apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

Didnt i oh right.

if i get this sanction overturned will think about brongong a case against them for maladministration.

No, you didn't, which is why your advisor said you didn't apply for enough jobs.

With what you've put forward so far that's a big IF. Even if you do it will only show due process on appeal, not maladministration. Have you considered the appeal may well be upheld?

martinthebandit

red_devil wrote: »

PROVE THERE WERE THOSE JOBS.

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

Think the point is that you have to prove that you are actively seeking a job, the issue about the advisor having to prove there was 200 jobs is just a red herring.

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Hmm, let me see. Remember, like the OP this is about recording a search for a job you're likely not interested in and are already dismissive of.

Even the slowest and most incapable could achieve each of these in 5 minutes and someone who could use a computer to an average standard probably a couple of minutes per unsuitable job search.

1. Click into the job - 0 mins
2. Read the description - 2 mins
3. Comprehend - 1 min
4. Decide it's not appropriate - 1 min
5. Click the drop down box, select why not appropriate - 0 mins
6. Cut and paste details of Job summary including Job ID, Posting Date, Location and Job reference - 2 mins

Even a turnip realised the reason why OP is sanctioned is because they were not actively job seeking so it detracted from nothing and certainly not 'proper' job hunting otherwise they'd have presented that at their sign on. Curious how you forgot such a key point.

Until YOU experience signing on and all the b/s that comes with it you're never going to 'get it' my dear turnip.

Don't forget, and you may find this difficult to believe, most people here do actually WANT A JOB. Although I agree going through with all that b/s will be regarded as 'actively seeking', it's not going to get them into employment and takes away the time they could be spending on other jobsites or. Even by your calculations, looking at 10 unsuitable vacancies would be an hour wasted.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

Until YOU experience signing on and all the b/s that comes with it you're never going to 'get it' my dear turnip.

Don't forget, and you may find this difficult to believe, most people here do actually WANT A JOB. Although I agree going through with all that b/s will be regarded as 'actively seeking', it's not going to get them into employment and takes away the time they could be spending on other jobsites or. Even by your calculations, looking at 10 unsuitable vacancies would be an hour wasted.

Great logic and may explain why OP did not actively seek work; because the seeking might amount to something not being suitable so why risk wasting the time looking. Still it's worked out OK, there's no need to look now.

lakes17

saintjammyswine wrote: »

The funding is not from JCP or WP but is funding the provider (usually colleges) receives for providing the course from their central SFA contract in the same way they do for NVQs or Apprenticeships etc. It was recently added to the list of courses available for funding including Food Safety & First Aid courses.

So is there funding for JSA claimants to obtain a Food Safety Certificate?

imoneyop

AP007 wrote: »

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'

Sorry, but that is an irrelevant example - in that situation you would be being sanctioned for not attending the appointment, so you have every right to want proof that the meeting existed.

In the OP's case, she is being sanctioned for not making enough effort and then trying to use the inability/unwillingness of the advisor to prove that there were 200 jobs she could have applied for as an excuse to wriggle out of it. Even if those 200 jobs didn't exist, she would still have been sanctioned for not making the effort that she agreed to in order to earn her benefits as there were other things she could have done.

iammumtoone

imoneyop wrote: »

In the OP's case, she is being sanctioned for not making enough effort and then trying to use the inability/unwillingness of the advisor to prove that there were 200 jobs she could have applied for as an excuse to wriggle out of it. Even if those 200 jobs didn't exist, she would still have been sanctioned for not making the effort that she agreed to in order to earn her benefits as there were other things she could have done.

But how does the OP prove they have been looking? I look at loads of jobs each day I can't prove to anyone I have done this. I can only prove the ones I have applied for. It is possible that the OP has in fact seen these 200 jobs but has valid reasons for not applying. Without knowing what the jobs were how can they tell if they have seem them or not?

I record the sites I have looked at each day and if nothing is suitable to apply for on a site I make a note of just one of the jobs I have seen but in reality I have checked a lot more than one, I don't write them all down it would take too long, likewise if I apply for a job(s) off a site I don't then write down the others I have looked at but will have always checked everything that is listed since the last time I looked - However there is no way for me to prove that, but if I was presented with a list of jobs an adviser thought I should have applied for I would be able to give a reason why I didn't if I had seen the job. If it turned out I missed it, then hands up I would accept the sanction but I would not be happy just accepting a sanction without that information.

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Great logic and may explain why OP did not actively seek work; because the seeking might amount to something not being suitable so why risk wasting the time looking. Still it's worked out OK, there's no need to look now.

The 'seeking' is still being undertaken, the time wasting comes in having to evidence the unsuitables. The suitables are applied for and evidenced.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

The 'seeking' is still being undertaken, the time wasting comes in having to evidence the unsuitables. The suitables are applied for and evidenced.

You don't know OP has undertaken enough active seeking. They haven't evidenced this or indeed sufficient applications. They can cut it anyway they like but the sanction is for what they haven't done, not what the advisor hasn't.

stix62

red_devil wrote: »

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

That makes no difference to JC advisors. I told mine about 'searchjobvacancies' and the jobs they were re-advertising every few days. When I asked if I should keep applying for the same obviously non existent jobs, she said 'yes'.
It was a joke but when there weren't enough genuine vacancies to apply for, they (and others) came in very useful for hitting JSAg targets.

sensibleadvice wrote: »

You don't know OP has undertaken enough active seeking. They haven't evidenced this or indeed sufficient applications. They can cut it anyway they like but the sanction is for what they haven't done, not what the advisor hasn't.

To be honest, I'd quite disregarded the OP's plight and was refering in general to JSAgs and the ridiculous farce evidencing unsuitable jobs would be.:D