are sanctions legal

FluffyDuck3

laineybird2000 wrote: »

I thought there should be some scope to take a sanction to court on fairness grounds. It always struck me as incredibly unfair that one person must do 40 actions and spend 7 hours a day job searching, where as another person may only have to do 9 actions per week. It's all just so objective. Shouldn't there be a set amount of actions and a set amount of hours to spend job searching.

From what I understand, they set the number of actions based on the individual's circumstances. A single parent will be given more flexibility regarding hours worked, so fewer vacancies available. Someone that doesn't have any experience/qualifications will be expected to apply for any unskilled job that comes up.

It probably also varies between the job centres. For example, I think it's reasonable to expect people in the centre of London to apply for more jobs each week than those who live in areas where there are fewer vacancies.

missapril75

jetplane wrote: »

The difficulty is that many of the JSA advisers who refer for sanction will never have seen the legislation. The law is written, it is interpreted by DWP, it is further interpreted and summarised with examples in the Decision Makers Guidance, it is interpreted for training and targets or performance levels and by the time it is passed down to the advisers it is no longer fit for purpose.

I think this sort of thing is overplayed. Legislation was interpreted into 'guidance' long before targets came in.

Last I saw, the examples and definitions in the guides always referred to the appropriate parts of the legislation so checking was always an option if one was so inclined..

It's funny, people ask for the legislation and then can't understand it because of the way law is written. It's why there are guides.

Nobody ever asks for legislation applying to parking on double yellow lines, people just know and accept you're not supposed to do it. Anyone ever ask what act enables a library to put a fine on late book return? Or what right the TV licence people have to ask for a licence fee?

Or any other similar examples.

Yet people are forever asking what bit of legislation enables such and such when it comes to social security.

Weird that.

The_ICT_Engineer

When you take into the account that most sanctions are deem unlawful and are later overturned on appeal. Yet by the time the sanction has been appealed and overturned, the person who had been sanctioned has already served the sanctioned period.

whodathunkit

laineybird2000 wrote: »

I thought there should be some scope to take a sanction to court on fairness grounds. It always struck me as incredibly unfair that one person must do 40 actions and spend 7 hours a day job searching, where as another person may only have to do 9 actions per week. It's all just so objective. Shouldn't there be a set amount of actions and a set amount of hours to spend job searching.

If it were totally objective, fewer people would need to complain.

jetplane

missapril75 wrote: »

I think this sort of thing is overplayed. Legislation was interpreted into 'guidance' long before targets came in.

Social security law is no different to any other law and is interpreted by the DWP to suit their needs. Just as CPAG, CAB, Welfare Rights et al will interpret it to meet the claimant. This is why the Tribunal / Court / Judicial Review system exists.

Last I saw, the examples and definitions in the guides always referred to the appropriate parts of the legislation so checking was always an option if one was so inclined..

The DMG has existed for many years and is a great point of reference and of course the law is identified for anyone to check. How many DM's have direct access to the Law Volumes, and if they have internet access at their desk, how many actually have the inclination or time to read the legislation and how many times can you call Leeds?

It's funny, people ask for the legislation and then can't understand it because of the way law is written. It's why there are guides.

Its funny people refer for sanctions when they don't understand the law as it is written and guides have to be rewritten and decisions are constantly challenged and overruled when the actual law is applied.

Nobody ever asks for legislation applying to parking on double yellow lines, people just know and accept you're not supposed to do it. Anyone ever ask what act enables a library to put a fine on late book return? Or what right the TV licence people have to ask for a licence fee?

Or any other similar examples.

Look on the other threads people often ask for parking legislation, consumer legislation, tenancy regulations, banking regulations the list is endless.

Yet people are forever asking what bit of legislation enables such and such when it comes to social security.

People are forever asking for social security legislation because it is forever changing and with more speed and diversity than ever before. If you work in this area you will know that it is hard enough for staff to keep up.

People are always asking because decisions have a profound affect on their livelihoods, not just sanctions, but delays in claims and erroneous decisions. The fall out from one bad decision can be devastating

Weird that.

Nothing Weird about it.

red_devil

your not allowed to starve animals so you shouldnt be allowed to starve people. It does nothing to help you into work at all.

BillJones

red_devil wrote: »

your not allowed to starve animals so you shouldnt be allowed to starve people. It does nothing to help you into work at all.

It's not the government's job to feed you, clothe you (including buying you provocative T-shirts) or to help you into work, I'm afraid.

Yes, they can try, as some people will benefit from that, but it's not their fault that you can't find work, so it's no use complaining about it.

If you don't find it yourself, then you are going to spend an awful lot of years hungry, cold, and bored.

red_devil

BillJones wrote: »

It's not the government's job to feed you, clothe you (including buying you provocative T-shirts) or to help you into work, I'm afraid.

Yes, they can try, as some people will benefit from that, but it's not their fault that you can't find work, so it's no use complaining about it.

If you don't find it yourself, then you are going to spend an awful lot of years hungry, cold, and bored.

You will probably starve is that what you want the government starving people lovely??

actually it is, if your unemployment its money so you can live!

The government should look after their own they can well afford it and if they cant stop sending money abroad.

They should also stop their persecution of the poor,sick and disabled. Its disgusting.

However this isnt a disscussion thread it was a question?

MissMoneypenny

missapril75 wrote: »

Nobody ever asks for legislation applying to parking on double yellow lines, people just know and accept you're not supposed to do it. Anyone ever ask what act enables a library to put a fine on late book return? Or what right the TV licence people have to ask for a licence fee?

Or any other similar examples.

Yet people are forever asking what bit of legislation enables such and such when it comes to social security.

Weird that.

To use your example: _
A traffic warden or police officer who gave a ticket to someone who wasn't on yellow line, would most likely get their wages docked or a a written warning before they lost their job.
The same with a library worker who kept taking fines for books that weren't late.
"The TV licence people" would end up paying the court costs if that person (they took action against) didn't have a tv and no doubt someone would lose their job.

So what happens to DWP staff who impose a sanction and the tribunal say they were incorrect? Do those DWP staff get a written warning on their record? Have their wages docked (to cover the cost of the tribunal to save us tax payers from paying for their mistake)? Lose their job if they have imposed an incorrect sanction before? Demoted to a sign-in girl/boy?

missapril75

jetplane wrote: »

The DMG has existed for many years and is a great point of reference and of course the law is identified for anyone to check. How many DM's have direct access to the Law Volumes, and if they have internet access at their desk, how many actually have the inclination or time to read the legislation and how many times can you call Leeds?

All of them I'd say based on my 30 years in the department.

We had the DMG and before that the adjudication officer's guide and whatever it was called before that but we always had the legislation.

And when you could see all the expressions used that wouldn't be understood by the layman you were thankful for the guides.

Appeals officers in each office had a good understanding of legal terms and previous rulings for precedent and such.

That covered all bases.