can i ask the jobcentre for proof

KevInChester

Denning. wrote: »

Since when did you have to put down more jobs than was required by your agreement. I only ever put 3 jobs down a week.

This is just one side of the story...

I was threatened with a sanction for applying for well over my quota, the reason being? I hadn't written something down on one of the days, I had done things but I just bundled them in with the next days. I was told it was better to do 1 thing per day than 3 per day (and missing out one).

1x14 = > 3x14 (apparently)

Sanctions based on this logic may not have stood (with a properly worded challenge) but they would have been stressful and inconvienient in the extreme.

sniggings

KevInChester wrote: »

I was threatened with a sanction for applying for well over my quota, the reason being? I hadn't written something down on one of the days, I had done things but I just bundled them in with the next days. I was told it was better to do 1 thing per day than 3 per day (and missing out one).

1x14 = > 3x14 (apparently)

Sanctions based on this logic may not have stood (with a properly worded challenge) but they would have been stressful and inconvienient in the extreme.

700,000 sanctions have been handled out, I'm not sure what's better 700,000 people getting one sanction each or less people getting more sanctions each :rotfl:

I wonder if these sanctions are saving any money at all? considering most will get hardship payments anyway and once you take the costs of processing all these sanctions, appeals and hardship payments, it could be costing the tax payment more.

I agree there has to be rules on claiming but fair rules and only used against the worse cases, these rules are clearing being used to punish the wrong people.

wannabedebtfreeplease

sniggings wrote: »

700,000 sanctions have been handled out, I'm not sure what's better 700,000 people getting one sanction each or less people getting more sanctions each :rotfl:

I wonder if these sanctions are saving any money at all? considering most will get hardship payments anyway and once you take the costs of processing all these sanctions, appeals and hardship payments, it could be costing the tax payment more.

I agree there has to be rules on claiming but fair rules and only used against the worse cases, these rules are clearing being used to punish the wrong people.

The rules are normally set out in the job seekers agreement (JSAG) which is a lawfully signed and agreed document. It's explained created and signed at the 1st interview.

If the sanction has been for an Actively Seeking Employment doubt it's normally because the JSAG hasn't been adhered to. Therefore the member of staff will have sent any diaries or evidence I.e you're spoken work in their job search review recording.

If you can prove you have completed all things set out in your JSAG then you can state that you have actively sought employment and ask for a reconsideration if disallowed.

Hardship cannot be claimed for 14 days, which is normally the fortnightly period prior that ASE Is sanctioned for and is only given when there is eligibility. For eg a single person no children etc just won't get their monies unless they can prove they have ASE.

If you have been sanctioned for refusal of employment. I.e you haven't applied for jobs that are 100% matching to your JSAG then the jobcentre can refer to get a sanction because you haven't applied for them. This will be different to appeal as you can request to see the RE vacancies they are saying you haven't applied for an you will need to cross reference whether they match. If they don't then they shouldn't have sent a suspension for RE, but if they do match and you don't have reason as to why (note I didn't see the vacancy isn't enough as it's the dwp website that is used and you should be using) they will likely suspend then upon decision disallow.

If you are disallowed, ask for a reconsideration in the first instance and explain why. If that is disallowed then ask for an appeal.

If you go straight to appeal you only have one chance to ask, a reconsideration is quicker and easier - it means a fresh decision clerk will look at your case and potentially revise allow it.

Rules are put in place and given my experience a lot of the time they are broken because either miseducation of not knowing or not bothering to read their JSAG or sheer laziness. Into area a lot of JSA claimants are brought up with getting money I for nothing and it's about time the jobcentre toughened up and followed the rules then maybe a lot of them would see results in actively seeking as they should be anyway -- this is my opinion of my area not of any other person so please do not take this as aimed at anyone in particular.

(Ex dwp employee, who signed people on and I was a Decision making and appeals clerk who dealt with sending the referrals)

Denning.

iammumtoone wrote: »

Not all agreements state the number of jobs you need to apply for, my doesn't. I just have to apply for all suitable jobs.

You shouldn't agree to such absurd terms in the first place. Next meeting ask for it to be changed to a fixed number.

GothicStirling

Denning. wrote: »

Since when did you have to put down more jobs than was required by your agreement. I only ever put 3 jobs down a week.

This is just one side of the story...

3 jobs a week? I want your adviser. My agreement says I have to do 27 actions a week.

AP007

GothicStirling wrote: »

3 jobs a week? I want your adviser. My agreement says I have to do 27 actions a week.

Actions are not job applications though.

Denning.

GothicStirling wrote: »

3 jobs a week? I want your adviser. My agreement says I have to do 27 actions a week.

It was well over a year ago. I had just graduated andy adviser agreed to leave me to myself as he had nothing to offer. It was only a few months so I would imagine all these largely numbers are for the long termers.

sniggings

wannabedebtfreeplease wrote: »

The rules are normally set out in the job seekers agreement (JSAG) which is a lawfully signed and agreed document. It's explained created and signed at the 1st interview.

If the sanction has been for an Actively Seeking Employment doubt it's normally because the JSAG hasn't been adhered to. Therefore the member of staff will have sent any diaries or evidence I.e you're spoken work in their job search review recording.

If you can prove you have completed all things set out in your JSAG then you can state that you have actively sought employment and ask for a reconsideration if disallowed.

