Sanctions

anonymousx3

With all this fuss about benefits, work and poverty I am curious of emergency situations. Situations where one is without work, on benefits and gets sanctioned due to consecutive error (regardless of whether it was the claimants fault).

These sanctions seem to be quite damn harsh! What does one do if ever in such situation? If they were sanctioned for being unable to meet the demands of a work placement, are they eligible for hardship payments?

I've heard conflicting information: some say that they are whether they intend to/can work or not and are there to fill the time between sanctions/benefit applications, and others say that they are not eligible for hardship payments.

Thanks!

Hang_Tight_Harry

I know many consider the sanctions harsh, but to be honest, unemployed people aren't asked much and if they are unable to keep track of appointments etc, then they should be sanctioned. It is the same in the workplace. Where my husband works, if you fail to turn up for work, or need time off at short notice, then it is considered to be an unauthorised absence and pay is docked accordingly. I see no difference in the two scenarios.

I *think* that claimants can apply for hardship payments when they've been sanctioned. I think its about 40% of their benefit claim.

Solitaires

I'm in the ESA WRAG group and would have been ok with that had it not been for sanctions. I'm appealing to be put in the support group as I have severe agoraphobia and whilst on a very good day it's possible I might be able to attend WFI or WRA it's more likely that I could not and would therefore face sanctions. I certainly could not do so consistently and repeatedly.

I'm not particularly hopeful that I will win the Tribunal, so I've no idea what will happen to me afterwards and it's extremely worrying.

Thomas_Hardy

Solitaires wrote: »

I'm in the ESA WRAG group and would have been ok with that had it not been for sanctions. I'm appealing to be put in the support group as I have severe agoraphobia and whilst on a very good day it's possible I might be able to attend WFI or WRA it's more likely that I could not and would therefore face sanctions. I certainly could not do so consistently and repeatedly.

I'm not particularly hopeful that I will win the Tribunal, so I've no idea what will happen to me afterwards and it's extremely worrying.

Stop worrying - if you do the best you can, you will not be sanctioned. If you are due to attend a WFI and realise you cannot, contact your advisor and ask if you can have the appt by phone. Alternatively, would a taxi help you to get there? They may be able to fund one for you.

Sanctions are not usually applied to those on ESA unless they are wilfully refusing to engage with the WRAG.

Solitaires

Yes, I have had a telephone interview after having to phone, explain myself and been unable to attend three interviews. What worries me is that I spoke to two different advisors. One was understanding of my situation and postponed interviews and finally granted me the telephone interview, the other was, quite frankly, a nasty piece of work who seemed to have no inkling of my condition and was threatening me with sanctions. Needless to say after speaking to her I would only speak to the other advisor.

At the moment I do not have to have any further interviews until I'm reassessed. My current Wrag group ESA is for two years and it's up in December. I've had agoraphobia for over 20 years and my prognosis is not good in that I'm unlikely to recover. So it's a continual worry that I'll come across another advisor some day that will sanction me, unless I can get put in the support group.

Lip_Stick

Hang_Tight_Harry wrote: »

I know many consider the sanctions harsh, but to be honest, unemployed people aren't asked much and if they are unable to keep track of appointments etc, then they should be sanctioned. It is the same in the workplace. Where my husband works, if you fail to turn up for work, or need time off at short notice, then it is considered to be an unauthorised absence and pay is docked accordingly. I see no difference in the two scenarios.

I *think* that claimants can apply for hardship payments when they've been sanctioned. I think its about 40% of their benefit claim.

The difference is that JSA claimants lose money for at least a couple of weeks for a missed appointment, or perhaps for just being late. Somehow I don't see your hubby losing that much pay if he turned up late because of transport issues etc.

Hang_Tight_Harry

Lip_Stick wrote: »

The difference is that JSA claimants lose money for at least a couple of weeks for a missed appointment, or perhaps for just being late. Somehow I don't see your hubby losing that much pay if he turned up late because of transport issues etc.

Personally, I consider that balanced by the fact that claimants are actually not expected to do much That and the fact that they are still able to claim some benefits during the sanction period. HB and CTB is not affected.

anonymousx3

Hang_Tight_Harry wrote: »

I know many consider the sanctions harsh, but to be honest, unemployed people aren't asked much and if they are unable to keep track of appointments etc, then they should be sanctioned. It is the same in the workplace. Where my husband works, if you fail to turn up for work, or need time off at short notice, then it is considered to be an unauthorised absence and pay is docked accordingly. I see no difference in the two scenarios.

I *think* that claimants can apply for hardship payments when they've been sanctioned. I think its about 40% of their benefit claim.

Thanks for your reply. There's no "but" with benefit sanctions, especially if there's no alternative to putting food on the table, keeping warm and having some shelter -- that should not be allowed to happen, for anyone. There's some on here who would disagree vigilantly, but to be honest they are absolutely !!!!ing insane. Can you verify that it is possible to acquire hardship payments, and the conditions of that too?

sammyjammy

anonymousx3 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply. There's no "but" with benefit sanctions, especially if there's no alternative to putting food on the table, keeping warm and having some shelter -- that should not be allowed to happen, for anyone. There's some on here who would disagree vigilantly, but to be honest they are absolutely !!!!ing insane. Can you verify that it is possible to acquire hardship payments, and the conditions of that too?

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch35.pdf

It is possible to get hardship but only in certain, strict circumstances, it might be necessary to prove hardship before the money is granted.

anonymousx3

sammyjammy wrote: »

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch35.pdf

It is possible to get hardship but only in certain, strict circumstances, it might be necessary to prove hardship before the money is granted.

Thanks.

DWP wrote:

Karen asks for hardship payments and provides a statement of circumstances,
and an award is made, after her entitlement to JSA(IB) has been established.
Karen then fails to keep her appointment at the Jobcentre Plus office at the next
time the Secretary of State requires her to attend.
She is no longer entitled to hardship payments as she is no longer entitled to
JSA(IB), because she has failed to attend the Jobcentre Plus office when required
to do so by the DM.

So, essentially this person could be forced to use food banks to acquire food if she can't get hardship? What if she can't access food banks and has no friends or family to support her?

And her reasons are of some psychotic nature that has not been diagnosed (perhaps a trigger from stress of some sort). My point here is that there could be any number of reasons for why she couldn't keep up with the demands set out by the JCP. This is principally why I believe she should receive her sustenance indefinitely -- however, I digress from the point of this thread.

Is there no other option aside from food banks (which doesn't guarantee her survival any where near as hardship payments would) to grant her sustenance? (in the worse possibly hypothetical scenario)

Dunroamin

If you don't bother turning up for an appointment regarding claiming hardship [payment then why should you expect to receive them? Why would you assume that psychosis was the reason for not doing so as opposed to couldn'tbe@rsedness?