We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Looks like my partner will be sanctioned?
Comments
-
What a tale! It shows a target driven sanctions regime and / or extremely poor training of their frontline staff by JCP.
To tell a jobseeker to make up job titles and false references on his CV is disgusting. Does the adviser (and such a job title needs to be used sparingly for this individual) not realise it is an offence to lie to an employer like this. Yep, there are those who do it and get away with it. However, for a JCP employee to suggest this is despicable. They need severe disciplining, if not sacking as your husband is probably not the first person they've told to do this. It's a pity this was not gotten in writing or recorded.
In my opinion, I can see a rude awakening for JCP staff. It would not surprise me at all if in 5-10 years time on current trends, JCP is scrapped and its functions contracted out to the likes of G4s, Serco, Capita etc. The buildings will be sold of and taken over by such firms and half the staff will be made redundant.0 -
No misunderstanding - when i called the jobcenter the day after to ask if this is correct i was told in a not so nice way that if that is what the JC adviser wants then my partner must do it!!! when i said 'so you are demanding access to look through our private and shared email account' and she said if that will prove you've applied for the jobs then what is the problem?
She said part of your agreement is to prove you have applied for the jobs you say and if the only proof you can give is via your email account then so be it!!!!
In terms of UJM, my partner applies for job using both the direct apply button which is displayed immediately within the application history, but for those jobs that take him off site he has to manually input this information in to the active history. They have no interest in what's written within the application history and he hits his 6 jobs per week within that section.
At the end of the day while my partner only has to do 6 jobs per week he's showing initiative and desperately trying to apply for as many jobs as he can to increase his chances of finding employment.
My partner has no need to lie - i sit next to him daily watching him spending hours via that site and others looking for employment
That is outrageous. Do you have anything in writing to prove that they said this?
I also think accessing personal email accounts would be a breach of the Data Protection Act - you could try complaining to the ICO (Information Commissioner) about that.0 -
BurnleyBob wrote: »Yes, record what the advisers say. Better still, film and record them with a miniature camcorder (aka spy cam).
Falsifying a CV is a criminal offence. Being able to prove that a JCP worker even suggested that course of action, never mind had the brass neck to instruct the OP's partner to do so, would land him/her/it with a P45 and a six-month JSA sanction, and rightly so.
In this case Sections 1,2, of the Fraud Act 2006
Fraud by false representation(1)
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
A representation is false if—(2)
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
As for JC clerk they should be charged with the The Serious Crime Act 2007 Section 44
Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence: under section 44 of the Act, someone commits this offence if they engage in an activity that encourages or assists the commission of an offence; and they intend to encourage or assist in its commission.0 -
orangeslimes wrote: »That is outrageous. Do you have anything in writing to prove that they said this?
I also think accessing personal email accounts would be a breach of the Data Protection Act - you could try complaining to the ICO (Information Commissioner) about that.
No, we dont have anything in writing to back up what we've been told - more to the pity. Like i said my partner has just got on with it and done everything they've demanded he do, his CV contains false information and he offered to provide our email password so the adviser could login to it there and then.
After his first interview he was sent to another jobcenter so he could be told of the rules and regulations. There were 8 people there including my partner and they took the same hard approach of preeching and threatening sanctions if they didn't do this or that. One of the people there said 'so what you are basically saying is we have no life now' to which the adviser replied 'no, you belong to us now and will have to perform any task we ask of you or you will lose your JSA'
What chances have genuine people got against this sort of attitude? Im all for sanctions when they are just and deserved, but when someone is doing all they can to find employment it's just wrong.
My partner faces losing his money on the advice given to him by the very person who has authorized his case be sent to a decision maker - fair? i think not!!!!0 -
I think if I was your partner I would be making a formal complaint to the head of the Jobcentre and also going to see my M.P.
They shouldnt be carrying on like this, its outrageous and saying "you belong to us now" beggars belief.0 -
makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »Isn't that the point though? To deliberately have a system that is both unwieldy and confusing works for us all to deter comfort and prediction in the system thus freeing up much needed benefit for other ... well ... newly arrived foreign claimants.
I think the system is almost right in its ambitions, save for the thumbscrews on the JC's desk.
We're not quite at the point yet where its just too much hassle to sign on, but we're getting there.
It would be if they caught the ones they were trying to catch instead of creating a catch-all scenario. You have to remember that the system is supposed to be there to catch the terminally idle and to a lesser extent the unemployable (although we have to take care with the latter due to possible mitigating circumstances). Unfortunately, those you mention in your opening paragraph are the ones that have support or know enough about the system to play it inappropriately but don't be fooled into thinking it is all down to migrants...a lot of those who have been with me on various WPs are clearly in that bracket too. Officially the DWP does not set sanction targets, unofficially they obviously do so who cares if the system does not rule against the terminally idle as long as the targets are met? Eh?0 -
Ok - can we just check that he DIDN'T give the password to anyone?No, we dont have anything in writing to back up what we've been told - more to the pity. Like i said my partner has just got on with it and done everything they've demanded he do, his CV contains false information and he offered to provide our email password so the adviser could login to it there and then.
