£100 lost by not attending ESA appointment

nannytone_2

discussing culture?
the culture within the job centre?
so you mean the staff that have such high workloads that they are stretched to breaking point and live with enormous amounts of stress on a daily basis?

it isn't a pleasant place to work and low paid for the work required.


weary soul...
my son is a manager in London and has been threatened numerous times by customers not getting what they 'demand'.
the security guards are employed on the whole by agency's and paid barely above minimum wage themselves. to be expected to deal with threats and physical attacks for that amount of money is disgustoing.

so people sign off because they are intimidated?
can you supply a link that supports your claim?
from the numbers that are long term unemployed , i don't see that it is a valid claim

Alice_Holt

allison445 wrote: »

If this is some sort of sanction can you not ask for a mandatory reconsideration and explain the facts to them.

Do this. You have 1 month from the date of the DWP letter informing you of the decision to start the appeal process. After getting the Mandatory Reconsideration Notice from the DWP you can then appeal their decision to the Tribunal Service.

You will need to provide a " good reason" see https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and-carers/employment-and-support-allowance/while-youre-getting-esa/esa-sanctions/

Cite illness and also that you telephoned as soon as you could to inform your work provider.

Weary_soul

nannytone wrote: »

discussing culture?
the culture within the job centre?
so you mean the staff that have such high workloads that they are stretched to breaking point and live with enormous amounts of stress on a daily basis?

it isn't a pleasant place to work and low paid for the work required.


weary soul...
my son is a manager in London and has been threatened numerous times by customers not getting what they 'demand'.
the security guards are employed on the whole by agency's and paid barely above minimum wage themselves. to be expected to deal with threats and physical attacks for that amount of money is disgustoing.

so people sign off because they are intimidated?
can you supply a link that supports your claim?
from the numbers that are long term unemployed , i don't see that it is a valid claim

This is where Google is your friend...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dwp+jobcentre+sanctions+and+guards&safe=off&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1&ved=0ahUKEwiqhZbQr5bMAhVBmBoKHQzbDDMQvwUIEQ

nannytone_2

gig you not notice the articles about the alarming rise in attacks on DWP staff ?

there are bad advisors ( the minority) but surely this can never be a valid reason for threats and physical attacks?

Alice_Holt

Confuseddot wrote: »

The money is stopped from the day you missed the appointment until the day you next attend which was two weeks so you lose two weeks money

No. ESa should be put back in payment when you agree to attend the missed appointment / work activity. To this period (for a 1st sanction) is added 1 week for a first sanction.

Get evidence from your work provider of your agreement to re - attend.

I can see from a later post that confuseddot wants me to provide my source for stating that the sanction should end when you agree to attend the missed appointment;

This is from CPAG:
"How claimants can comply

To bring the indefinite period of sanction to an end, the claimant must comply with the requirement placed upon her/him. For those who have been sanctioned for not taking part in a work-focused interview, this means:
taking part in a work-focused interview; or
making an agreement to take part in a
work-focused interview at an agreed date. For those who have been sanctioned for failing to undertake work-related activity, compliance means:

undertaking the activity specified; or
if so notified, undertaking some other activity; or
making an agreement to undertake either of the above at an agreed date.
Of concern here is the possibility that claimants could find themselves unable to comply through no fault of their own – eg, if no alternative work-related activity was available, how could they undertake to participate in it at an agreed date? However, we have been assured by DWP that it is the agreement to undertake it in the future that is crucial, – eg, at the next available opportunity.
Example :
Six months after her previous sanction ends, Saher is notified that she is being sanctioned again for a failure to part in a work-focused interview she did not attend. Three weeks after the decision, she is invited to attend a further interview and she contacts the jobcentre to confirm she will attend on the date notified. The indefinite period of sanction should end immediately as she has agreed to take part in a work-focused interview. However, as she has had a previous failure within the preceding 52 weeks, a fixed-period sanction of two weeks will be applied."

The difficulty may be in getting evidence of agreement from your work provider.

