Important Changes to Jobseekers Allowance Sanctions

busy_mom_2

No person will be left without food. For those who fail to comply with the rules and regulations for claiming JSA, there is hardship provision so no-one will have absolutely nothing. Hardship is payable after 14 days (day one for vulnerable groups) but if people do all the can to find work these will be no issues anyway. I can only presume those moaning have already had benefit effected and no realise the sanction may be a lot longer than before.

Morlock

The sanctions regime has been revamped as a precursor to Universal Credit, sanctions will not only apply to JSA and ESA claimants, but to anyone who is earning less than the equivalent of 35 hours at minimum wage (2x for couples) and claiming benefits.

Anyone claiming the UC equivalent of Child Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits or Housing Benefit will be required to meet similar conditionality as ESA and JSA claimants, and will be sanctioned in the same way.

Sanctions will apply to everyone claiming Universal Credit, not just the unemployed.

Morlock

busy_mom wrote: »

I can only presume those moaning have already had benefit effected and no realise the sanction may be a lot longer than before.

Will you be claiming Universal Credit? Because these sanctions may apply to you too, do you still agree with them if that is the case?

Crazy_Larry

Nothing to worry about, Andy, just the same old hot air. The Jobcentre staff are too harassed and overloaded to bother sanctioning anyone and are easily placated with any lie. I have the same experience as Miss Sarah, they just look at my latest job search record without noticing that it is just copied out again from the last one and then let me go home.

Gac1977

csmw wrote: »

I think is really absurd that you think most off the staff at your local Jobcentre 'like' stopping people's benefits. We do not stop the benefits its down to the decision makers, they look at your jobseekers agreement and then make a decision based upon the evidence you supply, if its not up to scratch you will recieve a sanction.....

The new sanction regime is basically just an adjustment to the one currently in place the only difference is the length of time a customer recieves a sanction for.

As for being on the work program and having to prove your job search to both parties, the jobcentre is correct we are the ones who process the payment, what may be ok at a4e isnt neccesarily ok at the jcp as we go on by what actions you agreed to take your jobseekers agreement which a4e dont have access to

Forgive me if I'm wrong in saying, but is it not JC+ Staff fail to highlight and log any Positive Job Seeking Activity to simply sign them on within a stupendous 4 minute time window. This conveniently saves them less work to actually highlight how some job seekers are genuinely "Actively Seeking Work" in accordance with the Job Seekers Regulations Act 1995.

Although when it comes to not applying for a job in any given week it's raise a doubt as quick as you can say "KPI Target", the same as the OP, has also just happened to me, and now JC+ Staff are being internally investigate for wrongfully raising doubts in the first place about people who "FAIL" to Actively Seek Work, at which point previous pending 2 weeks benefit money that WAS due to be paid into a bank 2 days later ready to cover £100+ worth of out going direct debits, does not make it in the bank, and therefore, being put in financial problems when accumulating £25 costs on for each of 3 failed DD's due to that Wrongfully raised "Doubt" that JC+ member made in the first place. So yes, if your like MOST JC+ STAFF who's job revolves around KPI's, rather then try to !!!!!!!!e intelligent people, why not admit guilt and leave that job, like \2 of my previous advisors have done due to being grilled on making them know that they are equally responsible for following through with forced or underhand tactics, but more then often get away with it due to people not wanting the hassle or cannot legally afford to fight for what they have wrongfully been denied.

How long would it take to send an email that had filters in place to ignore and delete all doubts sent which would not look to end up causing a problem later. Hell, I'd set it up to delete all doubts unless the claimant mentioned words such as Job seekers regulations Act 1995, Freedom of Information Request, etc, Voila, Second time round, surprise surprise, benefit sanction is reversed before it goes to an tribunal hearing. Happened to me, twice, I wised up, and know the procedures and policies that are legitimate, yet not being followed..

