Bus didn't turn up on way to sign on and missed appointment and have been sanctioned

IAmWales

kiss_me_now9 wrote: »

There are villages in my home area that only have one bus through in the morning and one bus returning at night. If it's a similar service, and OP had scheduled their appointments to coincide with that, allowing for delays etc. then what are they supposed to do?

Not everywhere is London with buses around every corner.

OP lives in Wandsworth!

[Deleted User]

Unfortunately it isn't a lot of use now, but I have a bus service that is supposed to run every ten minutes. But at times buses don't turn up for an hour. A couple of times I've been waiting for half an hour and found no buses were running. It could be because of traffic problems, you don't always know.

So if I need to travel for a certain time I keep an eye on whether the buses are running and if needs be walk (yes I have had to on occasions) or allow an hour extra to make sure I make the appointment on time. There are times I don't even bother and I just walk because I know how long that is going to take me (and I do have arthritis, asthma and back problems so walking hurts). I just don't like the stress of waiting for the bus and missing appointments. I just tell myself with gritted teeth that walking is good for you (I have a very dry sense of humour).

As already suggested in your position I would do everything I could to 'prove' the bus didn't turn up. Look up traffic warnings for the day, phone the bus company as already suggested. Use any 'proof' you can get, and as suggested write saying you don't normally miss appointments.

Bogof_Babe

How are people who unavoidably get sanctioned for reasons such as this supposed to manage if they have no other source of income?

Getting behind with bills is one thing, but what if they have no food and a food bank will only give three days rations?

I think a sanction should be a reduction in the amount of money given, maybe over a longer period to cover for the perceived sin, i.e. £40 for 8 weeks instead of nothing for 4 weeks. They will still face hardship but at least they won’t starve.

DavidF

The people who state "everyone" carries a phone these days. Are these the same people who also claim that the unemployed should not NEED all the latest gadgets including mobile phones and internet access.
It seems the claimant can never be genuine these days and is always viewed with suspicion and tagged as a lazy lying scrounger.
The government have really done a number on the unemployed as well as the sick and disabled. Public servants were demonised ages ago and we all know who is next....Pensioners be aware.

SnooksNJ

trigger_fish wrote: »

If its irrelevant then you need to take it up with both the OP and the poster who made the comment that everyone has a mobile phone.

I doubt you'll do either.

Just another way of attacking a benefit claimant.

The OP has a cell phone because they used it to haggle on the price of a bigger hotel room on their 2 week vacation to NYC in September.

Murphybear

Prinzessilein wrote: »

errrrm, no......I don't!

I am currently in the ESA Support group, but even in the days when I DID work, I did not like using a phone.

Even assuming someone does have a mobile with them - and I concede the majority will....can you guarantee they will get a signal? (Certainly not where I currently live).

And are calls to the JC+ toll-free? If not then this could also be an issue.

I never had a mobile while claiming JS/ESA. I have one now but it's only for emergency/occasional use. I don't suppose for a second that we are the only 2 in the country :rotfl:

[Deleted User]

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

How are people who unavoidably get sanctioned for reasons such as this supposed to manage if they have no other source of income?

Getting behind with bills is one thing, but what if they have no food and a food bank will only give three days rations?

I think a sanction should be a reduction in the amount of money given, maybe over a longer period to cover for the perceived sin, i.e. £40 for 8 weeks instead of nothing for 4 weeks. They will still face hardship but at least they won’t starve.

This does happen. You ask for hardship payments which are reduced but are available.., if you ask and are persistent.

Food banks have been known to extend what they will offer.

parkrunner

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

How are people who unavoidably get sanctioned for reasons such as this supposed to manage if they have no other source of income?

Getting behind with bills is one thing, but what if they have no food and a food bank will only give three days rations?

I think a sanction should be a reduction in the amount of money given, maybe over a longer period to cover for the perceived sin, i.e. £40 for 8 weeks instead of nothing for 4 weeks. They will still face hardship but at least they won’t starve.

I'd go further, no sanction until after an appeal has been heard, unless of course the person doesn't wish to appeal.