Hardship cannot be claimed for 14 days, which is normally the fortnightly period prior that ASE Is sanctioned for and is only given when there is eligibility. For eg a single person no children etc just won't get their monies unless they can prove they have ASE.

If you have been sanctioned for refusal of employment. I.e you haven't applied for jobs that are 100% matching to your JSAG then the jobcentre can refer to get a sanction because you haven't applied for them. This will be different to appeal as you can request to see the RE vacancies they are saying you haven't applied for an you will need to cross reference whether they match. If they don't then they shouldn't have sent a suspension for RE, but if they do match and you don't have reason as to why (note I didn't see the vacancy isn't enough as it's the dwp website that is used and you should be using) they will likely suspend then upon decision disallow.

If you are disallowed, ask for a reconsideration in the first instance and explain why. If that is disallowed then ask for an appeal.

If you go straight to appeal you only have one chance to ask, a reconsideration is quicker and easier - it means a fresh decision clerk will look at your case and potentially revise allow it.

Rules are put in place and given my experience a lot of the time they are broken because either miseducation of not knowing or not bothering to read their JSAG or sheer laziness. Into area a lot of JSA claimants are brought up with getting money I for nothing and it's about time the jobcentre toughened up and followed the rules then maybe a lot of them would see results in actively seeking as they should be anyway -- this is my opinion of my area not of any other person so please do not take this as aimed at anyone in particular.

(Ex dwp employee, who signed people on and I was a Decision making and appeals clerk who dealt with sending the referrals)

you will know then that these "agreements" are one sided, refuse to sign it and you don't get JSA.

A rule of getting JSA is also to apply for all jobs you can do, as you say they go by the direct gov site, (also in my agreement I have to use Monster and indeed) so if I do not apply for every single job on that site and in my case indeed and Monster, I can be sanctioned, my agreement says I have to apply for 6 jobs a week but as said it also says all jobs I'm able to do, this is clearly a way to make getting asanction inevitable, if the adviser wishes. I do not and can not apply for that many jobs a week, the cost in phone calls, stamps and ink and paper, never mind travel cost, if I were to get interviews, would make it impossible and unreasonable.

You talk a good talk, but the facts are, these sanctions are being handled out to people they should not be used for, and if others on here are to be believed, targets are now being set for sanctioning people.

sniggings

Denning. wrote: »

You shouldn't agree to such absurd terms in the first place. Next meeting ask for it to be changed to a fixed number.

that rule is not in the agreement, it's one of the conditions for everyone claiming JSA, it's a catch all condition.

wannabedebtfreeplease

sniggings wrote: »

you will know then that these "agreements" are one sided, refuse to sign it and you don't get JSA.

A rule of getting JSA is also to apply for all jobs you can do, as you say they go by the direct gov site, (also in my agreement I have to use Monster and indeed) so if I do not apply for every single job on that site and in my case indeed and Monster, I can be sanctioned, my agreement says I have to apply for 6 jobs a week but as said it also says all jobs I'm able to do, this is clearly a way to make getting asanction inevitable, if the adviser wishes. I do not and can not apply for that many jobs a week, the cost in phone calls, stamps and ink and paper, never mind travel cost, if I were to get interviews, would make it impossible and unreasonable.

You talk a good talk, but the facts are, these sanctions are being handled out to people they should not be used for, and if others on here are to be believed, targets are now being set for sanctioning people.

You're correct targets were set for sanctions, but not solely for sanctions for policing the benefit. I personally cannot speak for your area, but my jcp I ran the DMa sections and every referral was sent via me and every referral was within valid reason, they won't send a referral for referral sake as they have to gain a disallowance rate. They would fail for sending referrals that weren't meant and subsequently allowed, so the FACTS are that in my jcp the referrals were on target and disallowed accordingly because they were just deserved. We'd very often find the sharp reaction would be they'd adhere to their JSAG and low and behold would be signed off into matching employment and thank us for the push to be active... Literally I've received thank you cards for this exact reason.

The argument regarding not affording phone calls won't be a viable argument as travels costs probably wouldn't either. Where I worked, calls to employers could be made via our telephones and there was a travel to interview scheme that reimbursed and on occasions where rail could be used a warrant issued so there really wasn't a reason to not afford to go to interviews. Obv this May have ceased to exist now but no shame in asking just incase it does still exist.

Like I said it is hard but for every genuine person job hunting and willing to succeed there was at least 9 that we're not and we're getting money for nothing, they would come in a pics the pen up to sign didn't want to listen to anything and definitely never read the declaration they were signing.

Also regarding the JSAG there are now guidelines that your Jcp should be using for example it has to be reasonable. Claiming you would check monster and you stating applying for all jobs on the website isn't reasonable. There was a specific section on the JSAG that ascertained exactly how many jobs you were expected to apply for but yes any 100% matching vacancy that is there you should apply, if you applied for the 6 required but there was 8 they would most definitely question it.

If you feel you're JSAG is unreasonable, my advice would to be asked for it reviewed according to the guidelines given, you'll be surprised to find that I bet your advisor doesn't even know the guidance page exists in their own intranet. I know a lot of incompetent advisors who were in the I've worked here since 1970 something and I'll do it my way! Which obv isn't the right way to be evolving in an ever changing role.

& I talk the talk, really it was my job that I loved which I did successfully with great thanks from customers in my area and staff alike.