apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

sensibleadvice

AP007 wrote: »

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?

No, not the same. The key is for claimant to be able to evidence actively seeking work. OP cannot and have not done that, nor do they suggest they have.

Nicki

AP007 wrote: »

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?

Isn't the question if there are an infinite number of jobs, what is a reasonable number to apply for per week? You can't seriously suggest that number to be 10 surely?

If OP has made a reasonable fist of applying for jobs, it's almost irrelevant how many were advertised. If she's only applied for a paltry number then the only possible excuse for that is that only a very small number of suitable vacancies were advertised in that period. But that's for OP to prove not for the job centre to disprove.

sensibleadvice

Nicki wrote: »

Isn't the question if there are an infinite number of jobs, what is a reasonable number to apply for per week? You can't seriously suggest that number to be 10 surely?

If OP has made a reasonable fist of applying for jobs, it's almost irrelevant how many were advertised. If she's only applied for a paltry number then the only possible excuse for that is that only a very small number of suitable vacancies were advertised in that period. But that's for OP to prove not for the job centre to disprove.

They're too focused on blaming others to actually consider their own lack of effort. OP can't specify how many, even when asking anon folk on a forum for advice on their problem.

AP007

Nicki wrote: »

Isn't the question if there are an infinite number of jobs, what is a reasonable number to apply for per week? You can't seriously suggest that number to be 10 surely?

If OP has made a reasonable fist of applying for jobs, it's almost irrelevant how many were advertised. If she's only applied for a paltry number then the only possible excuse for that is that only a very small number of suitable vacancies were advertised in that period. But that's for OP to prove not for the job centre to disprove.

I never said 10 was enough at all.

I would assume the person saying you never applied for 200 jobs would have to prove there was 200 to apply for.

It's like saying you have missed an appointment but have no proof they booked one with you.

sensibleadvice

AP007 wrote: »

I never said 10 was enough at all.

I would assume the person saying you never applied for 200 jobs would have to prove there was 200 to apply for.

It's like saying you have missed an appointment but have no proof they booked one with you.

Imagine, say, 28 applications per fortnight as an expectation, that's 2/day on average and pretty easy to achieve in 2 weeks. The the JC convo:

JC - hello RD, can you evidence the jobs you've looked for in the last 2 weeks?
OP -

1. i found a few on day 1 and 2 then couldn't find any more
2. ummm, I could find that many
3. i applied for 28 on day one then had a rest
4. i was poorly and could get to a phone or computer

JC - just bear with me a mo. Ah, I see there's 200 jobs you could have applied for, I'm sorry RD I'm referring you for not actively and consistently seeking this period.

None of those excuses listed or indeed many other permutations support actively seeking work. Actively seeking work is about what the claimant can evidence they have done. That is where they failed and where they'll continue to fail presenting the same argument.

makeyourdaddyproud

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Imagine, say, 28 applications per fortnight as an expectation, that's 2/day on average and pretty easy to achieve in 2 weeks. The the JC convo:

JC - hello RD, can you evidence the jobs you've looked for in the last 2 weeks?
OP -

1. i found a few on day 1 and 2 then couldn't find any more
2. ummm, I could find that many
3. i applied for 28 on day one then had a rest
4. i was poorly and could get to a phone or computer

JC - just bear with me a mo. Ah, I see there's 200 jobs you could have applied for, I'm sorry RD I'm referring you for not actively and consistently seeking this period.

None of those excuses listed or indeed many other permutations support actively seeking work. Actively seeking work is about what the claimant can evidence they have done. That is where they failed and where they'll continue to fail presenting the same argument.

Apples and oranges. A claimant is never going to be able to defeat the system in place : if your name is in the hat for a sanction, I'm pretty sure there is nothing you can do about it. I am also sure there are an equally unfair amount of claimants who have not done their fair share but still missed the radar for a sanction.

Just apply for what you believe is a match for you and hope for the best, I say.

OleGunnar

There's no way on earth there's 200 suitable vacancies to apply for in a fortnight, especially over Christmas on UJM. Strip out the apprenticeships and the self employed positions and what does that leave you with? Probably the same self employed Kleeneze vacancy only this time it's 2 miles down the road. It's worth pointing out they can't compel you to apply for either of those sorts, nor can they insist on zero hour jobs.

CV Library and it's job warehouse, pretty much, is what's left. Well and the fake ads that infested the place. Which have now lessened recently post the Ch4 story, only to be replaced by multitudes of said Job Warehouse vacancies.

That said I agree this probably isn't about 200 jobs but rather a lack of the required steps in the first place. I just find it a bit off they're basing the whole thing on the spurious 200 jobs claim and are reticent to prove this number, probably because they know the evidence wouldn't stand up to any scrutiny.

sensibleadvice

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

Apples and oranges. A claimant is never going to be able to defeat the system in place : if your name is in the hat for a sanction, I'm pretty sure there is nothing you can do about it. I am also sure there are an equally unfair amount of claimants who have not done their fair share but still missed the radar for a sanction.

Just apply for what you believe is a match for you and hope for the best, I say.

More like sour grapes, ignorance of the system and expectation others will get a job for them.

red_devil wrote: »

Go back to the days when you could take a card from the jobcentre display and a member of staff would ring and get you an interview. Too complicated now everything onlime and no jobpoints in the jobcentre.

stix62

OleGunnar wrote: »

There's no way on earth there's 200 suitable vacancies to apply for in a fortnight,.....

That figure is a joke. I was happy if I could find 1 a day (average). Not finding any one day was depressing, and finding 2 or more was 'kin amazing. Taking off the likes of searchjobvacancies and agency rubbish (who helped put my figures up on bad weeks it has to be said - so not totally useless ) there really isn't much left! - and that includes very basic no skills required type jobs.

mro

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Ah, I see there's 200 jobs you could have applied for, I'm sorry RD I'm referring you for not actively and consistently seeking this period.

Unless you actually read details of each job, you cannot know whether it is suitable.
The vast majority have requirements, hidden within the detail.

You cannot do a search on a job title. and know those jobs are suitable.

Do a google search you gets lots of junk, then you have to read & sift it.
This is real job search & it is time consuming.


Do you know how long it takes to click on each of those 200 jobs & check the details ? :rotfl:

Yes, it takes a long long time & you can be certain the advisor has not done that.

It's the lazy way of the world & computer/internet searches, thinking that is the easy answer.

The advisor is likely spouting nonsense.