just been sanctioned, not my fault

iammumtoone

busy_mom wrote: »

No JCP worker has the right to sanction anyone benefit, all they do is refer to a decision maker, they use the law and determine if that person is at fault.

I didn't know this as it seems from the claimants point of view that it is the adviser that makes the sanction, simply because benefits are stopped there and then, if it has to go to a decision marker it would make more sense if the benefits continued until the decision maker had time to review the referral and the claimant put in an appeal (if applicable). depending on the outcome of that decision the benefits could then stop or carry on at that point. I am not having a go at you as I know you can only follow the rules you are given just pointing out how it seems to claimants.

iammumtoone

busy_mom wrote: »

They automatically enter into a contract with DWP when they place a vacancy to provide information.

Does this explain why there are not many jobs on the UJM as employers view it as too much hassle to advertise on there in case they have to provide information to the JC?

Morlock

iammumtoone wrote: »

Does this explain why there are not many jobs on the UJM as employers view it as too much hassle to advertise on there in case they have to provide information to the JC?

No it doesn't, because it is absolute rubbish, there is no contract to provide information to the Jobcentre about job applicants.

busy_mom_2

iammumtoone wrote: »

I didn't know this as it seems from the claimants point of view that it is the adviser that makes the sanction, simply because benefits are stopped there and then, if it has to go to a decision marker it would make more sense if the benefits continued until the decision maker had time to review the referral and the claimant put in an appeal (if applicable). depending on the outcome of that decision the benefits could then stop or carry on at that point. I am not having a go at you as I know you can only follow the rules you are given just pointing out how it seems to claimants.

There are only two instances where you claim is suspended and your immediate benefit is at risk. Every time you sign at your two weekly intervention you sign to say you are available and you have been actively seeking to the extent necessary to secure best prospects of seeking employment. if your jobsearch does not mean the minimum steps as agreed on your agreement then you claim is suspended whilst it is decided by a decision maker if you claim will be disallowed.
If you have missed an interview, refused a job or any other labour marker failure then your benefit will continue to be received whist it is decided if a sanction may be imposed. There is a difference between a sanction and a disallowance.

iammumtoone

busy_mom wrote: »

you claim is suspended whilst it is decided by a decision maker if you claim will be disallowed.

Exactly it should be paid until the decision is made then the action taken. If I was in a work place and made a mistake yes there would be a hearing but I would be on full pay until the outcome of that hearing. With the job center you are guilty until proved innocent.

Again I am not having a go at you personally its your job you have to follow the procedures and thanks for explaining.

krok

busy_mom wrote: »

Unticking the box makes no difference!

Sorry busy mom, but you are still not getting the point of this .

By unticking the box makes all the difference as you can not be sactioned for not applying to a vacancy sent to you via ujm.

If the adviser gives you a job vacancy in writing and you give permission for the employer to give information to the dwp then that is fine.

But if you dont give permission then the employer can not give any information about you. This is covered by the data protection act.

For a Employee of the dwp you dont seem to have been given the correct information about what you can and cant do by law.

I find this the case in most goverment departments so i cant blame you.

Untick the box. Dont give them another excuse to sanction you.

Morlock

iammumtoone wrote: »

Again I am not having a go at you personally its your job you have to follow the procedures and thanks for explaining.

The Nuremberg Defence.

It is not unknown for busy mom to publicly rejoice in 3 year sanctions being issued.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58878357&postcount=9

Morlock

krok wrote: »

If the adviser gives you a job vacancy in writing and you give permission for the employer to give information to the dwp then that is fine.

But if you dont give permission then the employer can not give any information about you. This is covered by the data protection act.

I think she is getting confused between employers who advertise vacancies on UJM, and subsequently in the Jobcentre, and work programme providers. Work programme providers can exchange information freely with the DWP, but unless further consent is given, the providers cannot share information with any other third-parties, hence why it is advisable to withhold consent from providers, as this provides yet another avenue for sanctions.

krok

Morlock wrote: »

I think she is getting confused between employers who advertise vacancies on UJM, and subsequently in the Jobcentre, and work programme providers. Work programme providers can exchange information freely with the DWP, but unless further consent is given, the providers cannot share information with any other third-parties, hence why it is advisable to withhold consent from providers, as this provides yet another avenue for sanctions.

Yes you are right there.

If you go to a work program for the first time, they will give you forms to sign which asks you to give them consent to talk to third parties.

Do not sign these forms as you will be giving them the right to discuss your private details with anyone.

You do not have to sign and it will not affect your benefit. See link.

Securing your rights on Welfare to Work(fare)

john539

busy_mom wrote: »

And what give you the right to pass such insult!!:mad:

Yes i work for an organisation that pays benefit that comes with conditions. I am paid to enforce those conditions.

I am pointing out that it makes no difference how an employment adviser notifies you of a vacancy as long as they notify you to apply, they can put it in your account, print it off and issue you with, e-mail it to you, really makes no difference as long as they notify you.
No JCP worker has the right to sanction anyone benefit, all they do is refer to a decision maker, they use the law and determine if that person is at fault.

The person has the right to appeal the sanction, he has the right to apply for hardship.

No id didn't comment on the original post as many other have I was replying to a post where people think that not giving access to their UJ account will save them from a sanction when this is fact incorrect. If people do not want to receive a sanction then i'm afraid they need to comply with the rules, whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant I cannot change them. personally I do not like UJ think it is a waste of time but hey I cannot change it!!

You're a clueless drone running an incompetent bad system which doesn't work, looking after your job, just like the JC advisor who gave the OP a job which expired the same day resulting in a sanction referral.

As the OP said, on his next signing that JC advisor couldn't care less.

That JC advisor should have checked what they had done before referring for sanction, spotted job expired same day & not referred it.


Incompetence & bad practice discredits Jobcentres & DWP and does not help people get jobs.

This jobseeker is paying for the incompetence of that JC advisor.