JSA Unfair sanction

Dani4648

i was sanctioned by the job centre....i was in the hospital for 12 day due to nearly dying from a server allergic reaction, i kept the work programme and the job centre informed every day(by my grandfather), and even gave them paperwork from the hospital and still they sanctioned me, im not receiving any money from 21 august- 21 november, all i can claim is hardship payments, which is basicallly nothing, does anyone have any other ideas..i am appealing this stupid desicion from the job centre, my cupboards are pratically empty, iv had no money for 4 weeks, coz they wont help me, and i wasnt told i was sanctioned till this morning, even tho i have been sanctioned for 1 month...help please??!!!!!:mad:

portly1

missapril75 wrote: »

When the bank clerk asks for evidence of ID before handing over "your" money, why do "you" not get indignant that the nasty bank employee didn't believe you were who you said you were?

."

Slightly off topic, but I argued that point once in my branch of the then Abbey National.

They refused to give me any of my money as I had lost the passbook.

I proved who I was with driving licence, passport and a current CT demand - they still refused.

They wanted £25 from me to pay for a duplicate book so that I could draw some money out. I didn't have £25 as my money was in that account.

Eventually they told me that they were closing my account as they didn't want me as a customer because I was argumentative. I was asked to leave the premises and not to return. I would get a cheque in the next few days for the complete balance.

Talk about jobsworth!!

Sorry once again for side tracking the thread.

missapril75

portly1 wrote: »

Eventually they told me that they were closing my account as they didn't want me as a customer because I was argumentative. I was asked to leave the premises and not to return.

Dear Sir/Madam
We are closing your JSA account as you are argumentative and we no longer want you as a customer.
Do not darken our doorstep again.
:rotfl:

deebee33

I was sanctioned for 4 weeks and no letter informing me of the sanction or reasons has ever been received, I have queried this by email 3 times and had no reply, in this case is the sanction unfairly applied?

Morglin

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You can record whatever the hell you like :money:

The only limitation in law is on the usage of the recording especially if third parties not involved in your conversion are recorded.

Personal use fine posting it on youtube then and only then might you be at risk of legal action.

The Tribunal will and can consider any and all evidence no matter how it was obtained. On that point it is up to the tribunal and the tribunal alone to decide if they will admit the recording as evidence.

In order to submit a recording you get a transcript typed up and supply a copy of the actual recording for validation and submit both for a decision.

My GP knows I record her! Clever girl my GP :j

Tribunals are not allowed to accept covert recordings as part of any appeal, and nor will they.

That is why open recordings for assessments were introduced for ATOS assessments.

Lin

Morglin

missapril75 wrote: »

It's quite simple.

Somebody - a decision maker - had not made a decision at the time the OP signed for a regular signing.

A different member of staff 'signed' the OP at a regular signing.

The member of staff 'signing' the OP at the regular signing was unaware of a decision - because it had not been made yet. And so, would have 'signed' the OP as normal.

You appear to believe that the staff are a single entity and the signing officer should have known about something that hadn't even been decided yet.

Things must have changed then - when I worked for the DWP and JC, all and any 'flags' and actions by anyone were clearly shown on the notes section of the claimant's screens.

That way, whoever was dealing with the claimant knew exactly what was going on.

Mind you, we were probably better trained than some of them they have working in JCP's nowadays!

Lin

missapril75

Morglin wrote: »

Things must have changed then - when I worked for the DWP and JC, all and any 'flags' and actions by anyone were clearly shown on the notes section of the claimant's screens.

Did you not find all that a bit inconsistent though? Some people would input stuff while others wouldn't? As space was limited (I'm talking 110/510) some people would delete important stuff to get their own notes in.

Sometimes an order book ( )would be returned and you wouldn't know why because some idiot didn't record the reason. Or they'd record the fact someonbe was in hospital but they didn't include the date or even which one. :mad:

That way, whoever was dealing with the claimant knew exactly what was going on.

And if there was something recorded, you still needed to be prompted into looking.

For JSA sanctions if all you're doing is inputting the fact that someone signed and you're happy they met their responsibilities you're unlikely to look at those parts of the computer records that might show there's something going on. Especially if you're pushed for time.

I suppose now, that there appear to be so many sanctions, one might be more likely to look just in case.

Mind you, we were probably better trained than some of them they have working in JCP's nowadays!

Definitely, I'd say.

Morglin

I don't know, as it used to work ok, even in the days of lost giros and books etc.,

It doesn't take long to flick through a few screens, and important stuff, like sanctions, should be flagged (I would have thought).

It would probably stop a lot of the confusion and aggro if everyone, including the claimant, knew what was going on!

Lin

mattcanary

missapril75 wrote: »

Do what? The OP commented that at normal signing he wasn't advised there was "an issue" and at the time there was not an issue. What's to tell? There was no decision made nor anything to suggest there was something being considered. Hence my no flashing lights or alarm bells comment. It would seem someone behind the scenes was looking at it but that doesn't mean someone else (the member of staff signing) has a crystal ball to know that.

It's also ridiculous for you to have a go at the members of staff for things they didn't know about as the 'thing' had not happened yet.

Certainly it is ridiculous as described by the OP.

If it was just a passing comment that the CV could be improved upon, then not improving it or improving it but not supplying an up to date copy might be unwise, but I doubt any reasonable person could conclude that was sanctionable.

It would be a different matter if there was some recorded instruction to do so and to provide the new version. In the absence of that it seems a winnable case.

That's no reason for your customary sneering condemnation of JSA staff for anything and everything.

I'd say the adviser was significantly to blame for OP getting sanctioned. If he had told OP that he/she must amend the CV and bring it in next time he/she signed on, then fair enough. He didn;t = yet he still put OP up for a sanction. If he hadnt put OP up for a sanction, then the decision-maker wouldn;t have had any decision to make!

missapril75

Morglin wrote: »

....important stuff, like sanctions, should be flagged (I would have thought).

mattcanary wrote: »

I'd say the adviser was significantly to blame for OP getting sanctioned. If he had told OP that he/she must amend the CV and bring it in next time he/she signed on....

Perhaps someone currently working for DWP with access to the appropriate systems could step in.

When I was an advisor there was nothing on the system to flag it up and draw one's attention to something like this.

At the time I left, any sort of instruction or enquiry to be made of the job seeker would be done by ordinary mail or phone call. If the person was due in to sign, a note would be placed in the small file that the signing officer would refer to as part of the signing process.

No note = no reason to think this would be unlike 99% of normal signings.