Jump to content


Benefit Sanctions Are They Allowed?


whatsupdoc
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3984 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Can this happen? Its so unjust? So Frighting.

 

Quote:

 

14. Our current proposals for financial sanctions are:

a. Failure to meet a requirement to prepare for work (applicable to jobseekers and those in the Employment and Support Allowance Work-Related Activity Group) will lead to 100 per cent of payments ceasing until the recipient re-complies with requirements and for a fixed period after re-compliance (fixed period sanctions start at one week, rising to two, then four weeks with each subsequent failure to comply).

Ive got a link but not allowed to post as i dont have enough post.

whatsupdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it... it's just a smoke screen.

 

The law says that you need a specific amount of money to live on every week to stay above the poverty line. You are entitled to this money as a citizen of a country in the European Union. Laws that are written by Europe and must be adhered to by our government. Just like you and I our Government can not break the law.

 

so what they do is offer different ways for you to claim that money... then they try and confuse the hell out of anyone claiming. tying them up inside rules and regulations, even trying to force people to do things against their will. Like work for less money than your average worker. However so long as you verbally tell them you are available and looking for work they have no grounds to refuse you the money you need to live on... you just have to claim a different thing... like severe hardship and bridging allowance, that combined will equal a JSA payment. with the only stipulation to claiming that being that you haven't got enough money to live off. so... same money, not the same rules in claiming it.

 

 

don't fall for the hype ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As already posted, similar sanctions already exists and there have been many threads where people have fallen foul of this even though they may have applied for the job concerened (but the job in question didnt receive the application for example).

 

What gets me is that much emphasis is put on the so-called Job Seekers agreement where if you breach a part of it for example by not applying for a job you are given sanctions, however the agreement is supposed to be two way, and the Job Center/DWP is supposed to fulful its side of the deal, but if it doesnt there are no sanctions that it faces and there is nothing you can do, I've had varies occasions for example where they have screwed up and missed payments, been given wrong advice, etc.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they sanction you you can appeal and you will ALWAYS win so long as you tell them you were actively seeking work and ready to start at any time. if they do sanction you then make a claim for severe hardship right away.

 

In fact, sod JSA and just go the severe hardship route anyway. they have to give you the money, it is your human right. for a developed country to have people living below the poverty line is not accepted by european law, which we have to follow. Our country would be shunned if it actually carried out what the conservatives claim they can do.

 

it's about frightening people, it's about intimidating the ignorant and naive. it's about keeping you in your place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An understandably emotive subject but I must correct some of the things written.

 

Hardship payments are a route to take if you are sanctioned, request a JSA10 at the jobcentre. If you are not, what is specified as, a vulnerable group member then these payments will start after the second week. they are less that the JSA payments. You still have to follow the same rules when claiming it.

 

I don't know what the Bridging Allowance that Norman1066 is talking about though. The only one I am familar with was a payment made to under 18 year olds.

 

If you are sanctioned and you make a new claim then the sanction will still apply. Making a new claim does not wipe the sanction unless you are sanctioned for actively seeking work and the new claim removes the doubt that was on the previous claim.

 

The Jobseekers Agreement is a two-way process to make sure that both parties are being fair about what the jobseeker needs to do to look for work and does not involve the citizens charter or other areas of the service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they sanction you you can appeal and you will ALWAYS win so long as you tell them you were actively seeking work and ready to start at any time. if they do sanction you then make a claim for severe hardship right away.

 

In fact, sod JSA and just go the severe hardship route anyway. they have to give you the money, it is your human right. for a developed country to have people living below the poverty line is not accepted by european law, which we have to follow. Our country would be shunned if it actually carried out what the conservatives claim they can do.

 

it's about frightening people, it's about intimidating the ignorant and naive. it's about keeping you in your place.

 

Exactly. This is the hidden agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An understandably emotive subject but I must correct some of the things written.

 

Hardship payments are a route to take if you are sanctioned, request a JSA10 at the jobcentre. If you are not, what is specified as, a vulnerable group member then these payments will start after the second week. they are less that the JSA payments. You still have to follow the same rules when claiming it.

