CB JSA sanctioned - didn't send CV - HELP?

[debt4get]

hope it goes well with CAB as greggbysea has already suggested putting in an appeal is probably going to be the only way, and as he says 'forgetting, or didnt bother' is probably not going to get it reinstated....wish you all the best, and by the way, 'getting angry' is a natural human reaction...i for one am extremely angry at what this govt is doing to the people of this country...let us know how you get on, as it could help someone else on these boards...

[0800syion]

“There is no legal requirement for a Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) customer…to supply their provider [or DWP Jobcentre] with a CV…, an e-mail address or a telephone number. ”

Source: DWP Central FoI Team

 

For further reading: (www).consent.me.uk

[Lilly_Monroe]

What if you did not have a CV, I did not when I was claiming JSA - neither was I asked to send one in.

They offered me help with putting one together.

 

I was so ill on the day I went to start my claim (stressed) I could not remember my pin number, so could not get any money out, messed some of the information I gave them up - so it would be cruel surely to penalise someone for forgetting to send in their CV.

It is not flouting the rules is it - as they are so different up and down the Country, as countless TV programmes keep highlighting.

[Alicat_69]

Thanks everyone. The CAB were no use and seemed to know less than me, i was there 2 hours and eventually had to go. I guess they're just snowed under but it was disappointing.

 

I'm focusing now on the legalities of this and the point about them having no legal right to my cv is interesting. I have a Jobseekers Agreement and the section on CV's hasn't been filled in so is this a legally binding document? This and the form you fill in to keep a record of your job search are the documents i've been using, hence i haven't sent a cv in. If, as 0900syon has quoted, there is no legal requirement to send in a cv, how can i be sanctioned? And should it be for 2 weeks without prior notice?

 

I did send in my CV the day after i was informed I should have done it. I had to phone for an email as they hadn't given me one at the centre.

 

I've just managed to get through to someone on the number given on the letter and although she was helpful, she said it was already in place so i could only appeal. It was in place when i received the letter so how could i do anything else anyway!!!

 

As for the appeal and giving reasons, where do I start?? I made it very clear on my first appointment that i was struggling to understand the system, my husband was too ill to work but wasn't receiving any help and that I needed all the advice I could get. My 2 youngest children came down with viruses not long after and i had no access to a computer with software to do a cv on. This all completely true but i never thought i'd have to explain every aspect of my life to them! These circumstances, combined with the lack of instructions on the JS Agreement are the only explanations I have.

 

I even visited the CAB to ask if i'd done everything right a few weeks after i'd signed on as i was so nervous about getting it wrong with tax credits or whatever. I'm very careful with money. They assured me everything was correct.

 

What a mess. I will appeal but this doesn't help me today when i have bills to pay, food and school uniform to buy and a very poorly husband to help. Never mind, perhaps the government will bring back the workhouse, there's always hope...

 

By the way, i apologise if anything thinks i'm criticising for people getting angry, i'm not. I'm absloutely furious about lots of things - but we need to channel our anger into action, otherwise it's counter-productive. Easier said than done, i know, but this website is a sign it can be done!

[osdset]

It looks like JCP and the DWP are flying very close to the wind at the moment, the objective seems aimed at curtailing entitlement at every conceivable opportunity and by any means, fair or foul.

[SWLABR9]

In a word, your punishement is disproportionate. In two words, entirely disproportionate. And lookee here http://www.nucleus.org.uk/jsa-sanctions-declared-unlawful-by-the-high-court/ I quote "Administrative decisions made by the DWP have to be reasonable in law, considering all

relevant facts, disregarding irrelevant facts and not acting perversely or irrationally (what are known as the ‘Wednesbury principles’ (2). Thus, for example, decisions to take away benefits from a claimant for up to 26 weeks may be unlawful as unreasonable and being not proportional." Well, you have a family to feed and taking away your benefits for a trifling and inconsequential error (it's not like they'd have found you a job if they'd had your CV, is it?) is effectively punishing your entire family including young and vulnerable children. That's not on. Tell them. Tell them to consider how many court sentences are moderated mindful of the effect of punishment affecting not only the accused but dependants also. That principle must be born in mind in your case as it has been in umpteen others. You might want to consider getting your local papers in on the act too. Grayling and IDS are getting away with what they are largely because they've succeeded in characterising every claimant as scrounging layabouts. You're a respectable woman, a homemaker and a mother, a victim of circumstances entirely beyond her making, so why are you being treated as if you were some serial ccriminal and your children having the food taken from their mouths? True, innit?

[Alicat_69]

Thanks for this, i'm trying to read up on it (with the 'help' of my youngest children...) and it seems that single claims (as opposed to joint claims) such as mine aren't mentioned too much in disputes. Because my husband wants to remain self-employed and available for work when he's well enough, we can't claim anything for him so i claimed independently as advised. They seem to be assuming he will have an income but as I explained to them, he isn't well enough to work... and so we go round in circles. I'll keep looking but any more help will be very much appreciated!

[Alicat_69]

Ok, i've figured out that the actual legalities of sanctions are very vague BUT the articles within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are not . The UK Government 'agreed to make all laws, policy and practice compatible with this treaty' in 1991, so how can they justify enforcing sanctions, without notice, that will take my family income well below the poverty line for 2 weeks?

