JSA - JobCentre: own email report to myself as proof in case of issue with my adviser

Funky_Bold_Ribena

Emailing the JSA staff after being specifically told to stop emailing them is painting a huge bright red target onto your back.

You make life hard for them - you make yourself visible. That's the way of the world.

With JSA - you tick the boxes, play the game and keep under the radar.

The difference makes for a hard life.

No wonder you have had a 6 year headache if this is the struggle you set yourself up for every day.

Morlock

Honeypie wrote: »

Not that again :doh:

I worked in the job centre as a new deal advisor. The front line staff do not have targets to sanction people because they do not sanction people, they REFER people to the decision maker. A decision is then made by a faceless person on the evidence submitted.

So, there are no targets to sanction claimants, but there are targets to refer claimants for sanctions. Using some common sense, that would imply that JC staff are being encouraged to 'trip people up' so they can be referred for a sanction, which is exactly what the OP is complaining about.

Honeypie

Morlock wrote: »

So, there are no targets to sanction claimants, but there are targets to refer claimants for sanctions. Using some common sense, that would imply that JC staff are being encouraged to 'trip people up' so they can be referred for a sanction, which is exactly what the OP is complaining about.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

In your place of work is it common for people - or do you yourself - falsify performance or seek out to 'trip people up', that you work with, to make your performance look better and to reach targets? Is that how it works? Or is that only within JCP that this happens so obviously and blatantly because they're all out to get claimants (in your opinion)?

I am yet to see overwhelming evidence - or even one instance on this board, for example - of a claimant having been unfairly referred for not meeting a particular condition of their agreement.

Referred for turning up late even though I can arrive up to 10 minutes late for signing - Oh that's ok then. Turn up when you like! That's what an employer will love too, someone who can't be bothered to make the effort to arrive on time. How unfair of us to expect anything better.

Referred for not providing enough evidence of job search even though I said I was searching websites online - Oh that's fiiiiiiine! You could have written these on your way in from that job you're doing on the side, and I have no way of checking because you haven't provided any contact details or reference numbers, but what the heck, you look like a nice person so here's your dole and I'll see you again the same time in two weeks.

All I see is a whole load of negativity and blame shifting from a bunch of people who have been sanction or asked to undertake reasonable JSA/WP requests, as expected nationwide, because they seem to think the world is against them and that everyone is out to get them, and that is has absolutely nothing to do with their own attitude or performance.

Morlock

Honeypie wrote: »

All I see is a whole load of negativity and blame shifting from a bunch of people who have been sanction or asked to undertake reasonable JSA/WP requests, as expected nationwide, because they seem to think the world is against them and that everyone is out to get them, and that is has absolutely nothing to do with their own attitude or performance.

You should give the government the benefit of your amazing insight, they are just about to waste loads of cash on an independent enquiry in to Jobcentre league tables of sanction referrals based on newly obtained evidence suggesting that the league tables do exist and that JC staff are being pressurised in to referring claimants for sanctions for spurious reasons. I'm sure they will value your thorough research in to the matter.

lemontart

Morlock wrote: »

You should give the government the benefit of your amazing insight, they are just about to waste loads of cash on an independent enquiry in to Jobcentre league tables of sanction referrals based on newly obtained evidence suggesting that the league tables do exist and that JC staff are being pressurised in to referring claimants for sanctions for spurious reasons. I'm sure they will value your thorough research in to the matter.

Nail on head so to say - front line staff being pressurized to hit targets or face "referrals" them selves leading to a pip if continue to fail to meet said targets. that is the point I was trying to make.

Lack of evidence - there is plenty of evidence of errors across the net and I am sure the figures on successful challenges/appeals on such would be illuminating on the evidence front.

As to the validity of the op's concerns I cannot say as not them but it goes on and it would be naive to think other wise imho. The system is flawed just as people are but the balancing act of ensuring folk are supported when needed and genuine claimants are not tarred with the brush created by those who do cheat is difficult especially when using a hammer to crack a nut and waving pips and such like over those on front line.

Honeypie

Morlock wrote: »

You should give the government the benefit of your amazing insight, they are just about to waste loads of cash on an independent enquiry in to Jobcentre league tables of sanction referrals based on newly obtained evidence suggesting that the league tables do exist and that JC staff are being pressurised in to referring claimants for sanctions for spurious reasons. I'm sure they will value your thorough research in to the matter.

There will be an independent enquiry and no matter the outcome, people will STILL be sanctioned for not meeting the conditions of their agreements. And if they take away referrals and then sanctions, as the process now is, then it will be replaced by another process, with exactly the same outcome, that will target the exact same issues.

As I've said before, don't be angry at the advisors because they are enforcing the rules, be angry at the people taking advantage of the benefit system so that this type of intervention is required.

And it's not 'research'. It was my job.

john539

Honeypie wrote: »

That is absolutely ridiculous.

In your place of work is it common for people - or do you yourself - falsify performance or seek out to 'trip people up', that you work with, to make your performance look better and to reach targets? Is that how it works? Or is that only within JCP that this happens so obviously and blatantly because they're all out to get claimants (in your opinion)?

I am yet to see overwhelming evidence - or even one instance on this board, for example - of a claimant having been unfairly referred for not meeting a particular condition of their agreement.

Referred for turning up late even though I can arrive up to 10 minutes late for signing - Oh that's ok then. Turn up when you like! That's what an employer will love too, someone who can't be bothered to make the effort to arrive on time. How unfair of us to expect anything better.

Referred for not providing enough evidence of job search even though I said I was searching websites online - Oh that's fiiiiiiine! You could have written these on your way in from that job you're doing on the side, and I have no way of checking because you haven't provided any contact details or reference numbers, but what the heck, you look like a nice person so here's your dole and I'll see you again the same time in two weeks.

All I see is a whole load of negativity and blame shifting from a bunch of people who have been sanction or asked to undertake reasonable JSA/WP requests, as expected nationwide, because they seem to think the world is against them and that everyone is out to get them, and that is has absolutely nothing to do with their own attitude or performance.

You are naive.

You've changed subject asking about another workplace.

THE DWP & Jobcentre are bankrupt/incompetent organisations not fit for purpose under MASSIVE pressure to get results.

Welfare Reforms are the No 1 priority for a clueless Tory government as they can use to cover their failure of economic policies, as clueless public believe the tabloid myths & divide & rule tactics.

This is about a one on one situation for the OP with their advisor.

Nobody else was there, but it is a plausible tactic for a JC advisor to say they gave the OP 3 jobs, when they only gave 2, immediately creating a sanction referral situation, which can/will lead to suspension of benefit.

Honeypie

john539 wrote: »

You are naive.

You've changed subject asking about another workplace.

THE DWP & Jbcentre are bankrupt/incompetent organisations not fit for purpose under MASSIVE pressure to get results.

Welfare Reforms are the No 1 priority for a clueless Tory government as they can use to cover their failure of economic policies, as clueless public believe the tabloid myths & divide & rule tactics.

This is about a one on one situation for the OP with their advisor. Nobody was, there , but it is a plaUsible tactic for the Jc advisor to say they gave the OP 3 jobs, when they only gave 2, immediately creating a sanction referral situation, which can/will lead to suspension of benefit.

I am simply trying to grasp why it is deemed acceptable to think that JCP staff are 'out to get' people or 'trip people up' in order to get sanctions/referrals. I'm asking is this what happens in their/your work place? Is it that common? Because I am not aware of it.

I made referrals every week (for sanction) and I was just doing my job thoroughly and correctly. I wasn't out to get anyone and I certainly didn't try to trip anyone up.

As for the example you give about applying for jobs. Every job I printed off for a claimant to apply to, had to have both my signature and the claimant's signature as well as the date. It was also recorded electronically, automatically.
If that evidence (signed doc) was not provided at referral then the sanction was overturned because there was not enough evidence that the claimant had been given the job to apply to. The decision maker must look at the evidence provided and make a decision from there. A fair decision.
Personally, if I did not have that evidence (signed doc) I would not put the referral forward. I would revisit that particular vacancy and act accordingly.

I can't even begin to fathom what the OP is getting at, it's really quite confusing and appears that the OP is making the situation a whole lot more confusing and complicated that it needs to be.

john539

Honeypie wrote: »

I am simply trying to grasp why it is deemed acceptable to think that JCP staff are 'out to get' people or 'trip people up' in order to get sanctions/referrals. I'm asking is this what happens in their/your work place? Is it that common? Because I am not aware of it.

I made referrals every week (for sanction) and I was just doing my job thoroughly and correctly. I wasn't out to get anyone and I certainly didn't try to trip anyone up.

As for the example you give about applying for jobs. Every job I printed off for a claimant to apply to, had to have both my signature and the claimant's signature as well as the date. It was also recorded electronically, automatically.
If that evidence (signed doc) was not provided at referral then the sanction was overturned because there was not enough evidence that the claimant had been given the job to apply to. The decision maker must look at the evidence provided and make a decision from there. A fair decision.
Personally, if I did not have that evidence (signed doc) I would not put the referral forward. I would revisit that particular vacancy and act accordingly.

I can't even begin to fathom what the OP is getting at, it's really quite confusing and appears that the OP is making the situation a whole lot more confusing and complicated that it needs to be.

You are naive.

This isn't about you, your standards or generalising.

It's about that one on one situation between the OP & that possibly dodgy "advisor".

Honeypie

john539 wrote: »

You are naive.

This isn't about you, your standards or generalising.

It's about that one on one situation between the OP & that possibly dodgy "advisor".

And you are patronising.

The discussion I was involved in allowed me to give insight into the role of the advisor and also my opinion. We have an awful lot of opinions from the other side of the desk, don't we?