Nightmare bullying from the jobcenter

seven-day-weekend

john539 wrote: »

Read the OP's posts, that's what the thread is about.

Well it seemed to me as though they had classed her as a troublemaker (although I don't know whether this is justified). I must admit I would be less than impressed if I was dealing with her and came back to find her playing Candy Crush Saga. Shows what she thought of the appointment, imho.

Although of course that is no excuse for the JC staff to behave unprofessionally.

john539

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Well it seemed to me as though they had classed her as a troublemaker (although I don't know whether this is justified). I must admit I would be less than impressed if I was dealing with her and came back to find her playing Candy Crush Saga. Shows what she thought of the appointment, imho.

Although of course that is no excuse for the JC staff to behave unprofessionally.

Have you read the OP's post and what happened ?

duchy

They DIDN'T think she was playing Candy Crush - they accused her of filming them with her mobile -and didn't believe she was playing a game...whilst waiting for the JC employee to return.

You really haven't read the OP have you ? lol

duchy

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Well we don't disagree on that, there could be flexibility.

You do read on here though of people thinking it unreasonable that they should have to jump through ANY hoops. The JC staff must get this all the time.

It's a shame though if genuine Jobseekers lose out because of this attitude.

It seems the vast majority of job seekers do their best to follow the guidelines but when the JC won't accommodate appointments to fit in with school hours , insist they bring sick children with them to appointments by refusing to reschedule ,and generally try to make things as difficult as possible so in some cases legitimate jobseekers end up getting sanctioned the system is broken. JC trying to excuse that broken-ness by claiming all sanctions are down to the lack of commitment of the job seekers is proved incorrect by the huge number of sanctions that are cancelled on appeal (but not before the legitimate job seeker has had money with held and gone through a stressful process). There's also a huge number of people with MH issues getting sanctioned and overturned on appeal when it is glaringly obvious they simply can't deal with the system. How in anyone's world is this a correct way to treat people ?

A shame is if you miss the bus - this isn't a shame ...it's a disgrace.

princessdreamer

Can I just point out again this is the first time in my life I have ever signed on. I own my own house, am university educated and was married when I had my children. I'm hardly a generational benefit claiment who plays he system. Owning my home means I get no housing benefit so I take out less than most claiments and as such NEED to work. It just seems that hey simply don't like me or I'm a very easy target as I can't fight back.

TrickyWicky

princessdreamer wrote: »

Can I just point out again this is the first time in my life I have ever signed on. I own my own house, am university educated and was married when I had my children. I'm hardly a generational benefit claiment who plays he system.

Is that what you think of those of us who don't own our own house?

You really are a dreamer. You're out of touch.

princessdreamer

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Is that what you think of those of us who don't own our own house?

You really are a dreamer. You're out of touch.

No I'm simply pointing out that I'm not taking the pee out of the system which is a stigma lots of single parents get. There was no need for you to be so rude.

duchy

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Is that what you think of those of us who don't own our own house?

You really are a dreamer. You're out of touch.

I think that was in response to sevendayweekend's comments about people who post complaining about following basic stuff like turning up for appointments.

I do wonder if someone is considered a little posh or superior in some way that there may be some inadequate JC employees who get a kick out of putting them down (as well as reaching their quotas)

john539

princessdreamer wrote: »

I had no choice other than to take my child, my oldest had already taken the day before off college to watch her but if he kept doing it I could have been fined under new regs for teens having to be in education till they are 17.

This shouldn't be happening, it's a disgrace, you should complain to Jobcentre/DWP, your MP.

You should ask them what you are supposed to do in an impossible situation.

Nightranger

duchy wrote: »

I do wonder if someone is considered a little posh or superior in some way that there may be some inadequate JC employees who get a kick out of putting them down (as well as reaching their quotas)

That is an interesting point and I have to admit I never thought of things that way. It actually makes sense to consider the human nature side of things and although some of my JC advisers think I should push my education, it is possible the woman who generated my sanction was being a bit jealous.Mind you, jealous of what? She is the one with the job.