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

rogerblack

missapril75 wrote: »

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.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/10/21/a-blog-in-support-of-stupid-peoples-rights-probably-the-most-important-blog-ive-ever-written/

Is very relevant.
Your assumption that people are not following directions is sort-of-reasonable for fit, healthy, un-depressed intelligent people.
It does, of course, assume that all sanctions are avoidable by the claimant and that all are avoidable by carefully reading the supplied material and understanding what they are told.
I question if this is the case.

Mersey_2

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

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staff then they will in the very near future be giving advice that was correct when they worked for the DWP but soon be out of date.

But, of course, all info is meant to be available to Claimants/Appellants and their reps, in order that they can conduct their appeal. In the form of the Decision Makers' Guide online, together with caselaw ie decisions of the Upper Tribunal (also available online.) DWP Guidance and updates are also published - although some has to be FOId. I assume you're not suggesting there is some unknown, internal "backroom" working by the JCP/DWP?

PS Rogerblack is right again! I also found figures that showed upto 87% of appeals were successful in some categories by the First Tier Tribunal.

mro

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The information on this website is quite out of date already.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

A lot of the basics don't change and it's better than nothing or very limited advice available. And the fact is you are doing nothing for people unfairly sanctioned.

So most offices are misleading customers to sign Claimant Commitments which have no legal standing under Jobseekers Allowance. (already bad advice from yourself)


So if people don't play ball, ask some questions, challenge their adviser, you'll give them a hard time.

I think that says it all.

mro

rogerblack wrote: »

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/10/21/a-blog-in-support-of-stupid-peoples-rights-probably-the-most-important-blog-ive-ever-written/

Is very relevant.
Your assumption that people are not following directions is sort-of-reasonable for fit, healthy, un-depressed intelligent people.
It does, of course, assume that all sanctions are avoidable by the claimant and that all are avoidable by carefully reading the supplied material and understanding what they are told.
I question if this is the case.

And of course all this information is easily available, findable and determinable as relevant.

Do an internet search, look at a million search results and you'll understand the problem.

seven-day-weekend

My son and his girlfriend are both on the autistic spectrum with Asperger's Syndrome. Neither of them are stupid (and if they were, is that their fault?), in fact they are above average intelligence, but their condition makes it that they don't always understand things, especially if it is couched in jargon or legal-ese or 'fancy' language.

As an example, they had a Council Tax Bill. It was just a perfectly ordinary Council Tax Bill. But they rang me up, anxious and worried, thinking they were in trouble. Why? Two reasons.

Firstly, It had a phrase on it 'Gross Liability'. To them this was a similar phrase to 'Gross Misconduct', meaning they had done something wrong. Secondly, it was called a Demand, which to them meant that the Council were demanding that they pay £1000 straight away, if not sooner.

They were both very stressed and anxious about this and I had to reassure them that they had done nothing wrong, that Gross Liability just meant that they owed this amount of money and that although the Council WERE demanding this, there was a payment schedule on the back of the bill so that they could pay in twelve monthly instalments.

The reason I tell this is because it is easy for people with congnitive or learning disabilities to misunderstand things and I think maybe it happens a lot with Jobcentre stuff. I think it is important to make sure people understand what they are supposed to be doing before they get sanctioned.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My son and his girlfriend are both on the autistic spectrum with Asperger's Syndrome. Neither of them are stupid (and if they were, is that their fault?), in fact they are above average intelligence, but their condition makes it that they don't always understand things, especially if it is couched in jargon or legal-ese or 'fancy' language.

As an example, they had a Council Tax Bill. It was just a perfectly ordinary Council Tax Bill. But they rang me up, anxious and worried, thinking they were in trouble. Why? Two reasons.

Firstly, It had a phrase on it 'Gross Liability'. To them this was a similar phrase to 'Gross Misconduct', meaning they had done something wrong. Secondly, it was called a Demand, which to them meant that the Council were demanding that they pay £1000 straight away, if not sooner.

They were both very stressed and anxious about this and I had to reassure them that they had done nothing wrong, that Gross Liability just meant that they owed this amount of money and that although the Council WERE demanding this, there was a payment schedule on the back of the bill so that they could pay in twelve monthly instalments.

The reason I tell this is because it is easy for people with congnitive or learning disabilities to misunderstand things and I think maybe it happens a lot with Jobcentre stuff. I think it is important to make sure people understand what they are supposed to be doing before they get sanctioned.

And from all my years working in Benefits it is those with mild learning difficulties who fall through the cracks and end up either being evicted, bailiffs knocking on the door or being left destitute due to sanctions.

missapril75

Mersey wrote: »

But, of course, all info is meant to be available to Claimants/Appellants and their reps, in order that they can conduct their appeal....... I assume you're not suggesting there is some unknown, internal "backroom" working by the JCP/DWP?

But there are variations. There are pilot schemes. There's a comment above about some areas still using job seeker agreements while others are using something else.
Some offices have very different arrangements to others.

Now they still have to follow rules but a knowledge of procedures and how they may vary can actually highlight how and where something went wrong and that makes a big difference in advocating for a client.

Staff familiar with such matters can actually be of more use than the smartest legal expert who knows all the t crossing and i dotting but can't offer a reasonable explanation why someone did what they did.

PS Rogerblack is right again! I also found figures that showed upto 87% of appeals were successful in some categories by the First Tier Tribunal.

AS RB points out though, this is before the tribunal stage. It's the DWP changing the decision themselves (and there's a thread somewhere about that too). Usually because they have better information than originally.
Lib Dems propose 'yellow card' system for benefit rule breakers

The party points to figures which show that in 2013 around 6,700 sanctions were overturned each month on the grounds that the original decision was flawed. In many cases the claimant provided extra information which helped to overturn the sanctions.

seven-day-weekend

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

And from all my years working in Benefits it is those with mild learning difficulties who fall through the cracks and end up either being evicted, bailiffs knocking on the door or being left destitute due to sanctions.

That's not right is it? It's a shame that there is not some sort of support person to explain to people in language they understand, precisely what they need to do.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

That's not right is it? It's a shame that there is not some sort of support person to explain to people in language they understand, precisely what they need to do.

The problem is many are not ill enough to have intervention and people handling their own affairs. Many don't have friends or relatives to help them or are unwilling or unable to ask for help, support and advice. If someone doesn't ask for help you can't intervene and force them to get help. There are probably many people out there unknown to the authorities with no money, rent arrears and council tax arrears who will probably end up on a friends floor or on the streets. It used to be so much easier if someone got Incapacity Benefit and didn't have to jump through hoops every 2 weeks to get their benefits. There are many claimants that don't fit in the boxes of disabled or unable to work and are made to go through the system when even to a lay person it is obvious they are incapable of holding down a job.

missapril75

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It's a shame that there is not some sort of support person to explain to people in language they understand, precisely what they need to do.

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The problem is many are not ill enough to have intervention and people handling their own affairs. Many don't have friends or relatives to help them or are unwilling or unable to ask for help, support and advice. If someone doesn't ask for help you can't intervene and force them to get help.

Not to mention that an application form isn't necessarily going to identify there's a need in the first place.