Universal Jobmatch - non mandatory

SarEl

I do not work at the JobCentre. I am not a benefits advisor. But being a lawyer means that I am uniquely qualified to comment on utter rubbish being spouted as "law":

jobseeking_help wrote: »

Dear G-G

Highly unlikely I think. It would need a change in the law.

No it won't. At most it will require a change in regulation - benefits are established in law and then set by regulation. In fact it won't even need that because what job search criteria are set down for individual job seekers is not set by regulation - you do as you are told or face the consequences. So if every benefits advisor says you will search by this method and requires you to prove that you have, it does not require regulation. It requires an instruction to staff!

jobseeking_help wrote: »

You can ignore the direction, it is not enforceable in law


All the best

And shortly thereafter you can expect to be sanctioned. Not much of all the best there, is there?

jobseeking_help wrote: »

The legal 'test' that Decison Makers use to determine whether a claimant can be sanctioned

All the best

The don't use "legal tests" - they use the tests set down in regulation, including the one about whether you have refused to make reasonable efforts to secure employment.


If you wish to be a lawyer, I suggest you study the law and become fully qualified, Until you do, do not presume to give people "legal advice" which will result in the loss of their benefits.

john539

SarEl wrote: »

I do not work at the JobCentre. I am not a benefits advisor. But being a lawyer means that I am uniquely qualified to comment on utter rubbish being spouted as "law":



No it won't. At most it will require a change in regulation - benefits are established in law and then set by regulation. In fact it won't even need that because what job search criteria are set down for individual job seekers is not set by regulation - you do as you are told or face the consequences. So if every benefits advisor says you will search by this method and requires you to prove that you have, it does not require regulation. It requires an instruction to staff!



And shortly thereafter you can expect to be sanctioned. Not much of all the best there, is there?



The don't use "legal tests" - they use the tests set down in regulation, including the one about whether you have refused to make reasonable efforts to secure employment.


If you wish to be a lawyer, I suggest you study the law and become fully qualified, Until you do, do not presume to give people "legal advice" which will result in the loss of their benefits.

So you have no experience of benefits advice or benefit cases.

What area of Law do you work in to say jobseekers must do as they are told without question.

Your reply doesn't seem particularly considered, balanced or well-written for a lawyer.

xsupercarlx

To be honest, if I was to 'mandate' that you sign-up to that site then you would have to or else you would be sanctioned, I wouldnt ask for access details as thats your business. All I want to see is evidence you're applying for jobs, not fussy about the site or the medium.

Granted, I wouldn't mandate that you do it because I think the site is rubbish and has been nothing but trouble. I just tell client/customers to use sites like 'Indeed'.

If i crossed a 'smart' JSA claimant who tried to wow me with his awesome loophole skills, I would just mandate that he turn up Monday to Friday 9am till 3pm to search for jobs, I bet they find something pretty sharpish (I'm talking about the blatantly lazy, not those who are genuinely seeking work). Never had to do it before but a few are pretty close.

My advice to claimants, don't go to the JCP or work programme provider saying things like "Ahaa, I don't have to comply because of blah blah blah", you'll get their back up and they will make life hard for you, you can waste 20 mins of their time but they can waste your entire week.

john539

xsupercarlx wrote: »

To be honest, if I was to 'mandate' that you sign-up to that site then you would have to or else you would be sanctioned, I wouldnt ask for access details as thats your business. All I want to see is evidence you're applying for jobs, not fussy about the site or the medium.

Granted, I wouldn't mandate that you do it because I think the site is rubbish and has been nothing but trouble. I just tell client/customers to use sites like 'Indeed'.

If i crossed a 'smart' JSA claimant who tried to wow me with his awesome loophole skills, I would just mandate that he turn up Monday to Friday 9am till 3pm to search for jobs, I bet they find something pretty sharpish (I'm talking about the blatantly lazy, not those who are genuinely seeking work). Never had to do it before but a few are pretty close.

My advice to claimants, don't go to the JCP or work programme provider saying things like "Ahaa, I don't have to comply because of blah blah blah", you'll get their back up and they will make life hard for you, you can waste 20 mins of their time but they can waste your entire week.

You don't decide whether something is mandatory or whether someone is sanctioned.

Yes, if you don't follow JC rules & someone makes complaint about you to DWP they can give you a hard time.