 

Not just if you are sanctioned, being sanctioned is just one of the reasons you may want to claim hardship. The main criteria for hardship payments are that you have no other money coming in.

 

I don't know what the Bridging Allowance that Norman1066 is talking about though. The only one I am familar with was a payment made to under 18 year olds.
Yes you are correct... adults are paid under the hardship rules.

 

If you are sanctioned and you make a new claim then the sanction will still apply. Making a new claim does not wipe the sanction unless you are sanctioned for actively seeking work and the new claim removes the doubt that was on the previous claim.
If you are sanctioned on one claim the sanction does not follow you onto the next. This is for sanctions regarding failing to attend mandatory bull****. Sanctions regarding fraudulent claims may be something else entirely and something i have no experience with.

 

The Jobseekers Agreement is a two-way process to make sure that both parties are being fair about what the jobseeker needs to do to look for work and does not involve the citizens charter or other areas of the service.
Once a system begins breaching human rights it doesn't really matter what it chooses to be involved with. When a citizen walks into one of those pits of despair and signs his name on the dotted line this should be enough to ensure anybody that he needs to be there. there should be no more question. Maybe the citizen will feel like imparting on their own terms what they have done to look for work... but the simple fact that they are there and signing their name should be testament enough that they are in need of the money.

 

to think that it actually costs £5 to give every £1 in benefit is extremely shocking... and it's all these rules and bureaucratic bull**** that is costing the money and not the people that need to sign on through lack of work. what should happen is that all jobcenters should be closed and people sign on from a computer point. save the money that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just if you are sanctioned, being sanctioned is just one of the reasons you may want to claim hardship. The main criteria for hardship payments are that you have no other money coming in.

 

You can only claim hardship payments if you have been sanctioned. Having no money coming in is not the main criteria for hardship payment, the main criteria is that you have been sanctioned.

 

If you are sanctioned on one claim the sanction does not follow you onto the next. This is for sanctions regarding failing to attend mandatory bullsh*t. Sanctions regarding fraudulent claims may be something else entirely and something i have no experience with.

 

A sanction follows you through to a new claim otherwise everyone who was sanctioned would simply make a new claim. This doesn't happen because it isn't true.

 

to think that it actually costs £5 to give every £1 in benefit is extremely shocking... and it's all these rules and bureaucratic bullsh*t that is costing the money and not the people that need to sign on through lack of work. what should happen is that all jobcenters should be closed and people sign on from a computer point. save the money that way.

 

That would cost money as the increase in claims would be astonomical. If everyone could sign from a computer point then fraud would go through the roof. For all the money saved through administration and rules, that - and some - would be leaked by thousands of fraudulent claims being run without any security to the public purse. Already organised crimes use our system to make millions, this would be a green light to them to say that now it's even easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only claim hardship payments if you have been sanctioned. Having no money coming in is not the main criteria for hardship payment, the main criteria is that you have been sanctioned.

 

No it isn't... the main criteria are here:

 

there is a doubt if the jobseeker meets the JSA labour market entitlement conditions (i.e.

whether they are available for and actively seeking work and whether they have a

current Jobseeker’s Agreement);

the jobseeker fails to meet the JSA labour market entitlement conditions (i.e. the

Adjudication Officer has decided that they are not available for and actively seeking work

or have not signed a satisfactory Jobseeker’s Agreement);

 

You don't have to be sanctioned, you just may not meet the criteria. for example... you decide that you're not going to make any stipulations in your jobseeker's agreement. if you refuse to make any stipulations on the agreement as to what you will do to find work then your claim for JSA will be refused and you must claim Hardship. How can you be sanctioned on a claim you've only just made? and if you refuse to follow any stipulations ever then you can never actually be sanctioned, unless it is for life.. or until you decide to make some stipulations. If you make a claim and refuse to follow any rules you can claim hardship. no need for an actual sanction... and it can equal the same as a full JSA payment.

 

A sanction follows you through to a new claim otherwise everyone who was sanctioned would simply make a new claim. This doesn't happen because it isn't true.