After his first interview he was sent to another jobcenter so he could be told of the rules and regulations. There were 8 people there including my partner and they took the same hard approach of preeching and threatening sanctions if they didn't do this or that. One of the people there said 'so what you are basically saying is we have no life now' to which the adviser replied 'no, you belong to us now and will have to perform any task we ask of you or you will lose your JSA'
What chances have genuine people got against this sort of attitude? Im all for sanctions when they are just and deserved, but when someone is doing all they can to find employment it's just wrong.
My partner faces losing his money on the advice given to him by the very person who has authorized his case be sent to a decision maker - fair? i think not!!!!Sanctimonious Veggie. GYO-er. Seed Saver. Get in.0 -
makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »Yes, it's all very tasteless and unprofessional on the JC's part but the objective here is to make it extremely uncomfortable to claim benefit, ergo I think the adviser is doing her job properly.
The more these tactics are applied the more likely claimants are to find working (even with less money) at lot less hassle.
It's no secret that a lot of despondent jobseekers are starting to get very comfortable on the dole when there's few jobs: a see a lot of youths happier pushing prams with tracksuits smiling when they should be actively working or at least searching for work.
It's a no brainer to see that the increasing number of frivolous sanctions meted out does cut down the benefit bill, as there is less to pay out.
Put up with it, because it will get worse.
The next step is a gov imposed manual workfare agreement - no need for pathetic job search diaries!
Maybe it might cut down on the number of expensive iPhones and bling paraded in job centres.
Yes, it is unpalatable. But at least you have eBay to sell your useless gadgets when you are caught with the inevitable sanction.
I am so sick of the government, pitty pattering around the issue of what people should be doing for JSA, without formalizing their approach.
A workfare agreement seems to be in the wind for the OP's partner - the OP mentioned the partner being "threatened with a 30 hour a week work placement".
Even 10 to 12 job applications a week for anyone who is serious about getting work is ridiculously low, let alone any fewer. The whole premise of being on JSA is to make getting a job your full time job. How long would 10 to 12 job applications take to apply for? A day? maybe not even half a day?
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if it does get a lot worse re sanctions benefits. Something along the lines of if you accept JSA you have to do a 30 hour a week work placement whilst you are looking for a job. That way they will figure you are working so will find it easier to get into paid work, i.e. you will have "work experience". It's , e.g., street cleaning and you're a motor mechanic? Ah yes, well, I don't think they are committed to relevant work experience. This is the "intern" system practised in a lot of professional fields these days.
If the government want people to work full time on getting a job, they need only set up real job centres and require people to attend 8.30 to 5pm and apply for jobs all day long, giving out permission slips only to go for interviews, following up to make sure the person actually got there and what time they left (i.e. when they should be back at the job centre). That way they can make sure each job seeker does indeed have an email account and access to broadband for the sole purpose of finding work. Don't turn up one day a week? Lose half your benefit. Including the part for housing benefit.
Draconian? No doubt. But it's better than having the power hungrty monsters at the DWP arbitrarily setting sanctions. At least this way there would be a method behind the sanctions. No such thing as "you're a liar, we don't believe you." That's a ridiculous situation which demeans both the name caller and the one getting JSA.
Alternatively they can go down the American route, saying you can only get JSA if you have already worked and paid into the system, AND for a limited time. Once that period is over you are officially destitute and, if you have children, they go into care. But no, that makes the pollies nervous too because they think the British public wouldn't stand for the levels of homelessness and destitution you get in the States, much less families not staying together.
The government's attempt to demonise people on JSA instead, and try to make the public get into and us vs them scenario, i.e. the taxpayer versus the benefit recipient is pathetic, just pathetic.0 -
Funky_Bold_Ribena wrote: »Ok - can we just check that he DIDN'T give the password to anyone?
No he didn't actually hand over the password to them thankfully.0 -
makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »Yes, it's all very tasteless and unprofessional on the JC's part but the objective here is to make it extremely uncomfortable to claim benefit, ergo I think the adviser is doing her job properly.
The more these tactics are applied the more likely claimants are to find working (even with less money) at lot less hassle.
It's no secret that a lot of despondent jobseekers are starting to get very comfortable on the dole when there's few jobs: a see a lot of youths happier pushing prams with tracksuits smiling when they should be actively working or at least searching for work.
It's a no brainer to see that the increasing number of frivolous sanctions meted out does cut down the benefit bill, as there is less to pay out.
Put up with it, because it will get worse.
The next step is a gov imposed manual workfare agreement - no need for pathetic job search diaries!
Maybe it might cut down on the number of expensive iPhones and bling paraded in job centres.
Yes, it is unpalatable. But at least you have eBay to sell your useless gadgets when you are caught with the inevitable sanction.
A curate's egg of a post.
The JCP regime is 'tasteless' and 'unprofessional' and 'unpalatable' but you clearly relish the financial consequences for those who fall foul of 'frivolous sanctions.'
Have you a split personality, or what?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards