Being investigated for "failing to apply for job"

[HannsG]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could give any advise on a small problem I'm having with the Jobcentre.

 

I signed-on on the 21st August and was shown a list of jobs on the computer that might interest me as per usual. I selected one and asked for a print-out but when I looked at the details I noticed that I was required send of a cv/written application to an address in another town and also that the closing date for the position was that same day. I mentioned this to the advisor serving me and asked her what I should do and she told be I didn't have to apply for the job if I didn't think I could deliver the application in time. I told her I would leave it then and she took the print out away from me saying she would make a note of it on the system.

 

A few days later I get a letter from the jobcentre saying that a doubt had arisen on my claim because I failed to apply for this job and that if I didn't reply within 7 days my allowance would be suspended.

 

I assumed at the time that when I wrote back to them explaining what had happened that this was just a standard practise and that I would be OK once it got sorted out. But as time has gone on and I still haven't heard back from them I am getting increasingly more worried that they will cut-off my allowance.

 

Am I worrying over nothing? Any help or advice appreciated.

 

Thanks

[FitzWilliam]

I've had these 'doubt has arisen' letters before. And in one case I also had an explanatory note on the system which they failed to check before sending their brutish letter.

 

It's a pretty typical example of jobcentre incompetence, I'm afraid.:-|

 

I think you're very likely okay because you gave the perfectly valid reason that it was too late to apply, and because the adviser concurred and took the paper away. To me, that's an obvious 'not guilty'.

 

The last time I sent off my defence it was eight days before I heard back, but I think it's usually longer than this. How long have you been waiting for their reply?

 

You will most likely soon hear from them saying, as they said to me last time, 'no further action will be taken'.

 

If you want to cover your back then go to the jobcentre and ask them to print off a copy of the note the adviser put on the system. And if you're sufficiently concerned get them to forward it to the decision makers.

 

But I think it's very unlikely your claim will be sanctioned.

 

* * *

 

In my similar case I had twice phoned an employer for an application form, and twice failed to receive it. I told my adviser about it, and she agreed that I should abandon the application. She then put a note on the system assuring me that I would not have any future problems.

 

Six weeks later the jobcentre handed me a letter accusing me of not applying for the job.

 

I told them there was a note on the system, and that they'd assured me there would be no problem, and they started flapping around. But I had no option but to write my defence and leave it for them to forward to the decision makers together with the system note.

 

That was bad enough. But then I phoned the decision makers to check they had received everything and they told me they had received my defence but not the system note!

 

Anyway, I did not get a sanction, and they actually apologised saying the staff should have checked the system for the note before issuing me with the 'doubt has arisen' letter.

 

* * *

 

Let us know how the matter is resolved. In the unlikely event of a sanction post again for advice on appealing.

 

Good luck!

[HannsG]

Thanks for the reassurance, FitzWilliam.

 

I posted the letter on the 27th. I did ask at the job centre when I went in the other day and they told me they had received my reply and had forwarded it to yet another jobcentre so that a decision could be made. By the sound of it, it has gone on a tour of the county.

 

Thanks again, I will post again when I get a reply.

[zazen.warrior]

And while this is stressing you out you are supposed to continue actively job hunting. *shakes head*

[FitzWilliam]

My eight-day wait for a reply last time was unusually quick. I'm sure I've had to wait two to three weeks in the past. You'll probably hear back in a week or two.

 

Did you notice, by the way, that the 'doubt has arisen' letter has a loaded question: 'Do you wish to comment on the reasons why you refused / failed to apply / failed to accept the opportunity?'

 

Their implicit assumption is that you must have done something wrong, and it's like asking, 'Do you still beat your wife?'

 

And then the box for your explanation says, 'Please give full details of why your failed to take advantage of the opportunity.' So again they assume wrongdoing.

 

But in your case it's the bumbling bureaucrats who got it wrong.:D

[insyder]

Not bumbling bureaucracy at all.

 

The letter was sent because the system reports that you were submitted for a job which you did not apply for. There is a cut off point and it happened to be the same day as the last day for applications.

 

It should be waived though as the application had to be posted and received on the same day. If there was any way that it could be emailed, for instance then it would still be a valid question to ask.

 

If this is disallowed for some reason then....