 

well that has never happened to me. I've done it 3 times and never has the sanction followed me. the reason for that is that sanctions can only apply to the relative claim. You can't be sanctioned on one claim and then they suddenly decide to place it onto a new claim... because it is a fresh claim. everything is new. I've done it 3 times... maybe i'm lying?

 

That would cost money as the increase in claims would be astonomical. If everyone could sign from a computer point then fraud would go through the roof. For all the money saved through administration and rules, that - and some - would be leaked by thousands of fraudulent claims being run without any security to the public purse. Already organised crimes use our system to make millions, this would be a green light to them to say that now it's even easier.

 

fraud would not go through the roof at all, lol. it's all done on computer these days anyway... it would be far more efficient and cost effective if people could sign from computer points. Then rather than have a bunch of morons sitting in the job centres doing hardly a thing and moaning about their minimum wage we could increase fraud detection and investigators. it's win win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I still have to correct some of the things in Norman1066's post.

 

No it isn't... the main criteria are here:

You don't have to be sanctioned, you just may not meet the criteria. for example... you decide that you're not going to make any stipulations in your jobseeker's agreement. if you refuse to make any stipulations on the agreement as to what you will do to find work then your claim for JSA will be refused and you must claim Hardship. How can you be sanctioned on a claim you've only just made? and if you refuse to follow any stipulations ever then you can never actually be sanctioned, unless it is for life.. or until you decide to make some stipulations. If you make a claim and refuse to follow any rules you can claim hardship. no need for an actual sanction... and it can equal the same as a full JSA payment.

 

All the above criteria lead to sanctions. Until you have a JSA claim and your JSA payments have been sanctioned you cannot claim hardship payments. You can be sanctioned on a claim you've just made. Why would you think you wouldn't be? You have to have a claim for JSA for hardship payments to be considered or applied otherwise there would be no way of paying these payments. If you refuse to follow any rules then you would be sanctioned and if you weren't then you couldn't claim hardship payments until that sanction was in place.

 

well that has never happened to me. I've done it 3 times and never has the sanction followed me. the reason for that is that sanctions can only apply to the relative claim. You can't be sanctioned on one claim and then they suddenly decide to place it onto a new claim... because it is a fresh claim. everything is new. I've done it 3 times... maybe i'm lying?

 

No, I don't think you're lying but it may not be a sanction that you have had. I don't have your claim details to hand so I'm only going on the information you've provided. Once again, if you are sanctioned or disallowed on a claim and a new claim is made the sanction will stay there. The JSAPs system holds the sanction for that period. The only time where this is not the case is where an open-ended sanction exists and your new claim does meet those criteria. This happens most with actively seeking work doubts where the new claim is taken and a JSAg, this time, is agreed.

 

fraud would not go through the roof at all, lol. it's all done on computer these days anyway... it would be far more efficient and cost effective if people could sign from computer points. Then rather than have a bunch of morons sitting in the job centres doing hardly a thing and moaning about their minimum wage we could increase fraud detection and investigators. it's win win.

 

Most local fraud detection comes through jobcentre referrals. Without the frontline detection of obvious fraud - which wouldn't be so obvious online - there would be an increase in fraud. What exactly does "all done on computers these days" mean? How does a computer tell if the person logging in is working part-time without declaring it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I still have to correct some of the things in Norman1066's post.

 

 

 

All the above criteria lead to sanctions. Until you have a JSA claim and your JSA payments have been sanctioned you cannot claim hardship payments. You can be sanctioned on a claim you've just made. Why would you think you wouldn't be? You have to have a claim for JSA for hardship payments to be considered or applied otherwise there would be no way of paying these payments. If you refuse to follow any rules then you would be sanctioned and if you weren't then you couldn't claim hardship payments until that sanction was in place.

 

well i think we're just getting pedantic now...

 

to sanction is to penalise for breaking a rule... yet if you don't agree to those rules in the first place then how can you be charged with breaking them? Those rules are not forced upon you, you have to agree to them and sign to that effect. yet if you do not then those rules can have no legal bearing. The decision goes off and they can refuse your claim for JSA... how can they sanction you for something you have never agreed to? a legality that does not exist yet as you have never signed to agree to it?

