are sanctions legal

melysion

red_devil wrote: »

Trying to find out it it legal to sanction someone on jsa.

Well, of course its legal. Whether its morally right is a different thing - but yes, its legal. The government doesn't have to give you money.

red_devil

Of course its a genuine question.

in law its supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. How come they can stop basic money you need to live on when they atent always right.

thete should be some law also that any advisor who gets you a sanction and its overturned on appeal should be fired. That might stop them giving them out willy nilly.

rogerblack

red_devil wrote: »

in law its supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. How come they can stop basic money you need to live on when they atent always right.

Benefits law generally works to the 'balance of probabilities' standard.
They do not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is not entitled to benefit.
Merely that it is more likely than not that they are not.

red_devil

Omg a poster has complained i sppke of my oh yesterday didnt know that was a crime.

its a shame some people have nothing better to do than look up peoples posts then try and use it as a stick to beat you with.

NYM

red_devil wrote: »

Of course its a genuine question.

in law its supposed to be innocent till proven guilty. How come they can stop basic money you need to live on when they atent always right.

thete should be some law also that any advisor who gets you a sanction and its overturned on appeal should be fired. That might stop them giving them out willy nilly.

You could then apply for their job ...

Affynity

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

What does "without a cap" mean?

There's no cap on the length of the work period or number of hours.
So, you can work full-time, indefinitely, for only your benefit.

ArtoDeeto

red_devil wrote: »

Trying to find out it it legal to sanction someone on jsa.

Simple question simple answer - YES

laineybird2000 wrote: »

thought there should be some scope to take a sanction to court on fairness grounds.

You can always take anything to court - the wonders of the English justice system.

laineybird2000 wrote: »

Shouldn't there be a set amount of actions and a set amount of hours to spend job searching.

Is that not robotic and overly controlling? Also doesn't that sound a bit like treating grown up people like small children?

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.

I have to disagree with your statement. Actually yes it is OUR (the government merely administrates where our money/tax goes) job to feed and clothe people who cannot feed and clothe themselves.

________________________________________________________

Wow one thread that has an answer of "yes" seems to have expanded.

Sanctions are legal but feel free to dispute the law, we have that option.
As to it being on a whimsy as to who gets referred for a POSSIBLE sanction it is a no brainer. Are the people employed by the Jobcentre stupid? You can cross hairs but you are either really looking for work or taking a sabbatical.
If you think the second way is an option you will come a cropper, if the first you will (should) be given help...

cattermole

ArtoDeeto you last statement is 100% correct the State does carry that responsibility and has done since 1948 when the National Assistance Act came into being.

For Bill Jones :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assistance_Act_1948

Marisco

Affynity wrote: »

There's no cap on the length of the work period or number of hours.
So, you can work full-time, indefinitely, for only your benefit.

You could, yes, but why would anyone? If we take JSA @ £71, HB @ £91 (I've used our councils LHA rate) and CT @ £25 (I've used my CT rate) then that comes to £187 pw. For an average 40 hr week that works out at £4.67, which is well below the NMW, afaik it's illegal to pay below NMW, so why is this acceptable?

If they have to put people on "workfare" or whatever it's called, and I'm not totally against people doing something for their benefits, then at least let them do something that will benefit their communities, and not big business and shareholders!

I'm sure there are many things that the councils can longer afford to do, due to cutbacks, but the things still need doing, let the unemployed do those types of things, but not for 40 hrs a week though, and not if it means an employed person loses their job!

rogerblack

Marisco wrote: »

You could, yes, but why would anyone? If we take JSA @ £71, HB @ £91 (I've used our councils LHA rate) and CT @ £25 (I've used my CT rate) then that comes to £187 pw. For an average 40 hr week that works out at £4.67, which is well below the NMW, afaik it's illegal to pay below NMW, so why is this acceptable?

It is not paid work in the normal sense of the term is why.
If you don't do it - you don't get benefit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/30/poundland-slave-labour-su_n_4176664.html

Note the elements where the government did not win in the above case have since had the law changed so it's completely legal.