Crazy JSA Sanction

osdset

iammumtoone wrote: »

Can I ask a question about sanctions?

When does the money stop? Is it when the adviser refers the sanction or when the decision maker has checked it (how long does it take for the check to be carried out?)?

I keep hearing that the advisers do not issue sanctions it is the decision makers but surely it should be deemed as issued once the payments stop, at what point does this happen?

The benefit gets stopped when the decision maker imposes the sanction. The LM DMA (decision makers) write to the claimant first with a 'good reason' letter, this gives the claimant 7 days to submit evidence with the good reason, they are supposed to consider this before making any decisions.
In my case the sanction was imposed two weeks from the date on the good reason letter, so it took them a week to decide.
Usually the first a claimant knows about an imposed sanction is when the benefit is not in the bank account. The letter explaining that a sanction has been imposed arrives later.

missapril75

osdset wrote: »

The reason that good experiences don't get much press is because there aren't many. I'm a member of four forums that either mainly deal with benefit issues or have a large section devoted to them, and the vast majority of posts are negative.

Well of course they are. That's why people post, to find out what they can do about what they feel is wrong.

People don't ask for advice about what they feel is going wrong if they don't feel it's going wrong.

It's not rocket science.

red_devil

The advisor tells you they are sending the paperwork off. Within a week you hear through the post, you can appeal.

red_devil

red_devil wrote: »

The advisor tells you they are sending the paperwork off. Within a week you hear through the post, you can appeal.

the system has been designed to make it so hard you will want to sign off.

osdset

missapril75 wrote: »

Well of course they are. That's why people post, to find out what they can do about what they feel is wrong.

People don't ask for advice about what they feel is going wrong if they don't feel it's going wrong.

It's not rocket science.

So because satisfied claimants don't generally give feedback then it follows that satisfied claimants are the majority? I know a few people that are claiming JSA, none of them have anything positive to say about the system.
I'm willing to bet that if you picked any jobcentre at random from across the country, stood outside and did a straw poll of claimants going in and out, you would be hard pressed to find anyone with anything positive to say.

csmw

osdset wrote: »

The benefit gets stopped when the decision maker imposes the sanction. The LM DMA (decision makers) write to the claimant first with a 'good reason' letter, this gives the claimant 7 days to submit evidence with the good reason, they are supposed to consider this before making any decisions.
In my case the sanction was imposed two weeks from the date on the good reason letter, so it took them a week to decide.
Usually the first a claimant knows about an imposed sanction is when the benefit is not in the bank account. The letter explaining that a sanction has been imposed arrives later.

Sorry but thats not technically correct, it depends on which sanction the customer has been referred for.

ASE and Avail are suspended on the spot, it then goes to the DM who make a decision to allow or dissallow.

They sanction is imposed then the customer can have a mandatory reconsideration.

For the other sanctions there is no immediate suspension but the customer is not told the sanction has been imposed until they get a letter telling them the outcome.

csmw

essor wrote: »

Your missing the point in your eagerness to defend this draconian system and the people who carry out the orders.

I didn't apply for the job, when I clicked the right hand link it took me to the "expired" message.

When my dictator clicked the left hand link (I think it was 2 days later) the job was still listed.

When I returned home that day and clicked the right hand link the same day the job had expired.

It's pretty obvious where you and your cohorts in this forum stand on this issue, so rather than face questioning in the style of amateur gutter press journalism, I will continue with the slightly more reassuring legal advice I'm receiving elsewhere.

You not worthy of answers.



Thanks melysion, that's EXACTLY how I feel, this new system is systematically destroying the welfare structure and what it's meant to be.
Lives are being destroyed, literally, there are people committing suicide over this, those in real need of welfare are being left high and dry.
I'll be fine, I only ever sign on as a last resort, 4 years ago it was easy to find casual labour to avoid the humiliation of the signing on process, now it's not so easy, there are literally hundreds of people applying for vacancies that 4 years ago agencies were ringing me up to fill.
Thanks for your understanding words.

edit:

Actually you've hit the nail on the head, what I resent the most is having to explain myself to a doddering jobsworth busy body, who is hell bent on tripping me up on minor technicalities to save the government a few quid.
I naively made the mistake of thinking she was there to listen and help, when it couldn't be further from the truth.
She delivers her well rehearsed guilt and shame inducing one liners like she is revelling in the process, maybe I've just been unlucky and have the mother of all advisors to contend with

I think it's time to treat her with the contempt she deserves, what's the worst she can do...sanction me?...lol :rotfl:

You are so utterly rude and obnoxious, as to the 1st point in you rant. An advisor will still see a job whether is expired or not.

2nd of all the advisor doesn't make the rules, they follow the guidelines set out in legislation. If you don't wish to follow these 'draconian' rules its simple really sign off.

iammumtoone

csmw wrote: »

ASE and Avail are suspended on the spot, it then goes to the DM who make a decision to allow or dissallow.

That is what I think is so harsh about sanctions, money is stopped before you get chance to defend yourself, I can think of no other situation where this is allowed to happen. Yes in a working environment you might get told you have done something wrong and there is going to be a disciplinary BUT you will be paid until the outcome of that disciplinary is decided.

So when you say it is not the advisors that make the sanctions it is really as the money stops from that point. They might be overruled but the claimant still has to survive without money until that is decided.

Unless of course the decision marker decides in time for payment to go through as normal. For example I sign on a Monday, receive money on Thursday, if I was to have a sanction put against me would the decision maker look at it in time to get my money to me on Thursday if the adviser was overuled? And within this time would I be allowed to put my defense across?

csmw

iammumtoone wrote: »

That is what I think is so harsh about sanctions, money is stopped before you get chance to defend yourself, I can think of no other situation where this is allowed to happen. Yes in a working environment you might get told you have done something wrong and there is going to be a disciplinary BUT you will be paid until the outcome of that disciplinary is decided.

So when you say it is not the advisors that make the sanctions it is really as the money stops from that point. They might be overruled but the claimant still has to survive without money until that is decided.

Not really a customer would still have to wait 3 days for there payment to arrive anyway and they have usually got a decision for those types of sanctions within that time frame.

The customer does get a chance to defend themselves as they have to provide a full statement at the time of refferal.

iammumtoone

csmw wrote: »

Not really a customer would still have to wait 3 days for there payment to arrive anyway and they have usually got a decision for those types of sanctions within that time frame.

The customer does get a chance to defend themselves as they have to provide a full statement at the time of refferal.

Thank you I did think of that and edited my post above to include that scenario. I do think there should be some kind of booklet or something to explain these things to Job seekers, it would save a lot of resentment against the unknown.