apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

Bill_Shidding

Best of luck with the appeal red.

Bill.

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

Looking for facts not opinions thanks. Very off topic of you.

appeal sent today so shall see what happens.

Fact is you haven't evidenced you're actively seeking work or are committed to finding work.

Orville

So the op applies for 200 jobs in a fortnight / week. Ok the following fortnight / week how many new jobs will be on the system?. Not many I bet.

So the following sign on when the op says she only applied for a few jobs as that is what has now come on the system would end up with a sanction....

200 jobs is way too much of an ask...

sensibleadvice

Orville wrote: »

So the op applies for 200 jobs in a fortnight / week. Ok the following fortnight / week how many new jobs will be on the system?. Not many I bet.

So the following sign on when the op says she only applied for a few jobs as that is what has now come on the system would end up with a sanction....

200 jobs is way too much of an ask...

OP isn't being asked to apply for 200 jobs....

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64744234&postcount=40

Orville

sensibleadvice wrote: »

OP isn't being asked to apply for 200 jobs....

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64744234&postcount=40

Hi,

It says the advisor said she could have gone for 200 jobs. Not that there were 200 jobs to choose nay amount from. I must be misreading as that to me says the advisor expected it.

When i was on jsa around 4 years ago, and yes i know it's changed since then, you only need to apply for four or so jobs a week i think it was.

Either way i think there should be a set minimum amout so no confusion arises.

sensibleadvice

Orville wrote: »

Hi,

It says the advisor said she could have gone for 200 jobs. Not that there were 200 jobs to choose nay amount from. I must be misreading as that to me says the advisor expected it.

When i was on jsa around 4 years ago, and yes i know it's changed since then, you only need to apply for four or so jobs a week i think it was.

Either way i think there should be a set minimum amout so no confusion arises.

red_devil wrote: »

He stated there were 200 jobs on UJ i could have gone for.

Could being the key word. OP has not evidenced the have gone for any or enough. Quite odd really, given they're all about evidence.

makeyourdaddyproud

If the OP complains enough and appeals after every rejection, then my money is on the sanction being revoked. It's certainly going to cost them X days labour to keep on processing appeals, especially if it's backed up with a complaint to their MP.

The system of sanctioning is very loose and inconsistent across the UK, with the bias towards sanction targets suggesting that only the smallest breaches are currently leading to whimsical sanctions.

My advice to the OP would to keep on complaining, if it's one thing which UK PLC hates about its citizens is having to spend time handling them in the face of oppressive labour costs and welfare claimant indifference.

csmw

mro wrote: »

What about the OP's situation, advisor claiming there are 200 jobs they could apply for, without any proof ?

I have explained the process to the OP several times now but he/she chooses not to listen.

They have not been sanctioned purely on the basis that they have not applied for said 200 jobs, they have been sanctioned for failing not to actively seek work.

If the OP is now having to appeal it's because at the mandatory reconsideration stage they failed to provide any further evidence that they were indeed actively seeking during the period.

The 200 jobs is actually irrlevent it could have been 20 and the result would have still been the same, if there was a substantial number of low skilled/ no experience required vacancies advertised during the period that could have been applied for.

Let's say for example during the period the OP applied for 4 jobs, the advisor then does a quick search etc and finds 50 jobs the customer could have applied for but didn't ,it would be referred to a DM. Because if they were truly active over the 2 week period they also would have found those vacancies the advisor did in around and would have applied for a number of them.

iammumtoone

csmw wrote: »

I have explained the process to the OP several times now but he/she chooses not to listen.

They have not been sanctioned purely on the basis that they have not applied for said 200 jobs, they have been sanctioned for failing not to actively seek work.

If the OP is now having to appeal it's because at the mandatory reconsideration stage they failed to provide any further evidence that they were indeed actively seeking during the period.

The 200 jobs is actually irrlevent it could have been 20 and the result would have still been the same, if there was a substantial number of low skilled/ no experience required vacancies advertised during the period that could have been applied for.

Let's say for example during the period the OP applied for 4 jobs, the advisor then does a quick search etc and finds 50 jobs the customer could have applied for but didn't ,it would be referred to a DM. Because if they were truly active over the 2 week period they also would have found those vacancies the advisor did in around and would have applied for a number of them.

I understand the process and not saying it is wrong BUT what is wrong is as it seems the adviser does not have to provide evidence of what jobs were missed (whatever the number)

Lets take this scenario

Claimant searches for jobs and applies for all that they can (the number is irrelevant) they go to sign on and are told they are being sanctioned for not actively seeking work advisor claims there were 200 (or 20) jobs they missed. Claimant says they did not see them and are confident they searched every available site. Basically the claimant can't so anything the adviser says there were 200 but does not have to prove what they were. In this situation what can the claimant do, they didn't see them, they are convinced they didn't miss any, what next?? If they were able to be shown the jobs they missed at least then the claimant would see what they had done wrong and would accept the sanction (if applicable). What if the claimant has a genuine reason (backed up by proof) that they did not apply for the jobs the advisor says they missed, where is their right to defend themselves?

csmw

iammumtoone wrote: »

I understand the process and not saying it is wrong BUT what is wrong is as it seems the adviser does not have to provide evidence of what jobs were missed (whatever the number)

Lets take this scenario

Claimant searches for jobs and applies for all that they can (the number is irrelevant) they go to sign on and are told they are being sanctioned for not actively seeking work advisor claims there were 200 (or 20) jobs they missed. Claimant says they did not see them and are confident they searched every available site. Basically the claimant can't so anything the adviser says there were 200 but does not have to prove what they were. In this situation what can the claimant do, they didn't see them, they are convinced they didn't miss any, what next?? If they were able to be shown the jobs they missed at least then the claimant would see what they had done wrong and would accept the sanction (if applicable). What if the claimant has a genuine reason (backed up by proof) that they did not apply for the jobs the advisor says they missed, where is their right to defend themselves?

At the point of reconsideration the DM would write to the advisor, asking for further info or clarication on any points raised. They can asked for details of jobs and an advisor would have to send evidence of available vacancies.

But as I keep saying that will never be the whole reason as to why the OP was sanctioned, I just think they are being very vague with the truth.