A Warning: Job Centre goalposts moving.

Nightranger

donnajunkie wrote: »

they cant keep changing the reasons why. the initial letter that says theres a doubt on your claim is where they state the reason.

Yes they can, just saying it don't mean it aint so. The problem with the system is that it is totally subjective and is full of unreasonable conditions. I offered to show my UJ record to my local MP but he has not taken me up on it because there was a subjective issue over the interpretation of my old JSA agreement. Essentially, the trap was laid two years ago and you are right that it probably would not work again. However, some of the smaller details of the sanction are extremely important because interpreted one way I most definitely met and surpassed my JSA agreement but assessed subjectively, semantics can be applied to build a case that I did not.* The Devil is definitely in the detail and if I thought it was prudent to do so I could demonstrate how even here.

* Note: my new JSA agreement is quite a bit stricter and I know where I stand again. I would not have met the current agreement (just) but the new agreement was only discussed at the end of my sanction anyway.

donnajunkie

Nightranger wrote: »

Yes they can, just saying it don't mean it aint so. The problem with the system is that it is totally subjective and is full of unreasonable conditions. I offered to show my UJ record to my local MP but he has not taken me up on it because there was a subjective issue over the interpretation of my old JSA agreement. Essentially, the trap was laid two years ago and you are right that it probably would not work again. However, some of the smaller details of the sanction are extremely important because interpreted one way I most definitely met and surpassed my JSA agreement but assessed subjectively, semantics can be applied to build a case that I did not.* The Devil is definitely in the detail and if I thought it was prudent to do so I could demonstrate how even here.

* Note: my new JSA agreement is quite a bit stricter and I know where I stand again. I would not have met the current agreement (just) but the new agreement was only discussed at the end of my sanction anyway.

if they were to change the details they would surely have to send another letter informing you of this so that you could then appeal that. you could then keep all of this as evidence and at the appeal hearing you could say look they keep changing their minds. i dont know how a jsa agreement can be subjective. for example if it says apply for 4 jobs per week then its a simple case of did you apply for 4 jobs per week or not. if it says look at ujm everyday then did you look at ujm everyday or not etc. you really should have got someone to help you with it.
by the way i suggest unticking the box on your ujm account that allows them to have access.

Nightranger

donnajunkie wrote: »

if they were to change the details they would surely have to send another letter informing you of this so that you could then appeal that.

Hmm! It is difficult to know how to answer this when the LMD claim never to have received my letters or an appeal form the latter of which, was handed into my local Job Centre. The original letter informing me of the sanction merely stated the 'not actively' seeking point that is a beautiful cover-all for JC advisers. The details given by their call centre, by local JC staff and now to my local MP differ in some very important details but I have only received one official letter and none in response to my appeal. Searching through this forum shows that is a widespread tactic that others have experienced.

donnajunkie wrote: »

you could then keep all of this as evidence and at the appeal hearing you could say look they keep changing their minds.

Appeal hearing? They rarely grant one but well done if you have managed to get that far.

donnajunkie wrote: »

i dont know how a jsa agreement can be subjective. for example if it says apply for 4 jobs per week then its a simple case of did you apply for 4 jobs per week or not. if it says look at ujm everyday then did you look at ujm everyday or not etc. you really should have got someone to help you with it.
by the way i suggest unticking the box on your ujm account that allows them to have access.

Of course it can be subjective, it is set up that way. As I said (possibly on another thread), the trap was laid two years ago and only sprung now when a certain adviser signed me. What the JC does is quite subtle and it involves determining how much of the evidence you present is true, this could even be the case for spreadsheet records BTW. If they decide to act to save money or one person chooses not to like you they simply set up a query. Now think about this, a lot of job applications are now processed online without the applicant having a record. This means that in theory if you do not produce any one piece of evidence you could be argued into having made false claims. This does not seems very objective to me and to be a fair system, it should be.

Forewarned is forearmed as they say but I am well aware there is a trap awaiting on my new agreement despite me yet again going beyond my agreement on UJ alone. You have to remember that in my case (and probably a lot more) there was semantics applied about what constituted 'an activity' under my old agreement. I would have said that applying for each job is an individual activity wouldn't you? By contrast, my new agreement stipulates apply for so many jobs per week and whilst it is fairly specific I am happy but I bet this comes back to bite me and next time the sanction will be one year.

I could untick the UJ box but there is a game to be played and the problems I have experienced would likely have been seen even with spreadsheet evidence. As I have said, this seemed to be a systematic exercise by my local JC (I was in the office for some time either side of signing).

donnajunkie

Nightranger wrote: »

Hmm! It is difficult to know how to answer this when the LMD claim never to have received my letters or an appeal form the latter of which, was handed into my local Job Centre. The original letter informing me of the sanction merely stated the 'not actively' seeking point that is a beautiful cover-all for JC advisers. The details given by their call centre, by local JC staff and now to my local MP differ in some very important details but I have only received one official letter and none in response to my appeal. Searching through this forum shows that is a widespread tactic that others have experienced.

well obviously if you didnt send them via recorded delivery you are up sh** creek from then on. if the first letter just said you werent actively seeking then all they can expect you to appeal is what that says. they cant through in extra stuff later. someone who helps you would point that out if you had got someone to help you. to beat a not actively seeking accusation i am pretty sure all you would have needed to do is demonstrate that you are doing everything your jsa agreement asks of you. they cant expect more.
if a person wins an appeal they arent told. well i know someone who won an appeal and they found out because they got a letter just saying your money is paid into this account from this date. they phoned to ask what it was about and they got told it was because they had won their appeal. they then organised a same day payment for the money owed.

donnajunkie

Nightranger wrote: »

Appeal hearing? They rarely grant one but well done if you have managed to get that far.

i believe everyone has the right to one if they dont accept any decision made up until then. what seems to have happened with you is they have accidentally on purpose lost everything you have sent to them. this means the system assumes you accept the sanction. that is why everything should get sent by recorded delivery as they have a habit of losing forms.

donnajunkie

Nightranger wrote: »

Of course it can be subjective, it is set up that way. As I said (possibly on another thread), the trap was laid two years ago and only sprung now when a certain adviser signed me. What the JC does is quite subtle and it involves determining how much of the evidence you present is true, this could even be the case for spreadsheet records BTW. If they decide to act to save money or one person chooses not to like you they simply set up a query. Now think about this, a lot of job applications are now processed online without the applicant having a record. This means that in theory if you do not produce any one piece of evidence you could be argued into having made false claims. This does not seems very objective to me and to be a fair system, it should be.

Forewarned is forearmed as they say but I am well aware there is a trap awaiting on my new agreement despite me yet again going beyond my agreement on UJ alone. You have to remember that in my case (and probably a lot more) there was semantics applied about what constituted 'an activity' under my old agreement. I would have said that applying for each job is an individual activity wouldn't you? By contrast, my new agreement stipulates apply for so many jobs per week and whilst it is fairly specific I am happy but I bet this comes back to bite me and next time the sanction will be one year.

I could untick the UJ box but there is a game to be played and the problems I have experienced would likely have been seen even with spreadsheet evidence. As I have said, this seemed to be a systematic exercise by my local JC (I was in the office for some time either side of signing).

why not say you sent it through the post and that it is impossible to prove you did that. anyway online apps are usually provable as they are usually recorded by the site or done by email. both can be printed out.

Nightranger

donnajunkie wrote: »

why not say you sent it through the post and that it is impossible to prove you did that. anyway online apps are usually provable as they are usually recorded by the site or done by email. both can be printed out.

I take your points but DPA comes into play and not even the DWP can get around that one.

donnajunkie

Nightranger wrote: »

I take your points but DPA comes into play and not even the DWP can get around that one.

whats dpa?

Nightranger

donnajunkie wrote: »

whats dpa?

DPA = Data Protection Act

makeyourdaddyproud

Pshaw!

What is the domain of the work you do? The overarching accuracy employed by your toil on this thread suggests to me you might be trying all thing possible to avoid a "lower spec" job through subliminal excuse and semantic denial. Tell me i'm wrong?

Your degree probably invests self-expectation of job-worth. But matey, degree mandated tenures aren't so forthcoming as they were pre-2007!