just been sanctioned, not my fault

krok

busy_mom wrote: »

krok wrote: »

no need to shout, I do know what goes on in the real world very well.

Have you not read my post I have never agreed anyone gives access to their UJ account, I have personally said I do not like it.
There really is no need for anyone to give their access. All they need to do it turn up to their interviews will a detailed, truthful jobsearch. Comply with the regulations and they will received benefit until they successfully move back into employment.
Most people will find work without any intervention by JCP, which is how it should be. Those who do not follow by the rules will receive sanctions, many will be overturned at appeal and many people will live happily off benefits rather then support themselves.
We cannot change the system. As we move into universal credit I have no doubt it will only get worse.

Myself, I will continue to juggle work and my family life. I do look after my children, I work so i can offer them the little extras in life and so they grow up with the correct work ethic.

Universal credit will never work as you have stated. it is not just the unemployed but anyone claiming any benefit who will have to go on it.

Looking after your children is the most important thing and i am glad you are doing this.

But what i am saying is that in whole the ujm and universal credit is a joke and will never work.

busy_mom_2

krok wrote: »

Well i think we all know that.

The sanction first starts with the adviser, and if you have nothing to help with this thread then i suggest you log off.

So what exactly should an adviser do?

The poor adviser was doing their job. They have an obligation to send the doubt off, that is all it was when they sent it, a doubt. That is exactly what they are paid to do.

busy_mom_2

krok wrote: »

busy_mom wrote: »

Universal credit will never work as you have stated. it is not just the unemployed but anyone claiming any benefit who will have to go on it.

Looking after your children is the most important thing and i am glad you are doing this.

But what i am saying is that in whole the ujm and universal credit is a joke and will never work.

And I agree with you, but I cannot change it!

krok

csmw wrote: »

Obviously you don't

Considering I'm a linked advisor I think I know a little more about sanctions then you.

I know everything that the dwp can or cant do, that is why i have never been sanctioned or never will be.

Your title means nothing to me as i dont work in the dwp.

csmw

krok wrote: »

I know everything that the dwp can or cant do, that is why i have never been sanctioned or never will be.

Your title means nothing to me as i dont work in the dwp.

You know everything we can and can't do.... Yet you don't know what my job role is lol!

csmw

krok wrote: »

I dont have to know what your job role is.

I know what my rights are and someone as low as you can never change that. lol lol lol
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Obviously from some of your posts you don't... But il leave you to your delusions on grandure.

Low haha ok if you say so!! People like you can't only resort to insults as you know your wrong

krok

csmw wrote: »

Obviously from some of your posts you don't... But il leave you to your delusions on grandure.

Low haha ok if you say so!! People like you can't only resort to insults as you know your wrong

You say i am wrong.

What am i wrong on.

Feel free to tell me.

Untick the box, you know it makes sense.

csmw

krok wrote: »

You say i am wrong.

What am i wrong on.

Feel free to tell me.

Untick the box, you know it makes sense.

Well 1st advisors do nit sanction...the dm's do.

2nd unticking the box is irrelevant....we can still submit to vacancies on jump and ask for evidence you've applied.

What you fail to understand is the ownership is in the customer to provide evidence of their job search... Not the advisor

csmw

krok wrote: »

Are you stupid or just brainless,

Unticking the box gives idiots like you and your servants no powers to sanction people using the ujm.

Evidence is only supplying the advisers with the actions written down in your jobseekers agreement. Nothing more nothing less.

You havent got much sense have you.

Untick the box, you know it makes sense.

:T:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

I think you need to get your fact straight!!

If I match a customer to a vacancy on ujm whether they tick the box or not.. I would expect to see proof that they had applied for it. If proof was not supplied I would refer it to a DM.

And il think you'll find that ujm is now integrated into a jsag... Therefore making it an action that evidence needs to be supplied for.

But again I'm an idiot that knows nothing!!! I think you need to go and find out what a linked advisor does.... You may realise then that your the idiot

krok

csmw wrote: »

I think you need to get your fact straight!!

If I match a customer to a vacancy on ujm whether they tick the box or not.. I would expect to see proof that they had applied for it. If proof was not supplied I would refer it to a DM.

And il think you'll find that ujm is now integrated into a jsag... Therefore making it an action that evidence needs to be supplied for.

But again I'm an idiot that knows nothing!!! I think you need to go and find out what a linked advisor does.... You may realise then that your the idiot

Well you must be stupid because if you linked me with a job on ujm you would have to give it to me by hand telephone or text but you would not be able to give it to me via UJM.

You see the whole point of this thread was to help someone who was threatened with sanctions because they never applied to a job through no fault of their own. Not giving vultures like you consent would take that threat away.

You just dont understand that even thoe you can be mandated to register on the ujm. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE IT> IS THAT CLEAR>

Registering for ujm is only mandatory in a action plan. Using it as a job search is not,

Get your facts right.

Do you understand now.