 

If a conversation was recorded by the advisor then you should contact them to ask them to validate your reasons if this were to go further than it should do. You may want to talk to your advisor now to ease your worry. If the advisor's note wasn't input then you can still ask the advisor to back you but only if the advisor remembers the specific problem.

[HannsG]

If a conversation was recorded by the advisor then you should contact them to ask them to validate your reasons if this were to go further than it should do. You may want to talk to your advisor now to ease your worry. If the advisor's note wasn't input then you can still ask the advisor to back you but only if the advisor remembers the specific problem.

 

Thanks for the advise. Do you know if they keep a record of who signed me on? I always see a different advisor every time I go in and I don't have a clue who to ask for.

[FitzWilliam]

Do you know if they keep a record of who signed me on?

 

You might find the initials of the person who signed you on in your jobsearch booklet. Most staff at my jobcentre, though not all of them, sign off my booklet with their initials.

 

You can ask for a copy of the sheet you sign after they say, 'Have you done any work, paid or unpaid, in the last fortnight?' (ES24JP). That has a column for 'Sig Chk'd' giving the initials of the person who signed you each time.

 

I asked for a copy of mine just recently and got it no problem.

 

Also, jobcentre staff wear badges with their names on, either full name or just Christian name. So you could probably identify your signer if necessary.

 

Insyder is right when he says your defence 'should be waived through'. It is a pretty obvious not guilty, and it would be a crushing injustice if they sanctioned you. I'm giving very long odds on a sanction.

 

I'm pretty sure you'll hear before too long that they're taking no further action.

Edited September 9, 2009 by FitzWilliam

[FitzWilliam]

Not bumbling bureaucracy at all.

 

The letter was sent because the system reports that you were submitted for a job which you did not apply for.

 

I beg to differ. The jobcentre bureaucracy is certainly at fault and it’s poorly implemented.

 

Hanns was given details of a job to apply for and saw that it was too late to post an application. His adviser concurred and took the paper back from him. And then he is sent an unpleasant letter accusing him of not applying for the job!

 

Now he has to defend himself and is kept waiting by the decision makers. The whole thing is a waste of time and money that is making yet another innocent person suffer needlessly.:-|

 

In an efficient and well-run bureaucracy this would not happen.

 

If the bureaucracy were efficient it would go like this. Hanns is given the job printout and notices that it’s too late to apply. The adviser agrees and so she cancels the application on the system. Cancelled, stopped right there and then!

 

But of course there is no ‘cancel’ facility in the system. Once that job application is printed you’re trapped in the system. Then a couple of weeks later someone phones the employer who says you didn’t apply, and then they dish out their nasty ‘doubt has arisen’ letter.

 

But now let’s look at how the system might still work. Hanns, as before, is given the job printout and notices that it’s too late to apply. The adviser agrees, takes the paper back, and puts a note on the system. (So far what actually happened.)

 

The note says something like, ‘Agreed with client too late to apply, withdrawn Client Copy. No DHA letter required.’ Now if a ‘doubt has arisen’ letter mistakenly comes through a quick double-check on the system will identify the note and show that it’s unnecessary to issue the letter.

 

Hanns is therefore saved unnecessary aggro, and time and money are not wasted. Minutes spent checking the system for the notes save hours on paperwork, postage and pointless decision making in remote offices.

 

Of course, I say that’s how it might work. But not even the notes on the system make any difference. Hanns and I both had explanatory notes on the system, but that didn’t stop us getting ‘doubt has arisen’ letters with all the attendant stress and aggro.

 

I’m used to those stupid letters by now because I’ve had seven of them. But it’s worrying the first time you get one, and you stress because you feel you have no control and because you’re kept waiting so long for a decision.

 

 

* * *

 

 

The bureaucracy is not only flawed in its particulars but also in its broader context.

 

Every year in the UK jobseekers are issued with literally millions of jobs to apply for by jobcentres. Can we reasonably suppose that all those applications get through to the correct address, that all get filed properly, and that all lists of applicants are accurately compiled and correctly reported on the phone to jobcentre staff?

 

No, of course not. Post goes missing, papers get lost or misfiled, people misunderstand one another and make mistakes of all sorts. It happens. So any system of checking those applications will inevitably throw up ‘false negatives’.

 

Now let’s consider what happens as DWP staff check a jobseeker’s job applications over a period of months. The answers to whether he applied for each job come back something like, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes ,Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

 

The statistical likelihood is that that single ‘No’ is a false negative. He appears to be a good boy applying for all those jobs and so the single ‘No’ does not constitute proof he is shirking his responsibility to look for work.

 

But the DWP is not geared to thinking in these terms. Every ‘No’ leads to the automatic issue of a ‘doubt has arisen’ letter. ‘False negative’ isn’t even in the vocabulary of these people. And those letters are so negatively worded that they only ask why you didn’t apply for the job!

 

Of course, if the answers come back, Yes, No, Yes, No, No, No, Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes, you are pretty likely to have a shirker.

 

 

* * *

 

 

Now consider this nightmare scenario.

 

A newly redundant jobseeker is keen to get back in the saddle as soon as possible. At his signings he asks jobcentre staff to print off dozens and dozens of jobs for him, let’s say eight times more than average.

 

Whether he knows it or not, he is increasing the statistical likelihood that he will be victim to a false negative. It will not matter that everyone can see he is committed to finding work, if a ‘No’ comes up he will get the ‘doubt has arisen’ letter.

 

He might try to argue, as I have in the past, that he always applies for jobs they give him. But it will make no difference. He’s just got to take that nasty letter and do his best to defend himself while he worries his claim will be sanctioned.

 

So by trying hard to get a job he increases the likelihood of being falsely accused of not applying for work!

 

 

 

* * *

 

 

I will end with a brief story about a ‘doubt has arisen’ letter I was once given in my jobcentre.

 

A female member of staff gave me the letter. And the subsequent conversation went something like this (names changed):

 

‘What’s this?’ I say. ‘Is this some kind of set-up? This is an engineering job. You’ve never given me this job to apply for, I know absolutely.’

‘I’m sorry, it’s what it says on the system.’

‘I’m not even registered for engineering work. I was never given this job.’

‘Well, I-I don’t know.’

‘I’m a history graduate.’

‘I’m sorry but the system … Oh dear!’

She starts flapping round the office like an shot bird.

About two minutes later I hear another member of staff say to her:

‘No, that’s David Jackson. This is for Stephen Jackson.’

She comes back to the desk.

‘Oh dear! I’m really sorry, Mr Jackson …’

 

These jobcentre staff sit on their elbows.

Edited September 9, 2009 by FitzWilliam

[FitzWilliam]

I forgot to mention, in a recent Radio 4 expose of Jobcentre Plus (May 2009) one of the things that jobseekers resented most was being treated with suspicion by having to prove they were looking for work.

 

And some of them reported being upset at receiving letters falsely accusing them of not applying for jobs.

[insyder]

Actually there is a cancellation facility available. The advisor would need to contact the district office and ask them to remove the submission. In this case, the advisor has not done this but if they noted that they decided that this vacancy was impossible to apply for then the LMS system will have that conversation. At this point there should not have been a submission for a decision or if there still had to be this information should have been included with the papers.

 

As Fitzwilliam says there is also the initials on the signing coupon (ES24) which would establish identity if you were not sure. Plus the interview should be recorded as an intervention. So there are a few ways to ID the advisor.

[FitzWilliam]

Actually there is a cancellation facility available. The advisor would need to contact the district office and ask them to remove the submission.

 

Okay, the adviser would have made life easier if she'd done that. I'd prefer that advisers could do that on their own initiative and save the kind of hassle that Hanns and I got.

 

Another good way of finding the names of staff is to look at the papers pinned up besides advisers' desks. Often you will see an internal phone list giving all their names.

[FitzWilliam]

... if [the advisor] noted that they decided that this vacancy was impossible to apply for then the LMS system will have that conversation. At this point there should not have been a submission for a decision or if there still had to be this information should have been included with the papers.

 

Unfortunately, both Hanns and I had explanatory notes in the system but we still got submitted for a decision. In my case the note was never sent to the decision makers even though I had told staff it was on the system.

 

A lot of problems like this arise from jobcentre staff not properly understanding what to do, and the knock-on effect is most severe on the jobseeker.

[ukbix]

Unfortunately, both Hanns and I had explanatory notes in the system but we still got submitted for a decision. In my case the note was never sent to the decision makers even though I had told staff it was on the system.

 

A lot of problems like this arise from jobcentre staff not properly understanding what to do, and the knock-on effect is most severe on the jobseeker.

 

Even if it got sent to the decision maker, would they bother reading the note... They dont seem to read medical reports properly, well not mine anyway!

