apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

Of course im being truthful. What would be the point in posting this.

What is the point of posting asking for advice if you can't be truthful about how many jobs you applied for and can evidence? After all that's what advisors, DM and tribunal will expect.

Podge52

csmw wrote: »

Claimaints can be provided with evidence if requested under disclosure of information.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that the op is being truthful, I personally believe they are just looking for a way to have a correctly applied sanction overturned.

All information relation to procedures and guidelines can be found on www.gov.uk or can be found quite easily by doing a quick Google search.

Do you have to pay to obtain this information ?

red_devil

sensibleadvice wrote: »

What is the point of posting asking for advice if you can't be truthful about how many jobs you applied for and can evidence? After all that's what advisors, DM and tribunal will expect.

Yes but you arent the tribunal are you. You are just being nosey.

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

Im a a she you berk, just shows you no nothing about me.

unless you can advise properly jog on. As said ive appealed. The problem in general with jobcentres is their incompetence.

The left hand often dosent know what the right hand is doing. I was on the post support work programme with a hit squad advisor thats probably why i was sanctioned.

Ah, right, so nothing to do with not applying for enough jobs then.

Or your failure to comprehend what actively seeking work, commitment and evidencing the same means.

Based on what you've posted the 'proper advice' is that you're unlikely to succeed at appeal and face further sanctions by carrying on doing the same. A few sympathetic comments on here won't change that.

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

Yes but you arent the tribunal are you. You are just being nosey.

Hardly being nosey when you're the one asking for advice.

Clearly you've been sanctioned and you're attitude and evasiveness on your commitment suggests it's the correct call.

Perhaps you shouldn't have posted your predicament in the way you did if you were only looking for sympathetic 'it will be alright' type responses.

red_devil

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Hardly being noses when you're the one asking for advice.

Clearly you've been sanctioned and you're attitude and evasiveness on your commitment suggests it's the correct call.

Perhaps you shouldn't have posted your predicament in the way you did if you were only looking for sympathetic 'it will be alright' type responses.

Asking advice on whether they have to prove it thats all. You clearly dont know.

red_devil

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Ah, right, so nothing to do with not applying for enough jobs then.

Or your failure to comprehend what actively seeking work, commitment and evidencing the same means.

Based on what you've posted the 'proper advice' is that you're unlikely to succeed at appeal and face further sanctions by carrying on doing the same. A few sympathetic comments on here won't change that.

That quote was to bill jones for calling me a he.

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

That quote was to bill jones for calling me a he.

The fist line was that.

The rest, that I was replying to was about advising properly.

Nicki

I think the issue here (and it would be the same in a court of law as OP has a bee in her bonnet about that) is where the burden of proof lies. I suspect that the onus is on OP to prove that she was actively seeking work by showing that she applied for a sensible number of jobs and not on the benefits office to prove that she wasn't by showing how many she didn't apply for. So whilst the benefits office may have disputed the OP's claim to be looking for work by pointing out to her that there were 200 jobs she failed to apply for in a 2 week period, they don't have to prove that to anyone's satisfaction, and it is OP who has to prove she did enough.

This is where the number of jobs actually applied for becomes crucial. If OP applied for say 50 jobs over that period, it is less important that there were another 150 she didn't apply for. If she applied for 10, then it's a much bigger deal that there were allegedly another 190 possible vacancies. Though anyone genuinely looking for work would surely apply for as many suitable jobs as possible when they were advertised, as some weeks will be lean weeks when there won't be as much around so it makes sense to take advantage of opportunities.

AP007

Nicki wrote: »

I think the issue here (and it would be the same in a court of law as OP has a bee in her bonnet about that) is where the burden of proof lies. I suspect that the onus is on OP to prove that she was actively seeking work by showing that she applied for a sensible number of jobs and not on the benefits office to prove that she wasn't by showing how many she didn't apply for. So whilst the benefits office may have disputed the OP's claim to be looking for work by pointing out to her that there were 200 jobs she failed to apply for in a 2 week period, they don't have to prove that to anyone's satisfaction, and it is OP who has to prove she did enough.

This is where the number of jobs actually applied for becomes crucial. If OP applied for say 50 jobs over that period, it is less important that there were another 150 she didn't apply for. If she applied for 10, then it's a much bigger deal that there were allegedly another 190 possible vacancies. Though anyone genuinely looking for work would surely apply for as many suitable jobs as possible when they were advertised, as some weeks will be lean weeks when there won't be as much around so it makes sense to take advantage of opportunities.

But that is the same as a JC advisor saying there were 1000 jobs last week and you only applied for 50 (1/20th)

How many is an acceptalbe amount for the JC to magic up?