Jump to content
lordcrocket

JOB CENTRE & DWP Unlawfull sanctions cases to possibly be heard to house of lords etc

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3621 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello everybody

Many people are asking from reading these forums on about sanctions stoppages peoples rights debt poverty the list is endless

Im asking for you all to copy and paste case laws snippets and what ever information you can find on th net or scanned pages etc as i'm personally asking the house or lords for a court and a jury to be legally aided to go through the in's and out's of the case to state any comments and the jury to listen to the cases yes it may take them a while and seen as much of legal aid is very restricted for many people over £9.000 it seems this would be funded

so once again please donate all information as it's us who need's to be heard and have a right and the right to access to justice rather than red tape talk crap

any comments welcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should get someone to re-write what you have written so that it makes more sense. Maybe it's just me but the lack of grammar makes it hard to understand.

 

dj


Benefits rules are complex, and although I do try to inform and support people, I may get it wrong because the rules apply to individual claimants and their particular circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry English Grammer was not My subject At school

 

Let me try and explain at little more better .

 

The Job centre has stopped my benefit 5 times in one year unlawfully

 

this then has a inpact on housing benefit etc

 

then this has in inpact of family and social life etc

 

there is many people in similar situations up and down the country

 

I am trying to arrange a judge and a jury for people to have cases heard by the jury to decide it's actions and payments should be handed back to ie the customer you and me etc

 

I'm going to file my own Judicial review paperwork as I believe i've been a victim also and theres nothing i'd enjoy more to sit in the court etc to have peoples cases heard and decisions fair and justice for people

 

is that a bit more better understanding for you if not let me know

 

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hearing of cases which are based within civil law (which is what Social Security falls within) does not involve juror trials, with the exception of libel cases, or cases in the coroners court. The house of lords is no longer in existance. It has been replaced by the Supreme Court. They can set precedents (frequently referred to as "case law" or "common law").

 

The purpose of the doctorine of precedent (stare decisis) is for the same principles of law to be binding on similar cases in the lower courts; the court can can interperate statute law to set precedent but cannot overrule or amend statute law.

 

The supreme court cannot alter legal proceedings, i.e the manner in which cases are heard therefore they have no power to make a decision on what types of cases are to be tried by jury.

 

Social Security cases have the use of Tribunals (which are courts) free of charge to the claimant to challenge a decision.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jsa12

a human rights case might be worth looking into also,they have been certainly walking a very thin line with comments made about individuals in the past,this has been seen on pre-tribunal papers and may well be considered libel,when the heat is turned up they certainly have a habit of backing down very quickly before tribunal dates.

Edited by jsa12
update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ erika you mention about the court not giving the Jury right but i beg to differ on that as every one then has a constitutional right to a jury and a voice to be heard fair and inocence until proved guilty beyond a resonable doubt

 

@ jsa 12 thank you for you your comments if you or anybody has any human rights cases to add and ref numbers anything web sites anything i'm aware of some more help the better

 

yes the human rights is a good / bad field this is the route i. going down myself for people also th good old constitutional rights for the trial by a jury ok if a jury is not granted theres many other options ie asking the judge to see evidence of thier authority list is endless i advise people don't go down route unless you sought your own advice

 

as when you look at courts etc they are wolves and people not in the know are sheep baa baa ( Joking but if you watch judge judy etc and go to court a few times and sit on cases you will see what i mean .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lord Crocket.

 

I'm afraid you appear to be confusing civil law with criminal law.

 

There is no right to trial by jury in civil law (with the exception of the aforementioned). There is a right to a fair trial, which is the right to a fair and public hearing. It is only a person whom is charged with a criminal offence whom has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in criminal cases. In civil law the standard of proof is much lower. It's "the balance of probability".

 

The right to a fair trial is set out in article 6, which states:

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

© to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

 

(my emphasis)

 

As I previously intimated, no UK court, including the Supreme Court can alter current legislation, therefore they will not be able to change the standard of proof in civil cases, or the manner in which cases are heard. Only Parliament can do that.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jsa12

they have at times treated people appallingly,and inflamed many situations.jcp is an open environment and what has been witnessed certainly breaches many of their own rules/standards and humiliated people too,they cannot hide behind being a government department and not be held accountable for their often questionable activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. There are a whole lot of cases I have dealt with where failure to follow legislation and/or procedure have resulted in detriment to the claimant. I've had to prepare tribunal submissions for claimants (and won) where there really should be no need for it to get that far. In most of the cases I have dealt with it appears to be caused by staff simply not being properly trained. Because the same issues come up time and again, it also leads me to believe that there is nothing in place to address the problem when it comes back from tribunal. See, a tribunal in favour of the appellant does not automatically submit a statement of reasons to the appellant or their representatives, nor to DWP. This is only provided when specifically requested.