 

 

No, I don't think you're lying but it may not be a sanction that you have had. I don't have your claim details to hand so I'm only going on the information you've provided. Once again, if you are sanctioned or disallowed on a claim and a new claim is made the sanction will stay there. The JSAPs system holds the sanction for that period. The only time where this is not the case is where an open-ended sanction exists and your new claim does meet those criteria. This happens most with actively seeking work doubts where the new claim is taken and a JSAg, this time, is agreed.

 

Not only am I not lying but I have also given this advice to other people over the years and they have successfully made fresh claims without sanctions from the last claim following them. if you get sanctioned on one claim how can this legally bind you to a FRESH claim? Fresh is new... what does one do when they start all over again? they start afresh.

 

What exactly does "all done on computers these days" mean? How does a computer tell if the person logging in is working part-time without declaring it?

 

what happens when i visit an advisor in the job centre? they use their forefinger (as very few can actually type properly) and type the information into a computer. A claimant could do it themselves... Indeed a simple software program could handle what the staff in a job centre do and do it far far more efficiently.

 

How does a staff member tell if somebody is working part time? Who are they to judge? Are they trained to spot people working part time? if so what is the criteria? i could do with a laugh. Maybe if they come to sign on in a fireman's uniform? think that would give it away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i think we're just getting pedantic now...

 

Not pedantic, I use this forum to tell people what often their own jobcentre can't, and will always challenge what I see as wrong advice. You seem keen to voice an opinion but when it's challenged you fall back on how it suddenly isn't important what the exact rulings are. That seems to me to be counterproductive to what I believe you are trying to actually do on CAG.

 

I know the system and I know the rules as many people here acknowledge and you have proved on a number of occasions here that you don't and over this thread have given wrong (bridging allowance) and bad (you will always WIN an appeal, you don't need a JSA claim to get a hardship payment) advice. The sanction argument would rage on because there are a number of different penalties other than sanctions. It could have been a suspension or a disallowance and without the case to look at I can't judge which it was.

 

I also know you must have a claim for JSA otherwise there would be no way to pay hardship payments as it is paid through the system. The hardship payment is input straight into the JSA claim on the JSAPs system. You need to have a claim and that claim needs to not be paying JSA.

 

There are no criteria for referral to fraud but it isn't particularly difficult to find people who are living on fresh air (something which is often remarked back to us "Do you expect me to be living on fresh air?"). Although no-one's ever come in in a fireman's uniform but people who have declared no work have parked their business van in the car park, and come in wearing their employer's uniform and used their employee ID as ID. I took in a crisis loan application where she was saying she had no money to buy her baby milk but they used their passport as ID and in the passport were four twenty pound notes.

 

I'm sure there are many other stories from people who work in the department which could fill whole pages on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not pedantic, I use this forum to tell people what often their own jobcentre can't, and will always challenge what I see as wrong advice. You seem keen to voice an opinion but when it's challenged you fall back on how it suddenly isn't important what the exact rulings are. That seems to me to be counterproductive to what I believe you are trying to actually do on CAG.

 

There is no suddenly about it, any rulings made must be backed up by law. This is why the rulings of an employee at the job centre don't count for anything and luckily (judging from your posts) neither do their opinions on people.

 

I know the system and I know the rules as many people here acknowledge and you have proved on a number of occasions here that you don't and over this thread have given wrong (bridging allowance) and bad (you will always WIN an appeal, you don't need a JSA claim to get a hardship payment) advice. The sanction argument would rage on because there are a number of different penalties other than sanctions. It could have been a suspension or a disallowance and without the case to look at I can't judge which it was.

 

Bridging allowance is not wrong advice and applies to people under 18 years of age. Neither is the advice on always winning an appeal. So long as you were available for work or have a reasonable excuse for not turning up at an appointment then you cannot lose the appeal. All you need is your word... your word has no rights to be doubted by any authority unless proven so in a court of law. You may well think you know the rules, i know how to break them and have spent a large part of my worthless life doing just that.

