Crazy JSA Sanction

nannytone_2

WRAG..
i was placed for 1 year in June 2011 and the 2 years in June 2012.
in the whole time i have had 3 WFI'a, my last being in October 2012

osdset

your problems are peculiar to you and whilst unfortumate arent proof that youre being persecuted!

I've never said I'm being persecuted, but I firmly believe that one or more people are trying to cover up some fundamental mistakes. Why should I be put in the situation I'm in because of someone else?

The harsh reality is that if this does not get sorted out soon I'm likely to default on a number of priority debts, no one I owe money to is likely to lend a sympathetic ear. No wonder I'm annoyed.

osdset

nannytone wrote: »

WRAG..
i was placed for 1 year in June 2011 and the 2 years in June 2012.
in the whole time i have had 3 WFI'a, my last being in October 2012

I don't have a clue about the WFI's, maybe you're just lucky.
You havn't been referred to the WP because automatic referrals weren't in place in 2011 so the advisor probably used his/her judgement. I know that a 24 month prognosis delivered before December 2012 means the claimant can not be forced to engage with the WP, they have voluntary status.
I have heard of people not being referred since December 2012 with the same prognosis period.
The problem here seems that implementation of the regulations seems to vary according to how knowledgeable the advisor is, there isn't consistency across the board.

nannytone_2

the work programme was mentioned early on, but i said that i wouldnt even consider it ( statistics prove that they have help exactly NO blind visually impaired people back to work)
i have asked for other types of training, but nothing is available in my atra.

the descriptors changed early last year, and strictly speaking, i qualify for the support group. i am however, trying to find work so am not really interested in the support group.
if they try to mandate me to the work programme, i will ask to be reassessedamd have no douby yjay i would be moved acrpss to the support group ( i have evidencx=ce that cannot be challenged)

Dunroamin

missapril75 wrote: »

Someone has lunch at their desk (shock, horror) and indicates to their colleague that they are actually at lunch despite being at their desk.

Telephone caller fails to consider possibilities other than the conspiratorial one.

If he were my client, I'd get them to tell him I'd gone to lunch if he rang at 9 in the morning!

osdset

nannytone wrote: »

the work programme was mentioned early on, but i said that i wouldnt even consider it ( statistics prove that they have help exactly NO blind visually impaired people back to work)
i have asked for other types of training, but nothing is available in my atra.

the descriptors changed early last year, and strictly speaking, i qualify for the support group. i am however, trying to find work so am not really interested in the support group.
if they try to mandate me to the work programme, i will ask to be reassessedamd have no douby yjay i would be moved acrpss to the support group ( i have evidencx=ce that cannot be challenged)

I want to go back to work, I didn't want to be signed off sick in the first place. Stubbornness on my part though for refusing to accept that I am actually no longer fit for the job I used to do (and yes I have tried to make a return, ended up in hospital after half a day).

I hate being on ESA, I hate the 'cap in hand' aspect of claiming benefits, I certainly hate the massive income loss.

As far as the Work Programme is concerned, I would not touch it with a barge pole. A bunch of ex used car salespeople out to make a quick buck on the back of claimants.

nannytone_2

the problem with the work programme is that its a one size fits all.
people claiming ESA are lumped in wuth those claiming JSA and the providers seem to make no distinction between the 2.
oll/disabled people need a far more tailor made approach

if i thought for a second that i could glean any benefit frpm attending the work ptogramme, then id be the first to volunteer.
even my disability advisor said that it wouldnt actually help me... so he wouldnt mention it 'for now'
i let him know in no uncertain terms, that unless it changed drastically, it was never going to be an option

osdset

Dunroamin wrote: »

If he were my client, I'd get them to tell him I'd gone to lunch if he rang at 9 in the morning!

Very useful post, bored are we?

Dunroamin

osdset wrote: »

Very useful post, bored are we?

Definitely, aren't you?

missapril75

osdset wrote: »

OK, so when I had the initial WFI the advisor informed me that the system had the prognosis, or time between reviews listed as 12 months, hence a mandatory referral to the WP. The same advisor told me months later when all the aggravation with the WP provider occurred that the prognosis on the system was 24 months and I should never have been referred in the first place.

12 looks so much like 24 that it's easy to get the two confused?

You appear to have missed where I said that different systems are used with different levels of access and some things are removed for space reasons.

I have no idea how these particular things you describe work. But I do know that what can be recorded on the old Incapacity Benefit systems may not match something on the Income Support system for the same person. It might be wrong. Or it might have been correct when recorded and just hasn't been changed on both bits.

I know that social fund system may contain benefit information out of date with benefit information on the benefit system.

Information on the JSA (benefits) system may not match information on the other systems.

I don't see why the same thing can't happen when different members of staff are involved with different computer systems.

I'll bet you could go into a bank and find that there's conflicting information about account holders within their different systems.

It may well be that 12 was showing when 12 was recorded but it was later changed to 24. Things do change you know. Or would you prefer that when something different is appropriate that the records aren't changed because someone like you is going to seize on the fact that something different is now recorded? :rotfl: