apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

Podge52

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.

red devil could have done everything asked of her on her jobseekers agreement and her advisor saw her a soft target for a sanction.

But of course that thought would never have occurred to you would it.

pleasedelete

OP- could you ask your advisor about accessing some functional skills qualifications in English- that might help with your job search?

sensibleadvice

Podge52 wrote: »

red devil could have done everything asked of her on her jobseekers agreement and her advisor saw her a soft target for a sanction.

But of course that thought would never have occurred to you would it.

Ooops, my mistake, I was posting on the facts as stated by OP. I didn't realise the thread had moved on to speculating what 'could have' happened if they'd done something different like meet the terms of their JSAg.

It didn't occur to me that they had done everything asked them their advisor because clearly they have not, as indeed you've also indicated in your post, which, of course is the reason for sanction.

No doubt OP wants to hear sympathetic advice so perhaps they should try your suggestion at appeal as defence for doing insufficient job seeking. So:

JC stating sanction for not actively seeking employment as JSAg.

Vs

OP blaming advisor for what they haven't done. Plus claiming they could have done everything expected on their JSAg but didn't because advisor saw them as a soft target for a sanction.

I wonder if your notion will occur to the appeal panel.:think:

red_devil

Podge52 wrote: »

red devil could have done everything asked of her on her jobseekers agreement and her advisor saw her a soft target for a sanction.

But of course that thought would never have occurred to you would it.

Yes i thought that. We all know about the sanctions and the hit squad advisors. Any old chance to cut some money.

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

Yes i thought that. We all know about the sanctions and the hit squad advisors. Any old chance to cut some money.

Do you think JSA is paid for not actively seeking work then?

iammumtoone

Where has red devil actually said they haven't done what they were asked? The number of jobs they applied for is irrelevant as there might not have been many suitable available at the time (we don't know if the 200 jobs the adviser found were suitable as OP is not allowed to see what they were). That leaves the fact they had to search for jobs and send spec letters in their time, OP has not said they didn't do this.

Podge52

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Ooops, my mistake, I was posting on the facts as stated by OP. I didn't realise the thread had moved on to speculating what 'could have' happened if they'd done something different like meet the terms of their JSAg.

It didn't occur to me that they had done everything asked them their advisor because clearly they have not, as indeed you've also indicated in your post, which, of course is the reason for sanction.

No doubt OP wants to hear sympathetic advice so perhaps they should try your suggestion at appeal as defence for doing insufficient job seeking. So:

JC stating sanction for not actively seeking employment as JSAg.

Vs

OP blaming advisor for what they haven't done. Plus claiming they could have done everything expected on their JSAg but didn't because advisor saw them as a soft target for a sanction.

I wonder if your notion will occur to the appeal panel.:think:

But you are basing your whole argument on the fact that red devil is lying and the advisor is telling the truth.
Why do you believe this to be the case ?

makeyourdaddyproud

The truth is that there are sanction targets and you can bet on someone, somewhere will feel the Sword of Damocles on their benefit. Of course no one is going to come on here complaining that they have received benefit, but didn't follow through with their JSA obligations.

Red devil was originally looking for advice, instead received ridicule over the silliest minutiae.

sensibleadvice

Podge52 wrote: »

But you are basing your whole argument on the fact that red devil is lying and the advisor is telling the truth.
Why do you believe this to be the case ?

On the contrary, I believe OP is telling the truth when they stated their advisor said they didn't apply for enough jobs.

They've said nothing to indicate their advisor was lying in that claim, but instead tried to divert from what they haven't done by claiming the advisor should have done something else.

Similar in fact, to introducing a hypothetical situation with no validity.

BillJones

red_devil wrote: »

Yes i thought that. We all know about the sanctions and the hit squad advisors. Any old chance to cut some money.

If you want your money, have you considered doing what you are required to do for it?

I know that you think that it's unfair that there are conditions on your handouts, but there are, and they are not going away.

It's pointless not doing what you have to, and then complaining after you are sanctioned.