Crazy JSA Sanction

busy_mom_2

Morlock wrote: »

I agree that it is the correct process for being late, but that process is not always followed. Late claimants are often referred for sanctions as a failure to attend.

And I have advised any person to appeal if this has happened to them.

busy_mom_2

Morlock wrote: »

What you and csmw seem to be ignorant of is that JC advisers are not the only employees who can refer claimants for sanctions.

You are both narrow-minded and naive enough to assume that because there is a procedure to follow, and neither of you have experienced it happening in your JCs, it doesn't happen.

Work Programme providers refer more claimants for sanctioning than JC staff, and ES19s are not issued by WP providers.

I have advised any one who has been incorrectly sanction by a JCP member of staff for being late to appeal. I will also, if asked, advise of the process for JCP sanctions if asked.

As for WP they have a completely different set of rules to JCP staff, no WP do not use ES19 and at no point have a suggested otherwise. I have only ever talked about JCP sanctions.

So no i am not narrow minded I offer advice on subjects I have knowledge and experience of. Seems your narrowminded enough to not accept some people do like to try to help others.

busy_mom_2

essor wrote: »

I think we're all aware of what SHOULD happen, better to focus on what really IS happening.

This is the same for anywhere, hence I offered advice on what to do if people are wrongly sanctioned by JCP

essor

busy_mom wrote: »

This is the same for anywhere, hence I offered advice on what to do if people are wrongly sanctioned by JCP

You really think your helping ? judging by the number of "wrong" sanctions you will have your work cut out "advising".
I was just wondering, if someone wins an appeal, are there any repercussions for the JCP individual who "wrongly" referred it, or does the case just disappear into the secretive world of the "decision makers".
Generally when you are accused of something and found not guilty, an apology is usually forthcoming, at the very least, an explanation.

mattyprice4004

essor wrote: »

The same could be said of this bubble...sorry...forum.

Perhaps if you got off the forum, off your backside and got a job you wouldn't have to worry about this 'bubble' so much?

If you're getting into such a tizz over sanctions, end it all by joining the real world and working for someone.

missapril75

essor wrote: »

Weird, why would you want to come back to a post and add that to it a hour and 10 minutes later ?

Because I made my comment and then went back to what I was doing. Then I returned. That is okay isn't it?

I had an afterthought about the post. So I added the afterthought. That's the sort of thing that the edit button comes in handy for.

Try taking of your DWP tinted glasses and give them a polish, your vision is impaired.

So when I've given advice about the poor treatment people have received at DWP, what would you call it?

Have you ever sided with DWP? No? I wonder why? You wouldn't be (gasp) biased I suppose.

osdset

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Perhaps if you got off the forum, off your backside and got a job you wouldn't have to worry about this 'bubble' so much?

If you're getting into such a tizz over sanctions, end it all by joining the real world and working for someone.

How does this sage advice apply in relation to ESA claimants that have had illegal sanctions?

FYI, the real world involves benefit claimants as well as the waged.

ArtoDeeto

Morlock wrote: »

Because two people who claim to work at the JC state that correct procedures are always followed, does not mean they are. There are various reports from JC staff stating that procedures are often not followed properly, sanctioning targets exist, and staff are encouraged to sanction a minimum amount of claimants per week.

I might be lying about being JCP staff as you say but who cares.
Don't get me wrong I have stopped loads of peoples money but only after I have offered a dozen bag loads of carrots - it is a very rare occurrence. I have been on JSA myself so know the score.
I do have sanction target I always quote in my staff reviews -"zero" - means everyone is doing all they can to find a job...
There are no targets to sanction people - believe what you will...

Morlock

busy_mom wrote: »

I have advised any one who has been incorrectly sanction by a JCP member of staff for being late to appeal.

But the issue is that claimants are being referred for non-attendance when they are late, rather than being correctly issued with an ES19.

Claimants can appeal, but the length of time in which a referral decision is made and a successful appeal is held can be weeks if not months. Meanwhile, the claimant's benefits are often stopped and most of the damage has already been done.

During Oct 2012 and June 2013 there were 1.35 million sanction referrals made, 580,000 were upheld, meaning 770,000 referrals were not. Many of the 770,000 claimants referred for sanctioning will have had their benefits stopped for weeks when, in fact, there was no good reason to sanction them.

Something is seriously wrong with the sanctioning regime when nearly 60% of sanction referrals are not upheld by the decision maker, particularly when benefit entitlement can cease upon referral, whether that referral is correct or not.

FBaby

The vile attitude of some posters here really makes me think that how they are being treated is how they themselves treat others.

Maybe OP is letting it all out on this forum and is in real life a very pleasant, open-minded, respectful, and cheerful person, but somehow I doubt it. Most likely, they are totally oblivious of the vibes they transmit that is not much different to what it is here and it is then no surprise they get the raw deal of things.