 

The piece of paper submitted by the tribunal service to the apellant, rep (if there is one) and DWP simply states that the appellant has been successful or unsuccessful. In some cases there is a very brief explanation but rarely. Which means that DWP are not routinely informed of what they have actually done incorrectly, particularly where several issues are raised in the one appeal.

 

The problems need to be ironed out, because at things stand, claimants are being placed in situations that they should not be, and all appears to be down to a lack of adequate training.

 

However that does not alter the fact that courts cannot change legislation, standards of proof, or the manner in which cases are heard.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jsa12
staff simply not being properly trained

 

it must be said that at job centre interviews staff are unfortunatly known to "make it up as they are going along" often totally disregarding the jobseekers agreement contents and with contempt,i have been forwarded for vacancies where i have not had one chance of getting to a 6.30am start and the first bus was at 8.10am on school days',this is clearly ridiclious,for an adviser then to turn around and say "its amazing what you can do when you have too" is also beyond belief,with increasing numbers of disabled people being expected to attend this environment there are great concerns of just what does lye ahead.

 

there appears to be no set guidelines this may be because of training,dependent on who you see also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I have a whole host of people tell me on a daily basis that the information they get varies depending upon who they ask.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that most jobcentre staff are not in actual fact benefit trained, unless they have recently worked in a processing role. The role of the local jobcentre is these days more a point of contact than anything else.

 

I've frequently had to deal with incorrect information from jobcentres. JSA and ESA is one of my biggest bugbears where people are applying for grants/loans which require a qualifying (means tested) benefit. I've had people who are receiving contributory based ESA, [ESA ©] which is not means tested encouraged by jobcentre staff to apply and in some cases appeal a refusal, where the qualifying benefit for a grant is the means tested version of ESA - ESA (IB).

 

In one such case, I asked the claimant to ask his local jobcentre why they thought he was getting ESA(IR), because his letter of entitlement that he had shown me clearly showed he was getting ESA © only. Even the gent didn't know why the jobcentre insisted he should apply because he thought too that he was only getting conts based. They sent me a screen dump of his ESA claim, and a covering note telling me that it showed he was getting both ESA© and ESA(IR). One look at the screen dump told me he wasn't. He was only receiving contributory related ESA.

 

I had to ring the jobcentre and speak to the advisor concerned and explain to her how to read their own computer screens.

 

ESA screen dumps outlining the claim show figures for both © and (IR), because a claim can be assessed as both. But if the figure under the © element is the same as, or is greater than the (IR) figure, the claimant is only getting © based. It is only where the figure under (IR) is greater than the figure under © that the claimant is getting any element of (IR).

 

The gent should not have to attend a third party to find that out. It's coming to something when a third party has to explain to Jobcentre staff how to read the screens.


My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats more annoying is the fact that even higher up in the ranks even the decision makers dont really do their job properly, from my own case in particular the very first medical report I had for contribution based ESA was an absolute nightmare and contradictory to say the least, fabricated in many places ect ect, by the time I got to page 7 of 24 I had 42 points of error, contradiction and fabrication.

Mine is due appeal soon and will be heard this time around as three times now has been adjourned due to my health failing me still.

I do have a good insight into this stuff from my experience with a certain bureax a while ago so i can really understand why people get so confused with it all.

What we need is a people power and get some sort of social policy issue underway in my opinion it is the best way of getting to the heart of the matter and get things changed, eventually.

But until that time these changes happen and they will happen lets all keep positive here, we will just have to fight the way most people have fought already and use their experiences to our advantages.

The main other problem that has and will hit us all is the fact that when we win an appeal , within weeks of getting benefit reinstated we will all be hit with yet another medical examination for work capability assesment again and will have to go through it all again, I feel that is one issue that should be tried to get changed as there is nothing to stop the DWP/ATOS doing it all over again and again and will end up in one viscious circle, that needs to be changed for sure, especially for the mentally ill and frail amoungst us here as this will eat away at us all and do us in so to speak.

Lets also hope that ATOS do not get the contract renewed, but then again whom will take their place?????

