Been sanctioned on JSA any options left

missapril75

sniggings wrote: »

....these sanctions are really working aren't they

Well if that post earlier about 87% of the appeals made by only 2% of those sanctioned is correct then at least 98% "success" would suggest it does work - in terms of what the government wants to do.

Note that I'm not supporting this - it's clear things have gone way, way too far.

But if the government wants to sanction people and 49 in every 50 don't challenge the decision, it sounds like the government is achieving what it wants.

samsmoot

missapril75 wrote: »

The right way, even when in the wrong. That's what you said.

Yes, that's the way law works. Rights and wrongs take third place, right after correct procedure and forceful and clever arguments.

missapril75 wrote: »

The OP had a four week sanction.

You think an appeal is going to get money within that time-frame?

Why would I?

busy_mom_2

sniggings wrote: »

the main problem that needs solving is the OP needs food, if he should need to use his sick days later in the year, he can follow the rules and claim ESA, more paper work and more money the tax payer has to fork out, these sanctions are really working aren't they :rotfl:

The OP needs to go back to the WP and ask thenm how and when they notified him of the appointment, he then needs to ask for a reconsideration. There is a bit missing form this post though. There is process for WP sanctions.
1. Jobseeker misses appointment
2. WP raise doubt with LMDMA
3. LMDMA write to jobseeker asking why did they miss appointment and they have 5 working days to reply.
6. possible sanctions dependant upon reasons, if no reply automatic sanction.

So I have to ask did OP reply with their reasons? If they did and didn't say sick, this excuse will not work. If they didn't reply then why not?

missapril75

missapril75 wrote: »

The OP had a four week sanction.
You think an appeal is going to get money within that time-frame?

samsmoot wrote: »

Why would I?

Um....it might have been where you suggested an appeal (even if in the wrong) because

The point is that if you have no money (or food) and it may be possible to get it, then why wouldn't you?

It rather sounded like your possible solution to having no money due to a four week sanction was to appeal because it might get money within that time frame.

Perhaps you meant something else.

osdset

missapril75 wrote: »

Well if that post earlier about 87% of the appeals made by only 2% of those sanctioned is correct then at least 98% "success" would suggest it does work - in terms of what the government wants to do.

Note that I'm not supporting this - it's clear things have gone way, way too far.

But if the government wants to sanction people and 49 in every 50 don't challenge the decision, it sounds like the government is achieving what it wants.

I think the low 'take up' on appeals is probably because it's not seen as worth going through the process and waiting months for an outcome over a sanction lasting a few weeks, the claimant is going to have to find other means of support regardless of what may or may not happen in the distant future.

Another reason might be claimant ignorance, for some reason ESA claimants seem better informed about the appeal process, or at least more willing to use it.

samsmoot

missapril75 wrote: »

Um....it might have been where you suggested an appeal (even if in the wrong) because It rather sounded like your possible solution to having no money due to a four week sanction was to appeal because it might get money within that time frame.

Perhaps you meant something else.

Yes, I meant appeal to get money, but didn't specify a time frame.


I had a look back over this thread to see what advice you have given but can't seem to find any - did those posts get deleted?

missapril75

samsmoot wrote: »

I had a look back over this thread to see what advice you have given but can't seem to find any - did those posts get deleted?

None to the OP on this particular occasion.

But advice and opinion isn't always limited to original questions. It's often a response to subsequent points as well as to others who may be looking in.

samsmoot

missapril75 wrote: »

None to the OP on this particular occasion.

But advice and opinion isn't always limited to original questions. It's often a response to subsequent points as well as to others who may be looking in.

And you do have a view which seems to be quite sensible as regards not appealing decisions for no good reason. Whilst I'd agree that sometimes there may be almost no chance of success with appealing some decisions I'd say it's rare for no errors or omissions to occur when dealing with authorities on a legal basis. It boils down to whether it's morality or law which dictates the individual's choice on what to do under such circumstances. If the OP believed they had erred and should be punished for it, then fine. If they feel they have erred but the punishment is unfair, then perhaps they should challenge the decision - even if a mere technicality will decide it.


I have had a lot of experience in challenging or helping to challenge decisions of one sort or another and may appear unusually antagonistic on this issue, but it's kind of a state of mind. Every issue is approached from all possible angles - looking for holes in the evidence - and often there are mistakes which will win the battle.


A few years ago I helped a young man avoid a criminal record for train fare evasion due to the train company entering the details on the Summons incorrectly. A mere technicality but enough for a dismissal. Some may say it was immoral to have committed the offence, but when the accused wishes to plead not guilty they should get all the help they need - whether it's from someone like me or an advice worker or paid for representative such as a solicitor or barrister. And if they want to win they are entitled to win by any means possible.


Sorry to go on but I just wanted to go on!

sniggings

busy_mom wrote: »

The OP needs to go back to the WP and ask thenm how and when they notified him of the appointment, he then needs to ask for a reconsideration. There is a bit missing form this post though. There is process for WP sanctions.
1. Jobseeker misses appointment
2. WP raise doubt with LMDMA
3. LMDMA write to jobseeker asking why did they miss appointment and they have 5 working days to reply.
6. possible sanctions dependant upon reasons, if no reply automatic sanction.

So I have to ask did OP reply with their reasons? If they did and didn't say sick, this excuse will not work. If they didn't reply then why not?

sorry but if it's a choice between eating and running around with no money to appeal a saction I choose the option of filling in the sick form if it means I have some food to eat...you just do not get it do you, some people have £0 left at the end of 2 weeks dole, then to find out the money they thought they were getting in 2 days is not going to be paid is imo worth lieing and saying they were sick.

No money for at least two weeks and they have you there saying "The OP needs to go back to the WP and ask thenm how and when they notified him of the appointment, he then needs to ask for a reconsideration." sorry but I really think you are either heartless or have closed your eyes to what you and this government are doing.

samsmoot

sniggings wrote: »

sorry but if it's a choice between eating and running around with no money to appeal a saction I choose the option of filling in the sick form if it means I have some food to eat...you just do not get it do you, some people have £0 left at the end of 2 weeks dole, then to find out the money they thought they were getting in 2 days is not going to be paid is imo worth lieing and saying they were sick.

No money for at least two weeks and they have you there saying "The OP needs to go back to the WP and ask thenm how and when they notified him of the appointment, he then needs to ask for a reconsideration." sorry but I really think you are either heartless or have closed your eyes to what you and this government are doing.

Totally agree that lying about being sick would be the sensible thing to do if it would help. I'd have said it first if I'd have thought of it. It's the thing to do when you mess up and it's your fault (your moral stance permitting, of course!). Or when you need to avoid an appointment.