I believe there are sanction targets?
Here it is.


It's really quite funny how you announce what I think or say but quote me saying the opposite.:rotfl:


Dookar has illustrated perfectly what I've been saying.

You said you think there are targets but that the sanctions are not given unfairly, that is where the argument started, by me asking you how you can agree there are targets but go on to say they are only given fiarly, then much later you go on to say IF they are given unfairly then the staff member will be sacked.

You need to keep track of what you say.

Anyway I thought you said you were leaving the argument about 4 posts back! another backtrack from you it seems.

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

...much later you go on to say IF they are given unfairly then the staff member will be sacked...

And once again, I said no such thing.

I said there is a legal procedure for submitting evidence for a sanction and it has to include references to where entitlement conditions are not met and/or an agreement has been broken.

I said deliberately misinforming someone or doing something else outside of rules that denied them entitlements was dismissible. By no stretch of the imagination (except yours it seems) does a submission for a sanction (decided by someone else) come within that.

missapril75

But you cannot refer someone for a sanction unfairly.

dookar wrote: »

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'

But notice the expression "he's always taking the !!!!, I thought I had really got him"

This is the difference I've been talking about. The person making the submission is clearly believing that finally they have been able to show how the job seeker hasn't met their obligations or benefit conditions.

For reasons of lack of expertise, effort, experience, frustration etc (or hearing something said or being told by the job seeker that they can't prove ) or whatever, they have made a referral that they believe is justified for the reasons given on their submission. They are making a case that the person has not met the conditions or isn't following their agreement. (not the same as misleading someone into thinking they don't have to sign on or stopping a claim "in any way" as was mentioned earlier)

That you or I may have a different opinion to the person submitting doesn't make it wrong or unfair any more than a not guilty verdict in court automatically makes a charge wrong or unfair.

referrals can certainly be vindictive

In the sense that someone might make the effort of a submission for one individual and not another, perhaps. Is it vindictive to submit for the person who constantly misses appointments, is late, doesn't apply for jobs etc over someone else who generally plays the game or a reasonable course of action?

that's why there is an independant, impartial decision maker. Pretty sure you told me you were one once,

Adjudication officer, Specialist claims officer, Decision maker etc for Income Support.

Personal Advisor in Job Centre - hence not a decision maker in JC.

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

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.

the decision maker applies the rules. if they find the rules say the persons sanction shouldnt stand then the person wins the appeal. that means the person who refered the sanction was wrong to do so. this person will be trained will they not? so they should know not to refer the person for sanction. so why do they?

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

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.

people cannot be expected to apply for a job that they cant get to. they were told this and still refered the sanction. so they either wanted the person to be sanctioned or they were incompetent. it would not be a waste of time if they think they will manage to get the sanction through because they dont think the sanctioned person will know what they need to do to win an appeal.

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

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

in the case i talked about it took an appeal to get it overturned. the person was initially hit with a 5 week sanction by the decision maker.

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

and there are targets for referrals.

if the person isnt clued up they are stuffed. the jobcentre knows this. they dont refer a certain number of people thinking its ok they wont get sanctioned if they are innocent.