[FitzWilliam]

Headline in today's Daily Mail:

 

'POSTAL STRIKE TRAPS 20M LETTERS'

 

In an ongoing series of rotational strikes across the UK people are now experiencing delays of up to 10 days in receiving post.

 

I wonder how many job applications are caught up in this mess and how many jobseekers will, as a result, now receive 'doubt has arisen' letters because their applications have not arrived.

 

Will the DWP put a moratorium on applicant checks until the strikes are over and the service back to normal?

 

I would like to think so, but do not know the answer.

[HannsG]

*Sigh* Do you ever get the feeling that you are being deliberately targeted?

 

No news about the first dispute, but I have had another letter this morning about yet another job they say I failed to apply for back in July. Luckily, I never empty my sent E-mail folder so I have a copy of the E-mail I sent at that time when I applied for the job along with the date I sent it (it was for an agency).

 

Do you think it's worth trying to make a complaint? This is getting a bit farcical now.

Edited September 11, 2009 by HannsG

[FitzWilliam]

*Sigh* Do you ever get the feeling that you are being deliberately targeted?

 

I know the feeling. I've had seven of those letters!

 

Good thing you kept the emails. The last 'doubt has arisen' letter I had was for a job I'd emailed for. I just printed off the emails and sent them with my defence, and they quickly replied that they were taking no further action.

 

You should be 100% safe on this one.

 

Hard to know whether it's worth complaining. The new Customer Charter from JCP promises 'We will take any complaints seriously' and 'use your feedback to improve our services'.

 

But I am now sufficiently synical to believe that their words are rarely matched by their actions.

 

Anyway, definitely no worry about a sanction on this second letter.

[Guest Bernie_Schitts]

Buy, beg or borrow a small dictating machine or use the recording facility on your mobile phone to record evey single meeting with anyone from DWP. As you would be recording this for personal reasons by way of substitution for note book entries then there is no problem as long as you keep the recording to yourself. However, it would be inadmissible evidence in court unless you forewarned those who were being recorded and they had no problem with it.

 

What irks me is that when you contact any of these DWP departments your choice is to either allow any conversation to be recorded or not be dealt with so in effect you are forced to participate.

[ErikaPNP]

However, it would be inadmissible evidence in court unless you forewarned those who were being recorded and they had no problem with it.

 

There is an exemption in the act which allows such recordings to be used in court proceedings.

[Guest Bernie_Schitts]

There is an exemption in the act which allows such recordings to be used in court proceedings.

But, is it admissible evidence if it is covertly recorded?

 

In the vast majority of cases it is my experience that when warning someone that you are recording your conversation they object strongly.

[Zamzara]

The most likely forum for it to end up in is an appeal tribunal, where the formal rules of evidence don't apply so it should be admissable as long as it's disclosed to the DWP.

[Guest Bernie_Schitts]

The most likely forum for it to end up in is an appeal tribunal, where the formal rules of evidence don't apply so it should be admissable as long as it's disclosed to the DWP.

 

"Should be" is this an assumption?

[ErikaPNP]

But, is it admissible evidence if it is covertly recorded?

 

Yes. There is an exemption under section 35 of the Data Protection act for this:

 

 

Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc

 

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

[Guest Bernie_Schitts]

Yes. There is an exemption under section 35 of the Data Protection act for this:

Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc

 

 

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

Thank you.

[andydd]

I forgot to mention, in a recent Radio 4 expose of Jobcentre Plus (May 2009) one of the things that jobseekers resented most was being treated with suspicion by having to prove they were looking for work.

 

And some of them reported being upset at receiving letters falsely accusing them of not applying for jobs.

 

I strongly agree, everything about 'signing on' is designed to try and catch you out, right from the fact you sign on in the day at a time when you might be at work, as soon as you sit down its the usual 'have you done any paid or unpaid work' etc.

 

Never have I been offered any help, it would be nice if they actually asked what type of work I am looking for, can they help in any way ?..but ..no..its all what have you applied for?. have you proof ?..why didnt you apply for so and so ? Despite handing them detailed print outs of jobs Ive applied for via the internet (Im after an IT Support role), they still expect me to scribble details in their pathetic lil book, the pre-printed example in there 'Went to bakers n asked about job' pretty much sums it up.

 

 

I thought things may have changed in the 6 years period when I was last made redundant, but..nope

 

Andy