Keep fighting guys and gals please, do not give up here eventually the figures will ring alarm bells one day and someone with the balls will stand up for us all then we will all have our experiences and be able to show actual evidence of what where and when to whomever.

.

Edited by Markb73
spelling mistakes, dirty keyboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry English Grammer was not My subject At school

 

Let me try and explain at little more better .

 

The Job centre has stopped my benefit 5 times in one year unlawfully

 

this then has a inpact on housing benefit etc

 

then this has in inpact of family and social life etc

 

there is many people in similar situations up and down the country

 

I am trying to arrange a judge and a jury for people to have cases heard by the jury to decide it's actions and payments should be handed back to ie the customer you and me etc

 

I'm going to file my own Judicial review paperwork as I believe i've been a victim also and theres nothing i'd enjoy more to sit in the court etc to have peoples cases heard and decisions fair and justice for people

 

is that a bit more better understanding for you if not let me know

 

thanks

 

Hello lordcrocket

 

You say "The Job centre has stopped my benefit 5 times in one year unlawfully " who told you it's unlawfully ?

 

and what are the 5 reasons ?

 

perhaps CAGs users can advise you

Edited by 45002
name

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi one of the reasons why the claim was shut down

 

brief scenario

 

Back in october 2009 about the 14th i claimed on all is ok no problems

 

few days later my college i had was given an opportunity on the 28th october for 2 days 27th october and the 28th october to do a college short course something i wanted to do anyway which i passed by the way

 

One week prior to the college date i personally hand delivered advance notice that the 28th october i could not sign on due to doing the college i also actually spoke with a member of staff about this who agreed that it was no poblem .

 

She the member of staff said i would need to take evidence of this in yep no probs there either she said the centre ( job centre ) was open till 6pm no problem here as i should get back no problem here either .

 

So the 28th at 520pm i arrived at the job centre and was told the claim has now been shut down as i failed to sign on .

 

I took my college evidence as requested spoke to the same member of staff who i seen the week before and still the claim was shut down closed forcing me to make a fresh claim no appeal nothing .

 

I complained on the good old gl24 form waited for that decision and nothing got the letter back we can not pay you because a standard decision letter nonsense template .

 

Then a lot of events happened from these dates ie from 28th october onwards letters i'd have to scan and post but believe me i have nevr heard so much bull'st in all my life from this place and from the comments i've read above on how the jobcentre makes it up as they go along

 

Nothing would actually surprise me .

 

Its was about 20th November till my payment started getting paid never mind the period from 28th october to 20th november

 

This was the first time

 

( Recently citizens advice said the job centre can not stop peoples money only may reduce it so in my eyes it could be classed as unlawful and breaching many many rights for people damm disgusting dont' you think .

 

@so at erika to claim and form of a redress as to speak would one start a civil claim through the county court high court division or through the magistrate court and then people ie people with jsa claims etc seeking redress added as a interested party to the claim ie

 

Say for example if i started the claim and had 300 peoples cases also then we all could be a party to it''s action .

 

Job centre staff may be not trained enough like you state and so the pitty may be not on them i can not help they like to pretend to be god like judges do and many authoritys do to people there must be thousands of people daily this happens to in this place and this is one place we talking about .

 

@markb73 well said my friend people power is what is needed it's not about fighting the goverment etc or each other but it's wrong is it not .

 

you know a good while back in relation to my claim i was informed by a member of staff they heard i threw a chair now if i did throw a chair then i should be arrested and charged with damage etc etc

 

I never once threw anything or raised my voice i treated members of staff with the best respect i could of pssibly given them and you get a kick in the teeth in return .

 

Even many of the centres security could vouch for it and as for my new centre as i transferred due to the problems thinking they would get better they got worst from an incompetent manager who is part of alledged corruption fraud and other shanigans so you tell me then what is actually going on with this poticital mess many of us are in .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jsa12

all the comments are very true,the attitudes of staff within the dwp is all to often against people who claim benefits , they are to soon to cause people problems' totally ignoring the facts.evidence becomes quickly twisted/ignored and made up to quickly apply sanctions'.

on many occasions people are not aware they have been sanctioned until their payments have stopped then the excuses start and a wall of silence appears' they are all to happy for people to wear it however its very important to fight all the way going beyond tribunals if necessary ,cases have been won this way.the cab said to me once they are not keen on appeals' its not difficult to see why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...