JSA Sanctions - Beer Money for Claimant Advisers?

dookar

Debt_Tired wrote: »

Not sure if anyone who works for DWP/Job Centre Plus reads these posts, but can I ask if claimant advisers are given financial incentives to issue sanctions.

I get the impression that they are now taking people's benefits away for even the slightest infringement of the agreement made between the claimant and the state?

I don't mind if someone who clearly has no intention of getting a job is penalised, but I get the impression that they are even targeting those who do apply for jobs, etc.

I haven't read the whole thread, but:

Advisers don't issue sanctions. They refer cases to a decision maker who will consider a sanction.

Whilst there might be targets given to advisers for numbers of referrals, or even 'successful' referrals, these targets would be irrelevant to the number of sanctions actually applied.

decision makers interpret and enact the law, the law is the only authority to which they are held. Nobody can lawfully instruct a decision maker to reach a certain decision, neither can they reach an incorrect decision for any personal gain

cit_k

dookar wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread, but:

Advisers don't issue sanctions. They refer cases to a decision maker who will consider a sanction.

Whilst there might be targets given to advisers for numbers of referrals, or even 'successful' referrals, these targets would be irrelevant to the number of sanctions actually applied.

decision makers interpret and enact the law, the law is the only authority to which they are held. Nobody can lawfully instruct a decision maker to reach a certain decision, neither can they reach an incorrect decision for any personal gain

Problem is, they are not held to it, they can break those laws with ease, and never be held accountable in any court of law, never punished.

dookar

cit_k wrote: »

Problem is, they are not held to it, they can break those laws with ease, and never be held accountable in any court of law, never punished.

Problem is, that's nonsense.

It's not a question of breaking a law, there's nothing criminal.

The point is, a decision maker cannot be coerced or forced to make a decision. And if one allows greed to influence their decision there are many routes to right that wrong.

It's paranoid to think decision makers knowingly make wrong decisions for any reason.

I know, I've been one. I've also been a person other decision makers seek for guidance. Their only desire is to enact the law and to suggest otherwise is utterly offensive

Broke_n_Broken

dookar wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread, but:

Advisers don't issue sanctions. They refer cases to a decision maker who will consider a sanction.

Problem is, as people have experienced, the attitude and mood of an adviser can determine whether they refer you or not.
Your attitude and previous behavior may have an effect on this too, as can the clothes you're wearing, the football team you support, colour of your skin.

Keeping an appointment once every 2 weeks is also harder then it sounds, you can't get into a routine, can forget bus times, miss when they change the buses, mis-remember and mis-judge walking times etc...

dookar

Broke_n_Broken wrote: »

Problem is, as people have experienced, the attitude and mood of an adviser can determine whether they refer you or not.
Your attitude and previous behavior may have an effect on this too, as can the clothes you're wearing, the football team you support, colour of your skin.

I don't buy it, not at all. The original premise of the thread is that they do it for financial or material gain, now you're shifting it to they do it due to their own prejudices.

Even if that does happen, in terms of sanctions it's irrelevant. The decision is made by an impartial authority who considers only the action or inaction of the claimant and the law.

Broke_n_Broken wrote: »

Keeping an appointment once every 2 weeks is also harder then it sounds, you can't get into a routine, can forget bus times, miss when they change the buses, mis-remember and mis-judge walking times etc...

My memory is awful so I can sympathise, but sadly the law doesn't. It's a test of reasonableness - what would a reasonable person do? They wouldn't neglect to put in place a system to remind them of, and keep a bus timetable to ensure they can get to, an important appointment that ensured their only source of income.