As an aside:
Because the length of the sanction increases for subsquent sanctions (e.g 4 weeks for the third failure) , it is sensible to appeal a sanction if you have "good reason", as if successful that sanction is wiped. So if another sanction occurs, this is then treated as a first sanction (rather than a second sanction with a greater sanction length attached to it).

Weary_soul

nannytone wrote: »

gig you not notice the articles about the alarming rise in attacks on DWP staff ?

there are bad advisors ( the minority) but surely this can never be a valid reason for threats and physical attacks?

https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/shocking-50-rise-in-assaults-on-dwp-staff-in-just-one-year/

Jobcentre staff can now stop or sanction benefits seemingly on a whim with unofficial targets set by bosses to end as many claims as possible. Claimants who face sanctions are placed under unbearable financial pressure. A recent report from Citizens Advice described horrific tales of dietary needs going unmet, attempted suicides and people forced to beg due to sanctions. Homelessness charities have reported that sanctions are causing some people to lose their homes.

With claimants under pressure like never before to endlessly look for jobs which aren’t there – or facing sanctions for the most ludicrous reasons – it is unsurprising that tensions are running high in Jobcentres.

Alongside this, Jobcentres are now working with a very different group of claimants to previous years. Many people stripped of sickness benefits do to being assessed as ‘fit for work’ are now forced to sign on in Jobcentres. Some of this group will include people who display what social workers call ‘challenging behavior’ whether due to substance misuse or other factors. Long term unemployed people, who in a very small number of cases may have extensive criminal pasts or a history of anti-social behavior, are now being singled out for special harassment in Jobcentres. An evaluation of a recent workfare scheme warned that welfare-to-work companies were unable to find unpaid work placements for some people due to a ‘risk to placement providers’.

Jobcentre staff are poorly trained to deal with people who may be chaotic or violent, yet they now have more power over people’s lives than social workers, probation offices and other social care professionals. These workers, who have comprehensive risk assessment strategies and information sharing procedures, earn considerably more than the salary of an average Jobcentre worker.

Confuseddot

KxMx wrote: »

OP I'd encourage you to appeal the sanction, you have nothing to lose.

I'd also ask why £201 was taken when you were told it would be £100.

Lastly I'd use this as a learning experience for your emergency planning. A second alarm clock, few tins in the cupboard, start putting £1 or small change here &there into a money bag as an emergency fund.




OP has stated low rate DLA so no carers. Has to be mid or high rate to qualify as I understand it.

Also stated it was Triage who offered the next appointment 2 weeks later so why should OP lose out more because they didn't get given an appointment sooner.

OP I would point this out if you appeal.

Op gets carers for looking after his mum.

Confuseddot

Alice_Holt wrote: »

No. ESa should be put back in payment when you agree to attend the missed appointment. To this period (for a 1st sanction) is added 1 week.

Get evidence from your work provider of your agreement to re - attend.

Benefits and work and CA beg to differ where is your info from ?

The sanction should last until you go to and take part in the interview or activity that you missed. They also add on extra time, depending on whether it’s the first time you’ve missed something, or if it’s happened before:

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/employment-and-support-allowance/esa-glossary/1482-employment-and-support-allowance-esa-sanctions

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and-carers/employment-and-support-allowance/while-youre-getting-esa/esa-sanctions/

tomtontom

Confuseddot wrote: »

Op gets carers for looking after his mum.

Who has to wake him up

You couldn't make it up!

Confuseddot

The job centre staff i have been involved with have all been brilliant bar one which I think is probably about normal.

Have seen numerous fights, been intimated, breathed on by people with 100% alcohol on their breath and heard the most horrendous names being called to staff and security guards. One of these screaming matches was because they were told they weren't allowed to be on their phone within the premises(huge signs everywhere telling you that) and they were politely asked to either finish the call or take it outside you would have thought he had been asked to kill his mother.

I could see the point if these people being so desperate they got upset at the staff if they weren't all dressed better than me and hadn't left the can/fag with their mate at the door whilst the popped in for 5 mins.

My friend is looking for a part time job and I offered to help and there were hundred from tescos to small shops I actually couldn't believe how many. So there is no excuse for people at that job centre not to have applied for the relevant number of jobs a week or in fact be in a job.

I was attending the job center for WFI only.