After the Work Programme

csmw

sniggings wrote: »

the policy is, evidence does not have to be provided for a sanction to take place, not sure why you are talking about this is only the case in one example, it's policy, that is unfair, which is the point I was making.

Well unfortunately policy is something you, nor me can change.

But yes evidence for any of the sanctions would have to be provided, in the case of not actively seeking as I keep saying.. evidence is not just about what jobs a customer didn't apply for

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

Well unfortunately policy is something you, nor me can change.

But yes evidence for any of the sanctions would have to be provided, in the case of not actively seeking as I keep saying.. evidence is not just about what jobs a customer didn't apply for

you said earlier in this thread, evidence of the jobs the claimant is being accused of not applying for do not have to be given, just a total number, instead of the actual details of each job.

That is unfair, which was the point being made.

sensibleadvice

sniggings wrote: »

this forum is for advice not opinion, if you want to talk about the rights and wrongs, then there is a discussion forum for that, senseableadvise is only here to try and make themself feel better by putting others down, a bit sad really. and as for them being a tax payer, I'm not so sure of that, he seems to have plenty time to post a load of rubbish on here, he probably is an OAP who thinks they are better than the rest of us.

Loving the irony, thanks for your opinions.

Sorry if you don't like some of the facts in my posts on this forum, I'm afraid that's for you to deal with if it applies. Or ignore should you wish.

Here's a little more post WP advice: It's quite possible to work and post on here, either at work or after; some of us even get weekends off too.

csmw

sniggings wrote: »

you said earlier in this thread, evidence of the jobs the claimant is being accused of not applying for do not have to be given, just a total number, instead of the actual details of each job.

That is unfair, which was the point being made.

Which they are not, but the point is..if an advisor can find more than double the amount of jobs in 20 odd minutes that the customers could of applied for in a two week period.
Then said customers were not ACTIVELY seeking as if they were they would have also found said jobs and applied.
The jobs are irrelevant it's the actively seeking that the DM's are looking at.

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

Which they are not, but the point is..if an advisor can find more than double the amount of jobs in 20 odd minutes that the customers could of applied for in a two week period.
Then said customers were not ACTIVELY seeking as if they were they would have also found said jobs and applied.
The jobs are irrelevant it's the actively seeking that the DM's are looking at.

why are you so intent on missing the point being made?

Fact is, if the adviser finds only one job the claimant has not applied for they can ask them to be sanctioned, no evidence of this one job has to be given to the decision maker, only that in the adviser's opinion 1 job could have been applied for and it wasn't, the claimant is not shown this job but is only told 1 job could have been applied for, that is enough for the claimant to be sanction, yes sanctions can be given for other things too but that 1 missed job is enough and no evidence of the job has to be shown either to the person making the decision or the person that needs to defend against it, that is clearly unfair.

sensibleadvice

sniggings wrote: »

you said earlier in this thread, evidence of the jobs the claimant is being accused of not applying for do not have to be given, just a total number, instead of the actual details of each job.

That is unfair, which was the point being made.

In the workplace there's usually a trigger of some sorts, followed by investigation, collation of evidence, review of all of that and decision. All within guidelines. Followed by an appeals process if appropriate.

Within that process it's often found upon investigation that there are more examples and evidence than the trigger that first brought it to light, often supported by the persons behaviour and attitude towards the sanction process.

From what csmw has said I suspect the JSA sanction processes are applied in a similar way where claimants called into question won't be about one thing but a number of factors, all supporting the referall for sanction because put together they amount to not enough commitment to find work.

csmw

sniggings wrote: »

why are you so intent on missing the point being made?

Fact is, if the adviser finds only one job the claimant has not applied for they can ask them to be sanctioned, no evidence of this one job has to be given to the decision maker, only that in the adviser's opinion 1 job could have been applied for and it wasn't, the claimant is not shown this job but is only told 1 job could have been applied for, that is enough for the claimant to be sanction, yes sanctions can be given for other things too but that 1 missed job is enough and no evidence of the job has to be shown either to the person making the decision or the person that needs to defend against it, that is clearly unfair.

Why are you so intent on missing the point that ase sanctions are not all about jobs.

A customer could have applied for 100 jobs during the first 3 days of the period, they then do nothing for the remaining 11 days. They would be referred also for not ACTIVELY seeking.

Which is why I keep saying number of jobs are irrelevant because that is not why!they are being sanctioned, so why would they need to object against it?

You do understand what actively seeking is don't you.

armyknife

A question for 'sensibleadvice' and 'csmw', do your posting time and activities here count towards your hours of work?

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

Why are you so intent on missing the point that ase sanctions are not all about jobs.

A customer could have applied for 100 jobs during the first 3 days of the period, they then do nothing for the remaining 11 days. They would be referred also for not ACTIVELY seeking.

Which is why I keep saying number of jobs are irrelevant because that is not why!they are being sanctioned, so why would they need to object against it?

You do understand what actively seeking is don't you.

so my point is wrong, you can not get a sanction for failing to apply for one matched vacany and evidence does have to be provided for that job's details to the claimant and the decision maker...thought not so that's unfair, my point has been made, you go on and dodge the issue about unfairness if you want, it's not me feeding my kids with money gained this way.

sensibleadvice

sniggings wrote: »

why are you so intent on missing the point being made?

Fact is, if the adviser finds only one job the claimant has not applied for they can ask them to be sanctioned, no evidence of this one job has to be given to the decision maker, only that in the adviser's opinion 1 job could have been applied for and it wasn't, the claimant is not shown this job but is only told 1 job could have been applied for, that is enough for the claimant to be sanction, yes sanctions can be given for other things too but that 1 missed job is enough and no evidence of the job has to be shown either to the person making the decision or the person that needs to defend against it, that is clearly unfair.

I think what csmw is saying is, in that case it wouldn't be about the one job but the underlying pattern of not applying for that one job may reveal. Such as, for example claimant attitude to the job seeking process, refusing access to UJM, presenting insufficient or minimal evidence of job seeking over the last period, not applying for advertised jobs.