JSA Unfair sanction

mattcanary

missapril75 wrote: »

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.

But it would appear that the adviser saw OP and suggested he amend his CV. I stress: suggest not tell.
ADviser has then noted on his machine, the next time OP has come in to sign on, that OP had not amended the CV. Even though adviser had only suggested to the OP that he should slightly amend it.
I'd say that makes the adviser pretty cuplable, to be honest. If the OP had to amend it, advoser should have told OP to amend it, not suggest it.

Of course, this is all the case if OP is telling us the whole truth. But surely the point of a forum like this is that we should assume the OP is telling us the truth, unless their story just doesn;t add up.

missapril75

mattcanary wrote: »

But it would appear that the adviser saw OP and suggested he amend his CV. I stress: suggest not tell.
ADviser has then noted on his machine, the next time OP has come in to sign on, that OP had not amended the CV. Even though adviser had only suggested to the OP that he should slightly amend it.

Whether told or suggested, it can't have happened that way. It would only have been at this latest signing that a referral could have been made for not providing an updated CV but the OP says he found out about the sanction at this point. So the updated CV must have been raised - however clearly - previously.


In the very first post the OP said

The reason I have been given is not giving an updated CV to the jobcentre which basically is 1/2 lines changed from the one the Jobcentre already has. I wasn't even told this was the case from my last signing on.

So if it didn't come up at the previous signing it must have come up before that and been referred previously.

I could be wrong about that, of course, but experience in the job made me think the subject came up before the previous signing; perhaps at the original interview.

I don't suppose we'll know for sure since the problem goes way back.

seven-day-weekend

I am going to be working with unemployed people at a CAP Job Club. I will have to make sure my clients do everything the Jobcentre suggest so that they don't get a sanction!

As regards this case, I personally would have taken in my updated CV, to me it is common sense to keep the JC updated. If you were working and your boss asked you to update a document, you would make sure s/he saw a copy of the update, well a Jobseeker's 'job' is to find work so you must treat the JC like your 'boss', imho.

It does seem unfair to have a sanction of four weeks though.

Morglin

missapril75 wrote: »

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.

Yes, it could well be that the systems have changed in the years since I left.

It does seem to me, though, that if they are insisting claimants are fully up to speed and efficient with their job searching , the least the DWP could do is to upgrade their systems to reflect exactly what is going on, no matter who sees the claimant.

A lot of the problem, at times, seems to a complete lack of understanding, consistency and clarity between the JCP and the job seeker.

Lin

speedfreek1000

Morglin wrote: »

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

Incorrect - Tribunals will accept any evidence they think is relevant if they did not then it would be an affront to natural justice and therefore an error in law. Same goes for blanket refusal policies!

The issue with any recording is that you have to prove that they are relevant to your case.

See Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Ors http://www.gannons.co.uk/blog/admissibility-of-covert-recordings-in-the-employment-tribunal-warning-to-employers/

Except to generally discredit the evidence of the HCP (for evidence weighting purposes), a recording of a WCA will not be of any real use in proving your case to be awarded ESA. The questions asked in a WCA are even further away from the actual descriptors than the ESA 50 form.

This means that unless the recording has cast iron proof of the descriptors you are arguing (which is what the tribunal are looking for/deciding upon) they're pretty limited and in a lot of cases actually detrimental to your case.

It's a moot point as until somebody tries to use one at a lower tribunal and there is a ruling by the Upper Tribunal setting some case law nobody knows.

p00hsticks

You do all realise that you are discussing a post that's over six months old, don't you ? The OP has long gone....

osdset

A lot of the problem, at times, seems to a complete lack of understanding, consistency and clarity between the JCP and the job seeker.
Lin:)

Iain Duncan Smith was confronted at the work and pensions select committee with claims that job centre staff are being handed targets to reduce the number of claimants by moving them off the register or ensuring that they have their benefit removed.

An anonymous whistleblower, a former job centre worker who was employed in the Greater Manchester area, told local Labour MP Debbie Abrahams and the Guardian that on one occasion the entire staff at a job centre were warned they would be disciplined unless they increased the number of claimants coming off the register, or raised the number threatened with the loss of their benefit entitlement.

"If you ask managers how many people you are supposed to get off the register, they say more and more continuously. It is your job to make the claimant's life difficult, they say. It creates a target culture."

"But the truth is that benefit claimants are being deliberately set up to fail in order to achieve sanction quotas without regard for natural justice or their welfare. Staff are being asked to behave in a manner that is against the department's values of integrity and honesty."

The complainant also alleged that senior managers electronically altered a claimant's file to make it appear they had been told to attend the job centre the following day when no such notification had been given. Failure to attend a job centre interview is grounds for sanction.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/09/iain-duncan-smith-dwp-stop-benefits-whistleblower

Marisco

p00hsticks wrote: »

You do all realise that you are discussing a post that's over six months old, don't you ? The OP has long gone....

It's still relevant though as folk are still getting sanctioned left, right and centre for the least thing! But I suppose they have to keep up to their sanction targets!!

Morglin

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

Incorrect - Tribunals will accept any evidence they think is relevant if they did not then it would be an affront to natural justice and therefore an error in law. Same goes for blanket refusal policies!

The issue with any recording is that you have to prove that they are relevant to your case.

See Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Ors http://www.gannons.co.uk/blog/admissibility-of-covert-recordings-in-the-employment-tribunal-warning-to-employers/

Except to generally discredit the evidence of the HCP (for evidence weighting purposes), a recording of a WCA will not be of any real use in proving your case to be awarded ESA. The questions asked in a WCA are even further away from the actual descriptors than the ESA 50 form.

This means that unless the recording has cast iron proof of the descriptors you are arguing (which is what the tribunal are looking for/deciding upon) they're pretty limited and in a lot of cases actually detrimental to your case.

It's a moot point as until somebody tries to use one at a lower tribunal and there is a ruling by the Upper Tribunal setting some case law nobody knows.

I have attended more than a few tribunals, with others, relating to benefit entitlements, and they will NOT accept covert recordings.

I don't know about employment tribunals, as they work under different guidelines.

People can tape all they like - but they will not be accepted, as evidence, at tribunals that decide benefit entitlement.

People have tried to use them, in the past, and they have been told the tape cannot be considered.

If someone wished to pursue this, legally, then that is what they can do.

Better, though, to use the recording facilities now available, which can be used.

Lin

shazza71_2

It seems i am next on the list for a sanction because someone didnt like my Job Search.