Universal Job Match at http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

years or dates? Two different things

16th August with no year or no date at all ???

if you put the date without the year it gives a nasty adviser the opportunity to say how do i know this isnt from last year. or they may just say you must include the year in with the date like in the examples.
edit.
the date is usually meant as the full date when it comes to things like this. therefore it includes the year.

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

if you put the date without the year it gives a nasty adviser the opportunity to say how do i know this isnt from last year. or they may just say you must include the year in with the date like in the examples.

Id then say get on the net go to such and such site let me log in and you can see it there in the last two weeks

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

Id then say get on the net go to such and such site let me log in and you can see it there in the last two weeks

they may say its not my responsibility to do that. i choose to cover my back and put the full date each time. it may not be necessary as many people may not do that and be ok but i like to play safe.

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

they may say its not my responsibility to do that. i choose to cover my back and put the full date each time. it may not be necessary as many people may not do that and be ok but i like to play safe.

and you have all the job booklets from when you started signing? That's covering your back and they can log in to a site busy mom on here told us all the JC do have net access even though the advisors say they don't

Ratboy

AP007 wrote: »

I doubt they did

Just to clarify - when my PARTNER was sanctioned, she was informed of the appeal process, and told to return the next day. She filled in a log of what had gone on, and provided the diary sheet (which she had anyway, as duplicate due to doleskool, but hadn't taken with her origionally, the issue was she was without the dole issued form, because they didn't have any to supply her with. She asked.

We were then told that the computer system for our claim was completely messed up, many many letters turned up contradicting themselves turned up on one day (10 on one day - maybe 30 in total in a week, all contradictory, all sent on the same day), and they held their hands up, said it's their mistake, reset the claim, and started paying again. But they didn't pay the bills from my money, which I'm still getting letters about.

There is a comment on my card that says "box", this escalates it seems, dunno what it means properly, but that said box3, it has now gone to box1.

Sorry for the confusion.

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

and you have all the job booklets from when you started signing? That's covering your back and they can log in to a site busy mom on here told us all the JC do have net access even though the advisors say they don't

people probably wouldnt but that does not stop them saying this form could be from any year if you didnt have the year included in the date.
they cannot access your account unless you give them permission and even then you can say you applied for the jobs by post. the ujm site only records the jobs with an apply button anyway.

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

people probably wouldnt but that does not stop them saying this form could be from any year if you didnt have the year included in the date.
they cannot access your account unless you give them permission and even then you can say you applied for the jobs by post. the ujm site only records the jobs with an apply button anyway.

I have all my books and sheets and you would have had to make that decision to lie early on as you would have ahd to keep them a year to pretend the ones you applied for in Aug 2012 are now the 2013 jobs.

Yeah all the jobs on the net - would be wise to apply by post and pay all that postage when it says apply online via such and such or email a letter and CV.

I am not talking about access to the UJM I said net access.

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

Yeah all the jobs on the net - would be wise to apply by post and pay all that postage when it says apply online via such and such or email a letter and CV.

there are still jobs where you can apply via the post. you can also do specs via the post. yes it is better to do it online but you are missing the point. the point which is to diminish their ability to ask for proof you applied. they dont check you applied or even record who you applied to anyway.

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

I am not talking about access to the UJM I said net access.

how is their ability to use the net and log into sites a threat to someone being dishonest about their jobsearch?

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

how is their ability to use the net and log into sites a threat to someone being dishonest about their jobsearch?

I never said it was a threat. Its to PROVE you have applied ie log in and show them its not from 2011. Since they all have the net they can just type in the job reference and see its a current job too as its on the net with the date posted next to it.


easy.