Sanctions

Dunroamin

john539 wrote: »

That doesn't stop people worrying, doesn't stop them being threatened, worrying about being threatened, worrying about losing benefits & not being able to pay bills, then worrying about having to appeal & fight the system.

Much simpler just to comply with the rules rather than wasting all that time and energey worrying!

dktreesea

Hang_Tight_Harry wrote: »

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.

That's for now, but what happens when UC comes in and the whole amount is sanctioned, not to mention the shortest sanction time moving from one week up to four weeks?

dktreesea

anonymousx3 wrote: »

Thanks.



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)

The "other option" will be to do your best to get some work, be it working for someone else or self employed, no matter how cr*p you feel. Benefits are unreliable even now, but in this brave new UC world we are going into they are about to get a whole lot more unreliable. Deliberately. The government wants people to choose work. The fact that many people would struggle to get any work at all, let alone a full time job, seems to be a bit beyond them. They seem to work off the principle that if one immigrant can get a job, the local people have no excuse. Oh, the immigrant is working the harvest and the local lives in London? They'll be wanting the local to move to where the harvest is and rough it, living among the glasshouses like in Spain, before this government are done.

Well....maybe not quite as bad as Spain, but we are certainly heading into a scenario where the poorer get poorer, and there is a lot less equality.

anonymousx3

bigboybrother wrote: »

So getting a sanction be it for ESA or JSA is always the fault of someone else? Never the fault of the claimant.?

If someone is claiming ESA and is in the Work Group and is unable to carry out the instructions given that form part of the requirements of claiming ESA, they should go to their GP and have him/her write a letter explaining the medical reasons why that the patient/claimant should not be expected to ..........

That doesn't necessarily need to be due to an illness, just consecutive error: a hiccup per se.

So, a person should be left to starve with no means to keep themselves warm if they don't meet the demands set out by a work programme? A few hiccups is all that's needed for the person to end up being sanctioned and then they could possibly lose the money they need to eat.

Dunroamin

anonymousx3 wrote: »

That doesn't necessarily need to be due to an illness, just consecutive error: a hiccup per se.

So, a person should be left to starve with no means to keep themselves warm if they don't meet the demands set out by a work programme? A few hiccups is all that's needed for the person to end up being sanctioned and then they could possibly lose the money they need to eat.

You keep on about "consecutive error" - what is it?

anonymousx3

Dunroamin wrote: »

You keep on about "consecutive error" - what is it?

Apologies, what I mean't to say is a repeated error.

donnajunkie

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.

if your husband has a day off he loses 3 months wages while at the same time still being expected to work for the rest of that 3 months?

seven-day-weekend

Whilst taking the point that some people are mentally ill, and therefore won't always be able to keep an appointment, who I think should be treated sensitively, why shouldn't people like the ones mentioned in a previous post who can't be A£$ed to get out of bed and sign on be sanctioned?

seven-day-weekend

My son was late for work today. He has worked there for three years and has never been late before. When he went to get his cycle, it had a puncture which meant he had to get there by alternate means. The first thing he did was rang his employer and told them he was going to be late and why. Apart from being common politeness, he gave his employer warning, so that they could make alternative arrangements until he got there. In the end he was only fifteen minutes late. His employer was fine about it. Can you imagine they'd have been so amenable had he not rung and just turned up late? Or was often late?

Anyone can make a phone call, most people have phones these days, or access to one, there is no excuse not to ring and if they do, they probably won't be sanctioned.

donnajunkie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whilst taking the point that some people are mentally ill, and therefore won't always be able to keep an appointment, who I think should be treated sensitively, why shouldn't people like the ones mentioned in a previous post who can't be A£$ed to get out of bed and sign on be sanctioned?

the issue is that sanctions are far too harsh and often applied unjustly. for example i know someone who was sanctioned for not turning up for an appointment they didnt know about.