 

In and out of prison for my early years, although reformed now for the past 12 years, i spent a long time signing on. A long time learning how the system works. Never have i completed a training course, never have i knowingly entered into a contract saying that i will either. I have been sanctioned more times than i can remember and i've won my appeals every time.

 

I also know you must have a claim for JSA otherwise there would be no way to pay hardship payments as it is paid through the system. The hardship payment is input straight into the JSA claim on the JSAPs system. You need to have a claim and that claim needs to not be paying JSA.

 

Yes so you make a claim that you know is going to get refused, as you refuse to sign to the effect that you will follow the mandatory stipulations on the agreement. This means simply that you do not qualify for JSA payments but you will still qualify for hardship payments. i think that should explain what i mean adequately now by not needing to be sanctioned... your thoughts seem to be confined to a little box. to break the rules you got to think outside of it ;)

 

There are no criteria for referral to fraud but it isn't particularly difficult to find people who are living on fresh air (something which is often remarked back to us "Do you expect me to be living on fresh air?"). Although no-one's ever come in in a fireman's uniform but people who have declared no work have parked their business van in the car park, and come in wearing their employer's uniform and used their employee ID as ID. I took in a crisis loan application where she was saying she had no money to buy her baby milk but they used their passport as ID and in the passport were four twenty pound notes.

 

businessmen that pay taxes and employees that also pay taxes will get flagged within weeks, no need for spotters in the job centre. Do the spotters get to wear a deer stalker, or would that give it away? What about drug dealers? they sign on every week and pull up in mercedes or beamers, dripping with gold and some of them packing... do you investigate those guys? pretty obvious what they are. is that information collected, or are you just looking for the more obvious 'fireman's uniform' type of stuff?

In regards to the crisis loan application and the passport used as ID containing £80. How do you know what that money was for? the money could well have been to pay off a loan shark. also a crisis loan is a loan... a loan in a crisis, not much money is claimed and although it is usually claimed by heroin addicts looking for a fix it still is a loan that has to be paid back. so why question the fact that they need the money? the only time you should question it is when they repeatedly phone every week, like one lady i'm unfortunate enough to know as she is my neighbour. she gets crisis loans all the time for heroin. why does she get them all the time? because she knows the right things to say... so long as the right things are said (doesn't matter if you are actually carrying them out) then you cannot be denied what is rightfully yours as a citizen of this country. it doesn't need to be earned, it is owed by birthright.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Don't worry about it... it's just a smoke screen.

 

The law says that you need a specific amount of money to live on every week to stay above the poverty line. You are entitled to this money as a citizen of a country in the European Union. Laws that are written by Europe and must be adhered to by our government. Just like you and I our Government can not break the law.

 

so what they do is offer different ways for you to claim that money... then they try and confuse the hell out of anyone claiming. tying them up inside rules and regulations, even trying to force people to do things against their will. Like work for less money than your average worker. However so long as you verbally tell them you are available and looking for work they have no grounds to refuse you the money you need to live on... you just have to claim a different thing... like severe hardship and bridging allowance, that combined will equal a JSA payment. with the only stipulation to claiming that being that you haven't got enough money to live off. so... same money, not the same rules in claiming it.

 

 

don't fall for the hype ;)

 

this does raise important points payments of benefits' and the european union.prisoners have had their human rights upheld as to voting rights,the terror suspects rather then face scrutiny of uk governments involvement in torture activities resulted in a financial gag.

 

ian duncan smith's proposal to send unemployed on community service (although they have not committed any crime) and stating publically "if they don't work hard" their benefits will be stopped and in some cases for three years',this together with job centre plus which looks by witness comments and personal experience that long term unemployed with often disabilities are being singled out for bullying and mistreatment by job centre staff suggests that the eu intervention may be called for to bring this practice to heal.

