Crazy JSA Sanction

Morlock

szam_ wrote: »

Really? You're just going to quote half of paragraph?

Read the rest of that paragraph instead of selecting bits that suit your side of the debate.

I don't have any issue with the rest of the post. You claimed some people were manipulating figures and numbers, but have yet to point out what figures and numbers were manipulated.

szam_

osdset wrote: »

I doesn't really matter, the differences between ESA and JSA claimants as far as sanctions are concerned is the conditionality attached to the claims, both groups have to abide by different rules.
For example, ESA claimants cannot be forced to look for, or apply for a job.

The other major difference is that a sanction for a JSA claimant means 100% loss of benefit for the duration, a sanction for an ESA WRAG claimant means the loss of the main component of ESA, (the same basic rate as JSA) the claimant would still receive the WRAG element of around £28 per week.

An unfair sanction is unfair regardless of what claimant group receives it, and bad advice applies equally to both groups.

It does matter given I do not know anything about the ESA rules. I agree, if it's unfair, it's unfair, but I cannot comment on what is unfair in regards to ESA because I do not know the rules.

Given that the OP was talking about JSA, this is what I based my opinion on.

Confuseddot

Morlock wrote: »

Only if you assume that the reason I quoted them was to prove some claimants have been unfairly sanctioned and have had their benefits stopped.

The only reference I made was stating that many of the 777,000 will have had their benefits stopped for no good reason. If that number is a only a hundred claimants, it is a hundred too many.

Again that's not correct by why let the facts get in the way of good story


Perhaps you would like to read busymom post again

Confuseddot

For those sanctioned whilst on the work program found this


https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-independent-review

busy_mom_2

Can I try to put a few points and figures in to try to explain and support some of my posts.

The average city centre office will have JSA register of around 4000, they will also have income support, ESA and partners. In an average month an office this size will refer around 4-5% of the total JSA regitser for a sanctionable faliure and of this small % around 60% will have an advserve decision, the other 40% will have thier reason allowed. Out of the 60% a further 8% are normally overturned at appeal,we are taking a very small number of JSA customers whose benefit may be sanction. These numbers do not include WP sanctions as they have a different process for referrals nor does it include ESa or income support sanctions. On top of this there are also sanctions for partners. And we are talking very small numbers, please remember these customers are not included in the JSA register.

There is a total different set of rules for ESA, also a different sanction imposed as it is a part benefit sanction not a full.

Can I also point out that JCP staff do not recieve any benefit training, they are not benefit processor's people are directed to the BDC for benefit advice.

I work for JCP and no I do not agree with many of its processes, I do not agree with many of its systems but I am no different to any other employee, I cannot change then I use this forum to try to support others and try to explain and support. I have openly said I disagree with work programe and I dislike UJ. I do not support all the measures and find the sanction regime can be unfair but I also find it does support those who are not actively seeking, have no intention of finding work and for many years have claimed benefit they rally are not entitled to.
I belive if you are sick, then you are sick. And I firmly belive that people should not receive more benefit if they chose to have more children whils in receipt of benefit.

I have referred customers for sanctions as it is my job to do so if they have not met the rules, I will still refer even when I know the decision will be allowed because this is the process, as I have said I cannot change it. I have 13 years of working for JCP and processes change so quickly it is very difficult to keep up and retain knowledge and understanding of all processes. Again no matter who you work for you will not have a full knowledge of every role.

No doubt many will disagree with my comments but figures are figures and I am not disputing Morlock and his figures I am just trying to put them into context. I also agree with artodeeto, WP is a money making scheme and nothing more.

Morlock

Confuseddot wrote: »

Again that's not correct by why let the facts get in the way of good story

Perhaps you could explain why it is incorrect. A sanction can be enforced before it even reaches a decision maker, and yes, I'm aware that not all referred sanctions result in an immediate cessation of benefits.

Confuseddot wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to read busymom post again

I've read it a few times, and no offence to busy mom, but it is difficult to comprehend.

szam_

Morlock wrote: »

I don't have any issue with the rest of the post. You claimed some people were manipulating figures and numbers, but have yet to point out what figures and numbers were manipulated.

You are clearly an intelligent individual, which is why I cannot believe you are skipping over that second point, which is putting over my frustration that people use statistics, or propaganda links, whatever information they feel they need to, to have a go at someone because of where they work or because they disagree with advice or an opinion, in general on more than just one post, and I mean over a few boards here. Perhaps I could have put across my point better in the original post, but this is what I'm getting at. AP007's thread on the Employment and Training board is a clear example, page after page of people having a go at an individual because of where she works.

If i wanted to single you out, I would and if people had/have a problem with it and I get banned, fine, it's not the end of the world being banned from a forum. I have done it before when I felt people have been out of line and treating someone unfairly.

I have never seen you post something and then insult someone because of it, so no, this wasn't aimed at yourself. Like myself, you come across as someone who prefers a good debate, rather than an argument.

Also, I wholly agree that one unfair sanction is too many, however mistakes are made, everyone makes them, and if it was a perfect world, everyone would want a job, have a job and stick to their job, unfortunately that isn't how it works. I have heard of a few cases where sanctions were deserved, but they were overturned anyway, my brothers being prime examples, as they really have no intentions of working. I won't go in to detail, but is stealing and smoking weed all day is job seeking, why they had successful appeals is beyond me.

I can see how it might be hard to try and filter out who is and isn't putting in enough effort to find work. I know it's a job I'm glad I don't do.

busy_mom_2

Morlock wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain why it is incorrect. A sanction can be enforced before it even reaches a decision maker, and yes, I'm aware that not all referred sanctions result in an immediate cessation of benefits.

No sanctions can be enforced before reaching a DM, a suspension yes, but no disallowance if it relates to labour market.


I've read it a few times, and no offence to busy mom, but it is difficult to comprehend.

is they any bit you would like me to try to expalin further? And that is not a meant with any sarcasm, I just would like people to try to understand the process rather than slam the adviser.

Confuseddot

Morlock wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain why it is incorrect. A sanction can be enforced before it even reaches a decision maker, and yes, I'm aware that not all referred sanctions result in an immediate cessation of benefits.



I've read it a few times, and no offence to busy mom, but it is difficult to comprehend.

I was referring to this part

"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."


So more than 1/2 of those you quoted wouldn't have immediate cessation of benefits and probably some wouldn't even have been aware they have been referred.

Morlock

Confuseddot wrote: »

I was referring to this part

"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."

Yes, I already knew that.

Confuseddot wrote: »

So more than 1/2 of those you quoted wouldn't have immediate cessation of benefits and probably some wouldn't even have been aware they have been referred.

I never claimed that all of them had an immediate cessation, but that many would have.