Crazy JSA Sanction

busy_mom_2

szam_ wrote: »

Wow.

1.35 million? It'd be interesting to find out how many decision makers there are, divide that by the 1.35 million and see how many they have to do in a year. You could probably break it down to a day, too. Might give an insight in to how busy (or not busy as may be the case) they are. If they are skimming through and not having much time to put the relevant time and thought in to a referral, it might explain why mistakes are made.

Far to much work is passed onto inexperience staff who do make mistakes but it can happen both ways. An adviser can also ask for a reconsideration. I have had referrals come back as allowed and when I have looked at the reason why they may have missed a piece of evidence or statement so I have sent them back for a reconsideration and they have come back changed. So it does work both ways.

There are also LM decision makers, benefit decison makers, Habitual residence, deprivation of capital and hardship decision makers. Some will do more than one job.

Morlock

szam_ wrote: »

Wow.

1.35 million? It'd be interesting to find out how many decision makers there are, divide that by the 1.35 million and see how many they have to do in a year.

1.35 million is not an annual figure either, it is from the end of October 12 to June 13, so only eight months worth of referrals.

mro

szam_ wrote: »

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.

The sanction regime is driven by politics.
Your example in your workplace is not the same & not relevant.

The Tories have to make it look like their policies are working, there is a general election in just over a year's time.

Increasing number of sanctions & understood hidden sanction targets can be implemented in any number of subtle ways to increase referrals.

nannytone, a poster here, whose daughter works in JC has said there are sanction targets.


You see here that JC staff don't admit to mistakes, don't accept responsibility for anything, they cover their backs & blame the rules.

These organisations, DWP & JC are managing multi million/billion pound contracts and they don't learn & don't accept responsibility for anything.

Again your examples about what you & other people should do, you can't generalise. You are not everybody else, you're not in their situation facing difficulties they face.

osdset

Confuseddot wrote: »

For those sanctioned whilst on the work program found this


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

Hmm, the term independent review is some what suspect, Matthew Oakley works for the governments Social Security Advisory Committee, not exactly an independent group IMO.
The review mainly focuses on whether government departments provide enough information to claimants.

I doubt there will be much if anything included with regard to the fairness of sanctions or their effect on claimant groups.

IMO the whole concept of a sanction regime that's as punitive as the current one is abhorrent, depriving someone of 100% of their income is hardly going to help them find work.

I cannot think of any other instance whereby someone would be punished to this extent for minor infringements of the rules, even a magistrate would baulk at leveling a fine repayment amount that outstripped the defendants income leaving them with nothing to live on, it would be rightfully regarded as unreasonable. Yet a whole of income 'fine' for a JSA claimant is perfectly OK.

osdset

You see here that JC staff don't admit to mistakes, don't accept responsibility for anything, they cover their backs & blame the rules.

Absolutely, even when confronted with hard facts they either terminate the conversation or use the usual tired old excuse of admin error. There is no accountability, and commitment should work both ways. JCP should be committed to do their very best for their 'customers', but it's a one way street where most of the time the 'customer' is always wrong.

krok

It all comes down to the fact that you have to play by their rules and then they are happy.

Do not give access to your account.

Only write down your work activity, and do no more than your aggreement. But make sure you do not do less.

Make sure you arrive for appointments on time.

Thats all you have to do to not get sanctioned. Its not that hard.

You are then free to do all the job searching how ever you want to with no pressure with sanctions from the job centre.

Morlock

osdset wrote: »

I doubt there will be much if anything included with regard to the fairness of sanctions or their effect on claimant groups.

IMO the whole concept of a sanction regime that's as punitive as the current one is abhorrent, depriving someone of 100% of their income is hardly going to help them find work.

The rhetoric from this government is absolutely disgusting, the accompanying headline from the DWP on the press release relating to sanction figures is similar to many tabloid newspapers:



https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-sanctions-ending-the-something-for-nothing-culture

NYM

From that link....

Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants who have failed to do enough to find work, turned down jobs offered to them, or not turned up to appointments have had their benefits payments suspended 580,000 times since new tougher rules were introduced in October last year, new figures published today (6 November 2013) show. In each month this is roughly 5% of the number of people claiming JSA.

The new JSA sanctions regime, which was introduced in October 2012, encourages people to engage with the support being offered by Jobcentres by making it clearer to claimants what they are expected to do in return for their benefits – and that they risk losing them if they don’t stick to the rules. It also makes sanctions more proportionate: with shorter sanctions for minor offences and tougher ones for repeat offenders. Repeat offenders can lose benefits for up to 3 years.


Maybe it's just me, but what's the problem ?
No one should receive Something for Nothing

mro

NYM wrote: »

From that link....

Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants who have failed to do enough to find work, turned down jobs offered to them, or not turned up to appointments have had their benefits payments suspended 580,000 times since new tougher rules were introduced in October last year, new figures published today (6 November 2013) show. In each month this is roughly 5% of the number of people claiming JSA.

The new JSA sanctions regime, which was introduced in October 2012, encourages people to engage with the support being offered by Jobcentres by making it clearer to claimants what they are expected to do in return for their benefits – and that they risk losing them if they don’t stick to the rules. It also makes sanctions more proportionate: with shorter sanctions for minor offences and tougher ones for repeat offenders. Repeat offenders can lose benefits for up to 3 years.


Maybe it's just me, but what's the problem ?
No one should receive Something for Nothing

More government misleading spin & propaganda.

busy_mom_2

krok wrote: »

It all comes down to the fact that you have to play by their rules and then they are happy.

Do not give access to your account.

Only write down your work activity, and do no more than your aggreement. But make sure you do not do less.

Make sure you arrive for appointments on time.

Thats all you have to do to not get sanctioned. Its not that hard.

I have no issue with people not giving access to thier account nor with your advice on arriving on time but why advise people to only do no more than their agreement? It isnt a competition to get away with the least it all about providing proof you have been doing your best to get off benefits.

Its not 'our' rules to make 'us' happy. The government make the rules, we abide by them the same as claimants are required to.

Yes we make mistakes, yes the system is certainly flawed, yes things go wrong but its a small % many people claim and have no issues at all. No matter what processes come into play it will never be without faults.