apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

imoneyop

red_devil wrote: »

PROVE THERE WERE THOSE JOBS.

if they were on ujm they were more than likely false anyway.

Does your Job Seeker agreement stipulate how many "actions" (I believe that they call it that rather than jobs applied for as you can include other efforts) you have to take each period?

If so, did you complete and evidence that many actions?

If you didn't then whether there were 20 or 200 jobs that you could apply for is largely irrelevant - you didn't make the required job seeking effort, so you rightly got sanctioned.

red_devil

imoneyop wrote: »

Does your Job Seeker agreement stipulate how many "actions" (I believe that they call it that rather than jobs applied for as you can include other efforts) you have to take each period?

If so, did you complete and evidence that many actions?

If you didn't then whether there were 20 or 200 jobs that you could apply for is largely irrelevant - you didn't make the required job seeking effort, so you rightly got sanctioned.

30 things.

KevInChester

Like I've said before Red Devil, the 200 number is not in the slightest bit important. The important part is what you did do and not what you didn't do.

AP007

imoneyop wrote: »

Does your Job Seeker agreement stipulate how many "actions" (I believe that they call it that rather than jobs applied for as you can include other efforts) you have to take each period?

If so, did you complete and evidence that many actions?

If you didn't then whether there were 20 or 200 jobs that you could apply for is largely irrelevant - you didn't make the required job seeking effort, so you rightly got sanctioned.

Mine has both on it but I do more than that 10 times over

imoneyop

red_devil wrote: »

30 things.

So in the period you were sanctioned for did you do 30 things (I assume not otherwise you would be complaining about being sanctioned unfarirly on that basis)? If you only did 25 say and the advisor said why have you only done 25, look I've just found 200 jobs you could have applied for. then the number 200 is irrelevant - the fact is that there were jobs listed on their system that you didn't apply for.

You might know that a number of the jobs on UJM are fake and that a number wouldn't have been suitable, but there would probably have been enough to get you to your target. And if you still didn't manage to get to the magic 30, why not just apply for the fake ones - if they're self-employed or commission only or whatever, you could have turned them down if offered, but you would have done what you agreed to and not been sanctioned.

AP007

imoneyop wrote: »

So in the period you were sanctioned for did you do 30 things (I assume not otherwise you would be complaining about being sanctioned unfarirly on that basis)? If you only did 25 say and the advisor said why have you only done 25, look I've just found 200 jobs you could have applied for. then the number 200 is irrelevant - the fact is that there were jobs listed on their system that you didn't apply for.

You might know that a number of the jobs on UJM are fake and that a number wouldn't have been suitable, but there would probably have been enough to get you to your target. And if you still didn't manage to get to the magic 30, why not just apply for the fake ones - if they're self-employed or commission only or whatever, you could have turned them down if offered, but you would have done what you agreed to and not been sanctioned.

30 steps are not job applications however, only steps.

imoneyop

AP007 wrote: »

30 steps are not job applications however, only steps.

I know, I was just using the applications as an example - she could have gone and delivered her CV to a couple of shops or sent speculative emails to a few local companies, or what ever else is allowed in the definition of a "step".

So, asking the advisor to prove that there were 200 jobs she could have applied for really is irrelevant. So what if the advisor lied or can't prove it, the bottom line is she didn't do what she agreed to do to get her benefit.

She gets paid to job seek, I get paid to work - if I don't do what I am being paid for then I will get "sanctioned" by not getting a bonus/promotion/payrise/contract extension - it's only fair the same should apply to her in her "job".

red_devil

imoneyop wrote: »

I know, I was just using the applications as an example - she could have gone and delivered her CV to a couple of shops or sent speculative emails to a few local companies, or what ever else is allowed in the definition of a "step".

So, asking the advisor to prove that there were 200 jobs she could have applied for really is irrelevant. So what if the advisor lied or can't prove it, the bottom line is she didn't do what she agreed to do to get her benefit.

She gets paid to job seek, I get paid to work - if I don't do what I am being paid for then I will get "sanctioned" by not

getting a bonus/promotion/payrise/contract extension - it's

only fair the same should apply to her in her "job".

yes i approached 3 on spec that week.

AP007

imoneyop wrote: »

So, asking the advisor to prove that there were 200 jobs she could have applied for really is irrelevant. So what if the advisor lied or can't prove it, the bottom line is she didn't do what she agreed to do to get her benefit.

.

It like saying 'you didnt come to your appointment' and you say 'prove there was one' and the JC say 'Oh no sorry we can't but we will tell the DWP you never arrived'

sensibleadvice

OleGunnar wrote: »

Anyway, night. Did you know where Tarporley was BTW?

I didn't, but as you've asked I've checked. It's just under 35 miles from Trafford Park, a 50 minute commute by car/motorcycle. Similar distance to one of my commutes.

Now of course you've assumed only public transport is possible in your case, which would make the journey 2 hours + but the system has correctly identified someone living at Trafford Park could get to the destination well within 90 minutes.