You're attitude to someone questioning you says it all about JC advisors.

csmw

SarEl wrote: »

I do not work at the JobCentre. I am not a benefits advisor. But being a lawyer means that I am uniquely qualified to comment on utter rubbish being spouted as "law":



No it won't. At most it will require a change in regulation - benefits are established in law and then set by regulation. In fact it won't even need that because what job search criteria are set down for individual job seekers is not set by regulation - you do as you are told or face the consequences. So if every benefits advisor says you will search by this method and requires you to prove that you have, it does not require regulation. It requires an instruction to staff!



And shortly thereafter you can expect to be sanctioned. Not much of all the best there, is there?



The don't use "legal tests" - they use the tests set down in regulation, including the one about whether you have refused to make reasonable efforts to secure employment.


If you wish to be a lawyer, I suggest you study the law and become fully qualified, Until you do, do not presume to give people "legal advice" which will result in the loss of their benefits.

So glad to see someone on here speaking sense

csmw

john539 wrote: »

You don't decide whether something is mandatory or whether someone is sanctioned.

Yes, if you don't follow JC rules & someone makes complaint about you to DWP they can give you a hard time.

You're attitude to someone questioning you says it all about JC advisors.

Sorry but you first line about deciding if something is mandatory! Technically we do, if I direct a customer to do something it becomes mandatory...so we do decide. The previous poster may not of come across in the best way but what he said is correct

SarEl

john539 wrote: »

So you have no experience of benefits advice or benefit cases.

What area of Law do you work in to say jobseekers must do as they are told without question.

Your reply doesn't seem particularly considered, balanced or well-written for a lawyer.

I don't need to be told that a law does not exist. You and your friend here are saying this is against the law - fine, QUOTE THE LAW IT BREAKS.

I have no love for this government, nor for most of what it does, but nor do I go around on a public forum deliberately telling people lies about what the law says - lies which could cost them thei little income that they have.

And I did not say that I have no experience of benefits or benefits cases - I said that I did not work for the Job Centre and nor am I a benefits advisor. That is far from being the same thing as having no experience.

Exactly what professional qualifications do you have to state what the law says, and please, do enlighten us by telling us which law says it.

john539

csmw wrote: »

Sorry but you first line about deciding if something is mandatory! Technically we do, if I direct a customer to do something it becomes mandatory...so we do decide. The previous poster may not of come across in the best way but what he said is correct

This is really about UJM.

You don't decide whether UJM is mandatory as it will go to Decision Maker.

You don't decide whether things are mandatory, as it will go to Decision Maker.

The final decision isn't yours.

The "lawyer" who posted obviously doesn't have a clue, saying jobseekers have to do as their told without question.

john539

SarEl wrote: »

I don't need to be told that a law does not exist. You and your friend here are saying this is against the law - fine, QUOTE THE LAW IT BREAKS.

I have no love for this government, nor for most of what it does, but nor do I go around on a public forum deliberately telling people lies about what the law says - lies which could cost them thei little income that they have.

And I did not say that I have no experience of benefits or benefits cases - I said that I did not work for the Job Centre and nor am I a benefits advisor. That is far from being the same thing as having no experience.

Exactly what professional qualifications do you have to state what the law says, and please, do enlighten us by telling us which law says it.

I was commenting on your post only, I wasn't agreeing with my "friend" in original post.

JC advisors are basically admin staff, you follow the rules to keep your job.

SarEl

john539 wrote: »

This is really about UJM.

You don't decide whether UJM is mandatory as it will go to Decision Maker.

You don't decide whether things are mandatory, as it will go to Decision Maker.

The final decision isn't yours.

The "lawyer" who posted obviously doesn't have a clue, saying jobseekers have to do as their told without question.

Please - whilst quoting the law which you have now been asked to quote several times - do also point to where I said that jobseekers have to do what they are told withour question.

The OP said that an instruction to use UJM by your advisor could not be enforced because such an instruction was unenforceable because it would be an illegal instruction. That is not true. I said that if you refused to carry out the lawful and reasonable instructions of your advisor you could expect to be sanctioned. On what basis exactly would be it be incorrect to say that you could expect to be sanctioned.

And if you had been around here more than two minutes you would know exactly what kind of barrister I am.

You and jobseekinghelp have both supported the view that the law does not permit advisors to tell people they must use UJM in their jobsearch, and that to do so is illegal. I am asking you yet again - WHICH LAW DOES THIS BREAK?

I will not be the one down at the jobcentre on Monday qoting utter rubbish off an intenet site and risking my benefit payments - don't you think that the unemployed people here deserve to know which law you are telling them exists to support your argument?