It took 20 Days to receive a response from the DWP which simply asked if it was a requirement that Job Seekers HAVE to apply for X amount of Jobs per fortnight, and if it is correct JC+ Staff Procedure to raise a doubt due to not being seen as "Actively Seeking Work". The response I got -

" [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"Turning specifically to whether or not it is a requirement to apply for "x" amount of jobs per week as part of the steps required in order tobe considered as "Actively Seeking Work” I can confirm that there is no such requirement. If the claimant has taken all the steps to look for work that he can reasonably be expected to takein any week, then he has met the Actively Seeking Employment requirements."[/FONT]

Oh, Actively Seeking Work defined, is anything from reading a Paper to Emailing A CV or attending Work Programmes. That is 3 Steps filled in one week. Do the same the following week, but just put same as last week, to save time writing it, as long as evidence is available then that is meeting a Job Seekers Agreement to continue receiving benefits" The fact it's cut corners to search for work, seems to be an issue with some grumpy staff, like searching for work on a Home PC was not better then attending a work programme, which cost tax players money on needless travel expenses. just to keep someone else in a Job. All of a Sudden the DWP come out of the stone age, and decide that it wants finding work even through Facebook which training providers put blocks on, is now considered a common method of socializing with others to swap ideas, this all done from the comfort of your arm chair rather then being stuck in some over crowded sweat hole, waiting to find a spare "PC" even if it does resemble the looks and speed of a 1980's ZX Spectrum where Health and Hygeine ifrom the 100's of nose picking jobseeker's use to search for a job if and when the PC actually loads a website. If such places did not require a job seeker to be babysitted, or blocked from searching for anything slightly related to underhand benefit sanction tactics then I guess it would probably make a few staff nervous enough to reconsider whether or not the needless bullying tactics they force on people is really worth risking their own jobs for. You give 40 Computers to Job Seekers with the Correct Information which cones directly from tthe DWP, to which if they do not provide the truth then they get internally investigated. I guarantee there will be more then a few riots in work programmer places. All it takes if for one Stressed out indivdual to leave a website loaded with the some regulations on full display, would be all it takes to cause enough twitter activity to see a large change in attitudes of Job Center staff on Power Trips.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So yes, if JC+ Staff want to try and shift the blame on to others, then at least spend more time reading your companies policies longer then you spend signing someone on. [/FONT]

saintjammyswine

gothic_hobbit wrote: »

Even retail jobs are thin on the ground these days.

Also, people have committed suicide due to not being able to find work AT ALL.

M&S Southampton as well as a lot of other large stores are recruiting and have been for a while.

Gac1977

csmw wrote: »

The staff at the jobcentre are not responsible for getting you a job. All we can do is advise an support and guide you in the right direction. we are there to help you overcome your barriers not to do it for you.

as for people not looking at your job listings when you sign on you dont see an advisor you are usually seen by an assistant advisor who's job is to make sure you are complying with your jobseekers agreement.

I suggest if you feel that you are getting no support you ask for an appointment with a senior advisor to look at your options.

1. So when we sign on, and are asked to provide job search evidence, to which benefits have been suspended on spot, which are basically poor judgement decisions made by someone who does not have a credible position of power to make such harsh decisions is what you are basically saying? Because that is exactly how it happened to me.

2. As for approaching anyone within 50 Miles of the person who's got the pleasure of pushing buttons like a toddler with a new toy, yet create such a pile of hassle is far from the sort of advice I would be giving to this person.

One thing is for certain, that is that I certainly would not expect a Job Seeker to have to pay up to 40p per minute after having to call a local rate number when benefits have been stopped by staff who probably spend lunch times placing bets to see how many job seekers benefits they can suspend when it comes to KPI targets.

You only have to walk into the place and be unlucky enough to pick someone who's had a bad day due to receiving a verbal bashing from someone who actually knows where to look for information that is not being correctly followed to then try it on with someone else, and stop their benefits because they can. These people should get real jobs like working Maccies.

Good Pay, Ability to Stop Benefits if it's that time of the month, whilst hiding behind the Goverment or Passing the blame on to anyone other then themselves - Semd me an Application Form, I'll work for Minimum Wage if it complies with the rest of my Job Seekers Agreement.

Perhaps this info when googled will really help those that do want to stand up for something they were wrongfully denied.

The DWP do not plan to make the information widely visible in job centrels on stands for claimants to view, what a surprise lol.

just make a Freedom of Information request on the whatdotheyknow website. Guaranteed to reverse a few benefit sanction decisions.

Gac1977

The kind of real information that is lacking on behalf of the JCP+ & Programmer Providers purely down working in a job that exists on performance levels. That being, more off benefits, into work = KPI levels reached, and security of job for another month.
When it comes to the crunch and KPI's are no where near looking impossible to reach, is where you get swapped around from adviser to adviser because they cannot deal with the consequences to which they bring on themselves when information is put in front of them in black and white, along with requesting their name to which can be called upon in a Tribunal Hearing and be held accountable for gross misconduct.

Anyone ever wondered as to why when appealing against a benefit sanction it is that onr of the first things ask is

"Are your being Legally Represented?"

