Crazy JSA Sanction

mro

ArtoDeeto wrote: »

- means everyone is doing all they can to find a job...

That's infinite & impossible to define.

You can always find something to sanction people with if you want to, which is what is happening.

busy_mom_2

Morlock wrote: »

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.

Im sorry but you are missreading those figures, the 770,000 meant their reasons were allowed at the offset so in other words either their reason for being late, missing an appointment, refusing a job, leaving a job or being sacked, there are also referrals for failing to attend training courses, jobseeker directions aswell as the the not being available and activily seeking. I can carry on with failing to agree with a jobseekers agreement or not complying with a new variation to one, along with failing to comply with skills conditionality.
ALL doubts are referred but no many are allowed.

Yes some are allowed because of JCP error but surely this proves that not all people who are referred for a sanction are disallowed.
Only two of all the referrals may warrant a late payment if they are subsequently allowed and those are availability and actively seeking, all other doubts are paid and a later sanction imposed once a decision is made. The system is not without its flaws but I cannot change it, I just do my best but as with many things some times one's best will never be enough!

szam_

Enjoying reading all the anti-JCP conspiracy theorists, keep it up. Especially those that disregard and ignore any fact given to them by people that actually work in the JCP, like they'd lie to said conspiracy theorists for no reason.

9/10, would read again.

Additionally, I've attended 4 different job centres in my relatively short life, only ever had one bad experience with one person when they accused me of pretending I'd just come back from a job interview when I was dressed in my suit, ironically, i now work for the company I'd come back from an interview for.

mro

szam_ wrote: »

Enjoying reading all the anti-JCP conspiracy theorists, keep it up. Especially those that disregard and ignore any fact given to them by people that actually work in the JCP, like they'd lie to said conspiracy theorists for no reason.

9/10, would read again.

Additionally, I've attended 4 different job centres in my relatively short life, only ever had one bad experience with one person when they accused me of pretending I'd just come back from a job interview when I was dressed in my suit, ironically, i now work for the company I'd come back from an interview for.

The fact you haven't experienced other bad things, does not mean they don't happen.

You have experienced one silly bad thing, so you see they can happen.

The few JC staff who pass by here are in denial or have not faced these things themselves and their main interest is looking after their jobs, not rocking the boat & having a quiet life.

szam_

mro wrote: »

The fact you haven't experienced other bad things, does not mean they don't happen.

You have experienced one silly bad thing, so you see they can happen.

The few JC staff who pass by here are in denial or have not faced these things themselves and their main interest is looking after their jobs, not rocking the boat & having a quiet life.

I never stated that they don't happen. I am sure they do happen as I have stated in other threads in the past, but it is hardly as common as some people like to make out.

What amuses me is the people that refer to figures and numbers and use it to manipulate their point.

We have figures in my work place, I, along with a few others, do fee-earning work for the unit. A percentage of time per month is used based on what activity we get up to, for example, 60% of my time was used doing fee earning work in November, does this mean I spent 40% of that time doing nothing? I'm sure people could manipulate that to make me out like I spend nearly half of the time doing nothing, when in reality, essential admin and supporting the helpdesk and project managers, attending meetings etc that month accounted for more time than usual. Granted, 60% is about right, but I have been at around 80-90% before.

Same principal here, people see figures, and only portray them in a bad light because they have no idea about various other bits that go on or how they were generated. They see a figure, they jump on it and suddenly, the JCP is terrible and people aim for sanction targets etc.

I'm afraid some people just can't see past their own nose and identify that perhaps, just perhaps, they need to look at themselves too. It's like they need someone to blame but themselves. And I'm sorry, but sticking to what the JCP ask you to do is so incredibly simple, it beggars belief to me that some people can't manage it, and yes, I'm speaking from experience.

Going to be late? Call ahead and let them know. I've had to do this before. At least they can put someone ahead of you then instead of sitting about waiting for you.

Had a problem with logging jobs? Screenshot the issue, print it out. Work around it, don't give up at the first hurdle.

It's called being proactive and is necessary skill needed to get out of the "dead-end" jobs people complain about.

Some people have already pointed this out, but given some peoples attitudes to other members in this thread, if they use this attitude with the JCP staff and potential employers, it's no wonder sanctions are being applied.

So to sum up, peoples attitudes in here amuse me. It amuses me that despite receiving advice, they disregard it as they are "better" than those who give it and are "better" than those who work at the JCP. It amuses me that people cling to a figure and nothing more, loose statistics that don't mean a whole lot.

It's also disappointing that they are also are continually abusive to other posters that try to advise, or disagree with them. However, this is a portrayal of themselves they are giving, so is it any wonder the JCP give them a bad time, we only have their posts to go off regarding the said posters personality. Those that are continually abusive, I have no sympathy for.

osdset

Enjoying reading all the anti-JCP conspiracy theorists, keep it up. Especially those that disregard and ignore any fact given to them by people that actually work in the JCP, like they'd lie to said conspiracy theorists for no reason.

Facts? Here are some from my experience.

I was wrongfully referred to the Work Programme, and lied to by ESA advisor.

ESA advisor conspires with Work Programme provider to cover up wrongful referral by stating that wrong information was on the system, which was a blatant lie. (I have proof via subject access request sent to DWP of all clerical and digital records).

