Job seekers allowance sanction

lampetarian

Hi all.

first time poster here but big fan of Martin, just looking for some advice from anyone who knows the system better than me about a current sanction on a job seekers claim.

Okay, so at the end of march, after working for 10 years in various university research posts my most recent contract ended, after which I had to claim jobseekers. At the beginning of this month I managed to get myself another job, but which doesn't start till the beginning of august, mainly because they want me to have submitted my PhD first which I was doing part time alongside the job. In the meantime I've been looking for some temporary work, but don't really expect anyone to be interested in employing someone for two months (And I've got a PhD to finish!).

Today I received a letter from the job centre saying that I have had my claim for jobseekers suspended for 8 weeks, because I failed to apply for a position I said I would apply for. What actually happened was that I told them about this position after I'd applied and was offered an interview. However I was offered another, much better job in a different part of the country three days earlier than the interview, which I accepted.

I therefore withdrew my application at the interview stage, not expecting any problems because I'd secured another position for myself. Even if i was offered the first job, I wouldn't accept it because of the other, better post. In hindsight I now wish I hadn't withdrawn from the interview but didn't expect this to be a problem. On my next signing on day the guy dealing with the claim on that day (not my usual advisor) becomes fixated on the fact I withdrew an application, not that I'd actually got myself a job, and refers it on. As a result of that referral I've had my claim suspended for 8 weeks, which for a first offence (if its even an offence which I'd dispute) and given I'd only been claiming for 5 weeks at the time I find unbelievably harsh!

I've put in a request for a reconsideration (which I'm expecting to fail), and if it does I will put forward a full appeal. Luckily I do have some savings so I could afford sign myself off until the new job starts, but I'm going to lose about £1700 in both jobseekers and more importantly a mortgage income protection policy over the next two months because of this. I'm absolutely incensed by this. I feel like I am being punished for being honest, for actually getting myself a job, and for not jumping through the various obstacles that these people put up, who have no knowledge about my employment sector. Clearly I should have kept my mouth shut, instead of telling them I withdrew my application but having got a job didn't think this would be a problem at the time.

I'm just looking for any advice or experiences anyone in a similar position has had and what I could possibly expect to happen with this sanction on appeal. Apologies for the length of the rant, any advice appreciated.

HappyMJ

You can appeal but in any case you will still be signing on so your MPPI policy will still pay out. Just like housing benefit would still pay out to a claimant you will still get your mortgage paid. If you appeal it is best that you do not sign off.

and yes clearly you should have kept your mouth shut...sorry...

lampetarian

Will have to check that with the MPPI providers tomorrow, unfortunately the MPPI documentation I've received so far says it needs me to send proof that I have actually received the job seekers allowance via bank statements not just that I have a job seekers agreement. So if that's true I won't receive it.

Yeah, I know I should have kept my mouth shut but then you'd think having another job would be a good enough reason. Apparently not.

HappyMJ

lampetarian wrote: »

Will have to check that with the MPPI providers tomorrow, unfortunately the MPPI documentation I've received so far says it needs me to send proof that I have actually received the job seekers allowance via bank statements not just that I have a job seekers agreement. So if that's true I won't receive it.

Yeah, I know I should have kept my mouth shut but then you'd think having another job would be a good enough reason. Apparently not.

That's a bit strange as you can sign on just for credits. Such as after the 26 weeks of contributions based benefits you might have over £16,000 in the bank and not entitled to any cash JSA but you are signing on for credits. The MPPI insurance usually pays out for 12 months. They don't require you to be skint to pay out. It's an insurance poilcy that pays out even if you have the money to make the payments. I'd be reading the fine print on that one.

lampetarian

HappyMJ wrote: »

That's a bit strange as you can sign on just for credits. Such as after the 26 weeks of contributions based benefits you might have over £16,000 in the bank and not entitled to any cash JSA but you are signing on for credits. The MPPI insurance usually pays out for 12 months. They don't require you to be skint to pay out. It's an insurance poilcy that pays out even if you have the money to make the payments. I'd be reading the fine print on that one.

Hmm, will give them a ring tomorrow and see what they say about it. If that's true it won't be so bad. Thanks

dookar

They haven't leg to stand on, the sanction is erroneous in law Take it as far as you can

bored_at_home

dookar i disagree. you cannot sign on as looking for work and turn down a job interview because you have a job arranged yet still continue to claim job seekers.
as the job doesnt start til august and op wants theoretically to look for temp work he can still claim jsa but he cannot refuse an interview. hes right he should have kept mouth shut he had a job and gone to the interview to comply with jsa agreement. crazy when hes gota job lined up but thas the system.

op well done on the new job!
regarding claiming on a mortgage protection, i claimed on mine for 10months while on jsa, each calendar month the insurance company sent me a form for the jsa advisor to fill in, stamp and sign saying i had done jobseeking as agreed in my jsa contract and tick a box that i hadnt been sanctioned for non compliance of seeking work and that i hadni signed off at all.
im certain diff companies all have differant forms, mine was via hsbc insurance.

lampetarian

Bored at home. You're right that it is crazy. You would think that securing another position would be enough justification, or at least some leeway. What if I'd been offered the job? The biggest joke is they wouldn't even have known I was going to apply for the position if I had not told them when signing on.

Tbh if the reconsideration and appeal fails and I can't now get the mppi because of the sanction I am just gonna sign myself off till the sanction ends, live off my savings til august and read them the riot act when I sign off. It'll be better for my mental health and at least then I won't have to justify myself every two weeks. P***ed off with the whole thing.

I think each mppi does have different forms. I have something similar, but no form I need them to stamp, I don't think they do that anymore.

baza52

what happens if the job offer falls through between now and then?
To be entitled to jobseekers you have to be looking and available for a job.
If your not you are breaking the agreement and will have been overpaid?

If it were that easy everyone would be doing it.
In fact, i might write an e-book on it.

dookar

bored_at_home wrote: »

dookar i disagree. you cannot sign on as looking for work and turn down a job interview because you have a job arranged yet still continue to claim job seekers.

This is the key bit

lampetarian wrote: »

What actually happened was that I told them about this position after I'd applied and was offered an interview.

dookar

lampetarian wrote: »

Tbh if the reconsideration and appeal fails

They won't if you take the right approach and base them on the right grounds. Forget that you have a job lined up, that won't help you at all. The important factor is that you found the job yourself and applied for it with no interaction from an employment adviser.

As I said, the sanction is erroneous in law and would not stand up to scrutiny