Ex DWP staff set up advice site to help those with sanctions

missapril75

This seems a good opportunity to repeat a previous post from a few weeks ago.



I have often seen reference to the majority of JSA sanctions being overturned on appeal and it seems that's not quite correct according to my research.

The success lies in persuading the Job Centre to change their mind.

Since the new JSA sanctions regime was introduced on 22 October 2012, there have been a total of 1,028,819 adverse JSA sanction decisions up to the end of December 2013.

Of those 1,028,819 decisions:

317,411 were reviewed – 146,486 were overturned
34,503 were appealed – 6,158 were overturned at appeal

So that's 46% success at the review stage and 18% at the appeal stage.

Or put another way, the appeal tribunals agree with the sanction 82% of the time.

Of course, it's entirely possible that had decisions not changed at the review stage, they would have proceeded to appeal and would have been overturned then, thus increasing the rate at which appeals disagreed with the sanctions.

It seems that, with more time, the "right" (or fair) decision is being made without it having to go to appeal.

No doubt that's due to "over eagerness" to hit sanction targets and insufficient time given to allow staff to consider these things properly in the first place.

But that's quite normal in underfunded government departments and a false economy when the problems have to be paid for. (as with the passport office backlog)

duchy

applecharlotte wrote: »

The information on this website is quite out of date already.

The process for claiming hardship has changed. Job seekers agreement are rarely used these days, most offices have switched to claimant commitments.

And despite what the website would lead you to believe nobody is trying to catch job seekers out. If you genuinely are doing everything that you can to look for work you won't have a problem with the jobcentre, and you might even get a job!

But for those that don't want a job, then follow their advice and put all your efforts into obstructing the jobcentre rather than looking for work

And the tooth fairy is real too

Mersey_2

missapril75 wrote: »

This seems a good opportunity to repeat a previous post from a few weeks ago.

I have often seen reference to the majority of JSA sanctions being overturned on appeal and it seems that's not quite correct according to my research.

So that's 46% success at the review stage and 18% at the appeal stage.

Or put another way, the appeal tribunals agree with the sanction 82% of the time.

That's an untrue and misleading interpretation, unfortunately. Although, it is often how DWP press releases display the figures.

If 10,000 appealed and 2,000 were allowed by Tribunal, sadly that does not mean a 20% success rate, as it omits the 'say' 2,500 appeals that did not reach the Tribunal. Some are allowed by the DWP along the way; many appeals are discontinued, because the claimant no longer wishes to due to a change of circumstances; sadly some claimants die whilst waiting; some Appeals are stayed awaiting the outcome of an Upper Tribunal Appeal decision and a few are joined with another appeal.

When I get a chance, I'll post a thread with detailed figures/stats, as I think many current and former JCP staff on here will be surprised. That, of course, is one of the problems the House of Commons' Select Committee identified: The DWP fail to attend over 85% of Tribunals and so do need feedback errors to the Dept.

But there are certainly categories of Appeal and months of figures were most claimants have succeeded on appeal - at Tribunal - from 2004-2013.

missapril75

Mersey wrote: »

But there are certainly categories of Appeal and months of figures were most claimants have succeeded on appeal - at Tribunal - from 2004-2013.

But stats back to 2004 aren't relevant to the new JSA sanctions regime from 2012.

Mersey_2

The raw numbers are less important - as there were far fewer appeals back then; but, the % success rate are very useful to compare each quarter. In fact, it's a requirement of the DWP.

Incidentally, I assume you mean since Oct 2013, as that's been the biggest recent change, ie to reconsider errors rather than just handing out GL45s to complete.

Mersey_2

The good news is that the 'Grayling backlog' of a 13 month wait for a First Tier Tribunal in 2012, is now down to 5 months.

I agree with your statement about it being a false economy. The MoJ has had to pay out £200m in daily rate deputy district judges to hear all of the appeals created by the DWP. The irony being that Mr Grayling is now that Secretary of State.

missapril75

Mersey wrote: »

Incidentally, I assume you mean since Oct 2013,

Not me, the source.

I assume they meant 2012 as the stats to Dec 2013 would be a bit high for two months worth.

rogerblack

rogerblack wrote: »

Most sanctions that are appealed are overturned.

Ah - found it again.
This is a response to a freedom of information request of JSA sanctions - in response to a request in 2012.

3) There were 42,764 appeals by claimants against a Work Programme provider reported decision, and 19,468 of these have been reconsidered to date (the remaining 23,296 are awaiting consideration).
Of the 19,468 cases reconsidered the original decision was upheld in
3,084 cases, and the appeal was allowed in the remaining 16,402 cases.

There were 79,221 appeals by claimants against an internal JCP reported decision, and 39,067 of these have been reconsidered to date (the remaining 40,154 are awaiting consideration).
Of the 39,067 cases reconsidered the original decision was upheld in 10,086
cases, and the appeal was allowed in the remaining 28,981 cases.

So, of the sanctionable events found by the job centre that lead to sanctions - 3/4 are overturned at reconsideration.
Of the sanctionable events reported by work program providers, six in seven are overturned at reconsideration!

This is _before_ an appeal goes to the tribunal.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

The problem with 'ex-staff' running advice websites is the rules and regulations and even internal office procedures are constantly changing. Unless they have access to all the latest guidance notes and access or knowledge of how this guidance is acted upon and put into practice by the backroom and front line staff then they will in the very near future be giving advice that was correct when they worked for the DWP but soon be out of date.

missapril75

rogerblack wrote: »

Ah - found it again.
This is a response to a freedom of information request of JSA sanctions - in response to a request in 2012.


So, of the sanctionable events found by the job centre that lead to sanctions - 3/4 are overturned at reconsideration.
Of the sanctionable events reported by work program providers, six in seven are overturned at reconsideration!

This is _before_ an appeal goes to the tribunal.

Exactly my point and the same thing happened for the stats in the following year - as per my reproduced post above.

There was something similar in the guardian just a couple of days ago - something about 'yellow card' warnings before a sanction - and how a challenge to the decision often results in additional information.

It's quite likely that job seekers don't fully realise the implications of the way they explain why they did or didn't do something. Something might seem reasonable or 'obvious' to them and they fail to give a full picture of the situation, not appreciating how this might look to staff who are, perhaps, a little world weary.

Shocked at the decision, they then become a bit more focused and that helps win their case.