£100 lost by not attending ESA appointment

[Deleted User]

nannytone wrote: »

as you are in the WRAG, you are mandated to comply with any work related activity ( anything short of applying for jobs, including voluntary work and unpaid work experience) if you do not comply ( by missing appointments for example) you have not kept to the conditions of your benefit and sanctions can be applied.

there is no point in asking 'what if i lived alone'. you don't.

people really need to grasp the seriousness of complying with the terms of their benefit, because as you have found out, the implications are serious.

couldn't your mother have woken you even if you didn't hear your alarm?

My mother does knock on my bedroom door in the mornings, if I do have appointments at any place, just to make sure I am up.

Unfortunately, she was at woodend hospital at the time, having an operation.

earwig

That's awful of them .Don't they realise that's the point of being disabled that sometimes you have a lot of pain and because of that things don't go to plan you cant make appointment not because your lazy but because you are ill !

missapril75

nannytone wrote: »

people really need to grasp the seriousness of complying with the terms of their benefit, because as you have found out, the implications are serious.

It's a very good point. Trouble is, just how much can people know? Really know I mean.

What sort of language is used these days, is it just talk of penalties and maybes and ifs? Or does the literature explicitly state you are likely to be screwed and screwed first time?

Is it tucked away on page 7 of a booklet or something.

@nanny...do the members of your family still work in a job centre? Do they feel fair and explicit warning of such severe penalties are given compared to, say 10 or 15 years ago?

Tiddlywinks

missapril75 wrote: »

It's a very good point. Trouble is, just how much can people know? Really know I mean.

What sort of language is used these days, is it just talk of penalties and maybes and ifs? Or does the literature explicitly state you are likely to be screwed and screwed first time?

Is it tucked away on page 7 of a booklet or something.

@nanny...do the members of your family still work in a job centre? Do they feel fair and explicit warning of such severe penalties are given compared to, say 10 or 15 years ago?

Are you joking?

We are talking about benefits - it should never be 'money for nothing' - part of claiming places the onus on the claimant to become familiar with the requirements.

Even if the info were on page 107 so what? The claimant has a responsibility to know the requirements and comply.

You can't just expect to get unconditional payments.

Lanzarote1938

Fact remains that a once a month requirement, which is surely not too much to expect of someone with nothing else important to do in the month, was missed.

I think the 'feeling ill' the day before is just a red herring, the OP simply overslept!

He is fortunate that he didn't lose a month's payments, after all he didn't do what he was mandated to do for a whole month.

Perhaps he will take his responsibilities a bit more seriously now he knows the DWP have powers that they will use.

nannytone_2

ues, both my kids still work for DWP ( pain in the bum for me cos my claim is under scrutiny).
my son no longer does customer facing work, but my daughter does.
she deals with long term unemployed, and as a parent that returned to work 3 months after the death of her child..... is sick to the back teeth of people that are claiming due to 'low mood', and will sanction them the second they step out of line

dktreesea

nannytone wrote: »

ues, both my kids still work for DWP ( pain in the bum for me cos my claim is under scrutiny).
my son no longer does customer facing work, but my daughter does.
she deals with long term unemployed, and as a parent that returned to work 3 months after the death of her child..... is sick to the back teeth of people that are claiming due to 'low mood', and will sanction them the second they step out of line

DWP staff need to be careful of sanctioning people unfairly. If a doctor has signed someone off because they feel down, they're signed off. Appeals aren't just going on the claimant's files, they are also going on the DWP employee's file. Appeals are obviously very expensive for the government. Too many successful appeals, and the DWP employee's job is in doubt.


Officially, DWP is overstaffed. One of our local job centres recently lost their manager (now a merged role). She had to reapply for the job and didn't get it - the level of complaints and successful appeals during her tenure were looked at when when was reapplying. Two particularly obnoxious staff (in terms of applying sanctions) have both been transferred to "back office" roles - civil service speak for if compulsory redundancies come into play, they will be top of the list. Good riddance, imo. people receiving benefits are their clients, not their punching bags.

Tiddlywinks

dktreesea wrote: »

Two particularly obnoxious staff (in terms of applying sanctions) have both been transferred to "back office" roles - civil service speak for if compulsory redundancies come into play, they will be top of the list. Good riddance, imo. people receiving benefits are their clients, not their punching bags.

Eh, no it isn't. Jobs/roles are identified as redundant not people.

Processes are now in place to ensure sanctions are applied with very little discretion given to the case worker.... promoting a more impartial approach to managing claimants.

tomtontom

dktreesea wrote: »

DWP staff need to be careful of sanctioning people unfairly. If a doctor has signed someone off because they feel down, they're signed off. Appeals aren't just going on the claimant's files, they are also going on the DWP employee's file. Appeals are obviously very expensive for the government. Too many successful appeals, and the DWP employee's job is in doubt.


Officially, DWP is overstaffed. One of our local job centres recently lost their manager (now a merged role). She had to reapply for the job and didn't get it - the level of complaints and successful appeals during her tenure were looked at when when was reapplying. Two particularly obnoxious staff (in terms of applying sanctions) have both been transferred to "back office" roles - civil service speak for if compulsory redundancies come into play, they will be top of the list. Good riddance, imo. people receiving benefits are their clients, not their punching bags.

Is there any of this post that you didn't just make up?

nannytone_2

dktreesea wrote: »

DWP staff need to be careful of sanctioning people unfairly. If a doctor has signed someone off because they feel down, they're signed off. Appeals aren't just going on the claimant's files, they are also going on the DWP employee's file. Appeals are obviously very expensive for the government. Too many successful appeals, and the DWP employee's job is in doubt.


Officially, DWP is overstaffed. One of our local job centres recently lost their manager (now a merged role). She had to reapply for the job and didn't get it - the level of complaints and successful appeals during her tenure were looked at when when was reapplying. Two particularly obnoxious staff (in terms of applying sanctions) have both been transferred to "back office" roles - civil service speak for if compulsory redundancies come into play, they will be top of the list. Good riddance, imo. people receiving benefits are their clients, not their punching bags.

i don't know where the staffing figures come from ( maybe you could provide a link? ), but in practice, most JC+ are ridiculously understaffed.
where my daughter works for instance...
each member of staff has a diary containing all the appointments that can possibly crammed into each day....
then there a 4 diaries that belong to no one, but the appointments have been made and someone has to see them!
long with stress from the upper echelons, wanting to know what has been done to find all these people jobs, and why some are still unemployed YEARS after they first signed on....

you say 'good riddance' to these people, that work under pressure from both sides ( their superiors and the customers) for relatively low pay and no thanks .

makes you wonder why they become so disheartened doesn't it?