 

programs like new deal and others funded by the eu social fund have appalling records of employment secured by those placed on them,bad treatment and abuse is still common with lack of facilities still prevalent,yet the government still ploughs millions of pounds into these schemes making so called private recruitment companies a fortune,the profits are so great many of these companies have been embroiled in scandal with fraud (tax payers money) for job outcomes that were not true.programs like new deal that have run for nearly thirteen years have now become a dirty word and an acknowledged failure ,a glance in the job centre and nothing in regard to this program can be seen.yet millions of pounds were ploughed in on government contracts,the same companies despite this record are in line for the next round too.

 

its an unfortunate reality that the uk employment market is very week with no backbone industries like germany and france,its been mentioned that the uk lost the quality,what has emerged is a low pay service sector that is simply unsustainable this has placed the uk with greece and spain in economic terms,like spain its manufacturing profits largely go abroad.with a darth,the uk has a large problem with unemployment in economic cycles that have surfaced over the past few decades .was it not norman lamont that publically stated that unemployment is a price worth paying to keep inflation down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Bridging Allowance was for young people and that was abolished in 2009. For young people now they claim for hardship if under the age of 18.

Also have to agree that once a sanction has been input onto the JSAPs system it remains there and if the customer ends their claim then makes a new claim the sanction if that is within the period othe sanction then it remains. I agree with this as I was a processing officer but now work front line in a JCP office so I have seen it with my own eyes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no suddenly about it, any rulings made must be backed up by law. This is why the rulings of an employee at the job centre don't count for anything and luckily (judging from your posts) neither do their opinions on people.

 

 

 

Bridging allowance is not wrong advice and applies to people under 18 years of age. Neither is the advice on always winning an appeal. So long as you were available for work or have a reasonable excuse for not turning up at an appointment then you cannot lose the appeal. All you need is your word... your word has no rights to be doubted by any authority unless proven so in a court of law. You may well think you know the rules, i know how to break them and have spent a large part of my worthless life doing just that.

 

In and out of prison for my early years, although reformed now for the past 12 years, i spent a long time signing on. A long time learning how the system works. Never have i completed a training course, never have i knowingly entered into a contract saying that i will either. I have been sanctioned more times than i can remember and i've won my appeals every time.

 

 

 

Yes so you make a claim that you know is going to get refused, as you refuse to sign to the effect that you will follow the mandatory stipulations on the agreement. This means simply that you do not qualify for JSA payments but you will still qualify for hardship payments. i think that should explain what i mean adequately now by not needing to be sanctioned... your thoughts seem to be confined to a little box. to break the rules you got to think outside of it ;)

 

 

 

businessmen that pay taxes and employees that also pay taxes will get flagged within weeks, no need for spotters in the job centre. Do the spotters get to wear a deer stalker, or would that give it away? What about drug dealers? they sign on every week and pull up in mercedes or beamers, dripping with gold and some of them packing... do you investigate those guys? pretty obvious what they are. is that information collected, or are you just looking for the more obvious 'fireman's uniform' type of stuff?

In regards to the crisis loan application and the passport used as ID containing £80. How do you know what that money was for? the money could well have been to pay off a loan shark. also a crisis loan is a loan... a loan in a crisis, not much money is claimed and although it is usually claimed by heroin addicts looking for a fix it still is a loan that has to be paid back. so why question the fact that they need the money? the only time you should question it is when they repeatedly phone every week, like one lady i'm unfortunate enough to know as she is my neighbour. she gets crisis loans all the time for heroin. why does she get them all the time? because she knows the right things to say... so long as the right things are said (doesn't matter if you are actually carrying them out) then you cannot be denied what is rightfully yours as a citizen of this country. it doesn't need to be earned, it is owed by birthright.

 

Are you saying that at the job centre you make a claim for JSA and then refuse to sign it as you are not going to look for work, or you refuse to sign it as you don't agree with sanctions. Also what would happen if you signed it with your own amendments to the agreement. Will the new Universal Credit bill just passed in Parliament which includes sanctions and is supposed to be compatible with human rights not put an end to being able to claim JSA without agreeing to sanctions.

 

Are JSA hardship payments much less than JSA and how long can you claim them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...