What will providing this information do? Help provide the claimant with court cost lol?

OK, I put no, I'm not, benefit sanction appeal automatically upheld straight away. Result? They earn a brownie point for contributing to"Safely" save £140 in Tax Payers Money.

Until they are later informed that it will be appealed at a Tribual Hearing where legal and financial advice would simply cause internal investigations en masse. would all be worthwhile.

If everyone who had stood up to that kind of treatment, the more media exposure makes headlines (Take the Guardian for example) they do job seekers genuine justice.

SweptAside

If everybody on Job Seekers were sitting on their !!!!!! all day doing nothing to look for work then I could understand all of these changes, but to me this is a full launch attack targetting everybody without a job or at the risk of losing their job. It's not right.

Recently started the Work Programme and there idea of support is worse than I received from the Job Centre, and the government are paying these companies millions to get people into work? Sitting at a computer applying for jobs, when I would be doing the same thing at home. Then they get paid once you find a job. Really stupid.

What do they hope to achieve by sending everyone into charity shops, supermarkets. "This is your level, work for your Job Seekers or else" Instead of throwing people into no money situations. Why don't they actually help people find employment? They can't, because there isn't much for youngsters. Apprenticeships are hard to find, Warehouse work is hardly anything but temporary and everything else seems too difficult to get.

Had enough of these threats when I'm trying my best to get employment. Instead of forcing people onto a no hope scheme. They should give you a chance and help you into employment or at the very least help you to find a voluntary position in the area you would some day like to work in. Done voluntary, learnt a significant amount but it hasn't helped me to find employment.

I am glad I have some temporary employment over Christmas but I dread the day I have to sign up with these muppets again as I still have very little experience.

earthbound_misfit

The issue here is that although the rules could be interpreted reasonably, a lot of us have a sneaking suspicion they won't be.
My particular concern if for ill and disabled people who, fair enough, could perhaps do some kind of work, but won't cope with this harsh regime. What about people who were fired because of their ill-health? The employer may give a reason like not turning up for a shift and put the blame on the employee, rather than their health. Not sure what the official line is with the DWP, but it was their decision maker who rubber-stamped my Atos report that mentioned I was 'fired' from my job, when I had explained to them I was 'let go' for health reasons (had only been there 6 weeks so no official sacking procedure, just "not offered a permanent contract").
So, if they do manage to get JSA they then must apply for hundreds of unsuitable jobs that they haven't a hope of getting due to their CV gaps and health record (oh I know there's the DDA but employers can give any old reason when they have so many applications!) Anecdotal evidence from various sources also suggests that JC+ make people apply for jobs they are not qualified/experienced enough for, as well as ones it's impossible to travel to by public transport. (And I'm someone who'd happy to walk a long way but don't get me started on cycling )
So someone thinks "oh, I'm not qualified, I won't apply" (would the company even accept/register their application anyway?) and then they are sanctioned.
In the end, due to not finding work, they end up on the Work Program (I have a feeling that in future we will look back and find those words chilling with hindsight). Now I've not really got anything against the state essentially giving someone a job for which they recieve money, beacuse they are otherwise unemployed. That is fine. The problem is, they should actually offer that in the form of a paid job, not 'work experience' for benefits. For a start, the amount received should equate to at least minimum wage, not JSA+HB (for a single 25-35 in my area this is about £130 a week). Secondly, by making it a real job, the employee (formerly claimant) would have employment rights that were, after all, invented for a reason. Thirdly - and this is the most unjust of them all - it would stop large companies benefitting from free labour that is paid for by the taxpayer! They make their money from us, the least they can do is provide proper jobs and a decent wage.
Anyway, back to our former, now sanctioned claimant, who has to somehow find the money to live on and maybe a rent shortfall (possibly child maintenace, not sure how that's calculated) and the worsening of their health from the stress... that's if it's not a mental health problem to begin with, in which case they are also scaling back already woefully inadequate mental health services. Homelessness is but a tiny step away - and, coincidence (?) they are tightening up criteria for homelessness (some councils already do the bare minimum, more follow) and housing benefit for temporary accomodation so it's impossible to afford.

Surely it would be better to focus on ways to actually achieve full employment, rather than punishing people who can't find work if it doesn't exist? Rather than making the problem worse by giving companies free workers, reducing their need for proper employees?

Oh, and this is interesting if you think cutting benefits is the way out of recession, or that overly generous benefits is what's got the country into debt:
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Billion-Pound-O-Gram1.jpg