LM DMA ,disregards compelling evidence against illegal sanction raised by Work Programme provider, and imposes sanction.

General manager of JCP office refuses to acknowledge two letters of complaint issued by myself (I know she has received them).

Regional Director of JCP refuses to acknowledge two e mail complaints issued by myself.

JCP's Work Programme liaison officer, gives me incorrect and misleading information regarding the lifting of the sanction on three occasions.

JCP's Work Programme liaison officer, has to be informed by me of the correct e mail address of the Benefit Decision Centre, then accuses me of telling her how to do her job. The woman has demonstrated a distinct lack of ability throughout so I have had to do the legwork on her behalf, and not for the first time.

JCP's Work Programme liaison officer fails to provide call backs at promised times on five occasions.

Illegal sanction is still in place four weeks after I was told it had been overturned.

All the above actually work for the DWP/JCP.

szam_

osdset wrote: »

Facts? Here are some from my experience.

I was wrongfully referred to the Work Programme, and lied to by ESA advisor.

ESA advisor conspires with Work Programme provider to cover up wrongful referral by stating that wrong information was on the system, which was a blatant lie. (I have proof via subject access request sent to DWP of all clerical and digital records).

LM DMA ,disregards compelling evidence against illegal sanction raised by Work Programme provider, and imposes sanction.

General manager of JCP office refuses to acknowledge two letters of complaint issued by myself (I know she has received them).

Regional Director of JCP refuses to acknowledge two e mail complaints issued by myself.

JCP's Work Programme liaison officer, gives me incorrect and misleading information regarding the lifting of the sanction on three occasions.

JCP's Work Programme liaison officer, has to be informed by me of the correct e mail address of the Benefit Decision Centre, then accuses me of telling her how to do her job. The woman has demonstrated a distinct lack of ability throughout so I have had to do the legwork on her behalf, and not for the first time.

JCP's Work Programme liaison officer fails to provide call backs at promised times on five occasions.

Illegal sanction is still in place four weeks after I was told it had been overturned.

All the above actually work for the DWP/JCP.

As in my previous post, I never said bad things never happen. If all that is true, I feel bad for you. However, I imagine cases like this are a small minority.

You have every right to be annoyed, but don't take it out on those here that try to help by letting you know the procedures etc. Believe me, I've had some nasty crap happen to me from a previous council, where their errors led to me being hounded by bailiffs, around the same time I was made redundant. Would I take it out on every council worker? No. I had a bad experience, that's life. I'm not going to go out of my way to try and invent crazy theories about that councils figures and staff attitudes when in reality I haven't a clue about the internal workings.

osdset

So to sum up, peoples attitudes in here amuse me. It amuses me that despite receiving advice, they disregard it as they are "better" than those who give it and are "better" than those who work at the JCP. It amuses me that people cling to a figure and nothing more, loose statistics that don't mean a whole lot.

It seems rather odd to me that correct advice seems freely available via this thread, and the advisors far more knowledgeable than those actually working in the offices.. A swift bit of regulation checking via the DWP's web site wouldn't be happening would it?

As for disregarding advice and thinking we know better, I can only speak for myself. I research every point I raise with JCP staff using the DWP's own guides and regulations I also double check I have my facts right with a welfare rights advisor I am in contact with on a regular basis.

JCP staff are nowhere near as knowledgeable as they used to be, their positions have been dumbed down to mere desk clerks, any request for benefit advice is now referred to the claimants local BDC.

osdset

As in my previous post, I never said bad things never happen. If all that is true, I feel bad for you. However, I imagine cases like this are a small minority.

I disagree, I am in regular contact with a number of ESA claimants that have suffered sanctions wrongfully in connection with Work Programme providers. I post regular updates on what progress I make in an attempt to help others in the same situation.

It needs to be understood that this is a relatively new issue, previously ESA claimants weren't mandated to the Work Programme. HM Gov moved the goalposts after WP providers went whining to the DWP that they weren't getting enough (potentially lucrative) ESA referrals.

szam_

osdset wrote: »

It seems rather odd to me that correct advice seems freely available via this thread, and the advisors far more knowledgeable than those actually working in the offices.. A swift bit of regulation checking via the DWP's web site wouldn't be happening would it?

As for disregarding advice and thinking we know better, I can only speak for myself. I research every point I raise with JCP staff using the DWP's own guides and regulations I also double check I have my facts right with a welfare rights advisor I am in contact with on a regular basis.

JCP staff are nowhere near as knowledgeable as they used to be, their positions have been dumbed down to mere desk clerks, any request for benefit advice is now referred to the claimants local BDC.

That's fair enough then. If you check, than you are definitely in a small minority and I applaud that, while my statements generally come across as sweeping statements, I'm not that naive to lump everyone in to the same boat.

However, you can appreciate that some, if not most people who come here asking advice probably do not do the checks that you do, and instead resort to insults and making things up to suit their own argument when something they read does not suit the advice or opinion they expected to receive.

I'm only 25 however, so I cannot really comment on the knowledge of JCP staff compared to a date any earlier than around 2006 when I first went, however the advice of csmw and busy mom tend to be sound advice as they have or had experience of work in that environment.

It's attitudes like the OP and a few others (including recurring people over the past month or two) that I really refer to.