[SWLABR9]

They can't. Tell them that. They're also not entitled to assume your husband has money coming in as they have to consider all relevant facts before making any decision. Realistically and probably lawfully, they should at least have enquired after your domestic circumstances before sanctioning you and they shouldhave asked for some kind of proof of income or lack thereof. You begin to see why the Coalition are so eager to deprive claimants of access to legal aid? The whole idea of sanctioning people's benefits, defined as possessions by the ECHR to which we are entitled peaceful enjoyment, appears more and more to be illegal with a big I. Difficult for Grayling and IDS to pretend ignorance of this given their ministerial authority means they can take legal consultsation at the highest of levels. I reckon they're breaking the law right left and centre and they know this very well. I want to see cops, personally, sooner the better.

[gregbythesea]

They can't. Tell them that. They're also not entitled to assume your husband has money coming in as they have to consider all relevant facts before making any decision. Realistically and probably lawfully, they should at least have enquired after your domestic circumstances before sanctioning you and they shouldhave asked for some kind of proof of income or lack thereof. QUOTE]

 

You are getting very close to the requirements contained within the rules and regulations appertaining to a 'Suspension of Benefit'.

 

Within those regulations they have to carry out all of the checks you have mentioned and many more besides before they can even consider suspending a benefit award.

 

Unfortunately the DWP consider that the regulations are too one sided in favour of the claimant. Consequently all too often they ignore the protection the claimant has and just carry on regardless with the suspension. This leaves the claimant having to fight for their rights which can take many months.

I have also come across a couple of cases where the DWP now cite 'inhibition of benefit'. They explain that this isn't actually a suspension, but a computer driven application as a consequence of action or non action in the claimant's hands. They (the DWP) are finding that this method of action gets round the restrictions placed on them by the 'Suspension regulations'.

 

Dirty trick I know, but, if it makes life easier for them and worse for the claimant, it is worth considering.

[SWLABR9]

Where might we find a copy oif these rules and regs? FOI?

[frank_begbie]

you really answered your own argument there, 'the banks here were guilty of not checking what was in the box' just as the original poster missed the date for returning her cv...difference is the banks were bailed out of this to the tune of billions, and the poster loses their benefit....if that is what you call justice, then the world is a bl**dy sad place

 

Take no notice of him...he's obviously a government mouthpiece, or at best a WUM (wind up merchant)

 

Forums are full of these people unfortunately.

[drop47]

Sorry i am new to this thread. Does the op qualify for income based benefit? If so even with sanctions they should get money. If they are not entitled to this then asking for reconsideration then appeal is the only way to go. Alas the benefits system is broken and needs total overhaul but how to do it without disadvantaging the genuine claimants i do not know

[Lilly_Monroe]

Off topic I know - but I had my assessment with my personal advisor yesterday, and over heard part of the signing on for new JSA claimants interview.

He was told they now expect you to travel up to ONE AND A HALF hours in travelling time (one way) in order to obtain a job.

So if your worked 8 hours - you would be out of the house for 11 hours every day.

 

That amounts to a part time job more or less in travelling time alone.

[drop47]

Many many people do that. My partner leaves home 1 hour before work to get there on time and only lives 3 miles from work. Then does a 9 hour day all

[debt4get]

yeah my last job was a 2 hour trek in the morning and 2 hours to home in the evening, then settling down to mark, plan and prepare for next day.....dont see anything wrong with being asked to travel 1.5 hours from home, ,providing the job is worth it......

[Nystagmite]

At my 13 week thing, I was told I had to travel 90 minutes. My adviser then changed it a few weeks later and said only 60.

[speedfreek]

You will mind about that travel time when under UC & conditional job seeking (not earning enough) you'll then be penalised for it!

 

Nasty nasty piece of legislation but what do we expect

[debt4get]

dont expect any thing less from this govt, but the complete and utter demolition of the welfare state as we have known it....and i dont expect labour if elected to do anything to alter it......we all need to be compliant sheep and be grateful for the crumbs thrown on our table...

[Alicat_69]

It's good to know you/we aren't all sheeple! I live in an area were the mainstream education is depressingly inadequate and our teenagers leave school (assuming they get to the end, many don't) with little or no tools to understand what is going on in the world or even what their own government is doing, so they do what their parents did and bury their heads in the sand. They are compliant because they don't know how not to be.

 

This experience (with Jobssekers) has been an eye opener for me and i'm getting angrier and angrier at the way people are being deprived of their rights but as i've said before, in my opinion anger is only a good thing if you control it carefully and use it postively. I fully intend using my own experiences to other people's advantage, just as you guys are doing on here.

 

Anyway, back to my miserable little complaint, I wrote to the manager who wrote to me to tell me i'd been bad and then phoned to make sure he'd got it. I was then invited in to discuss a reconsideration by a very pleasant woman (who appeared to be human and not vogon would you believe!!) who assured me they'd treat it as urgent and get back to me asap. They have phoned twice but i missed it both times and when i phone back they say i have to wait for them to phone me back as they don't know who it was. I'm almost laughing but I think it's hysteria so i'm controlling myself.

 

I have no idea if I'm eligible for Income based JS while my husband is self employed, I did try and figure it all out but I gave up before I went completely insane.

 

By the way, I too have been told I'm expected to travel for up to 90 minutes each way and do a full time job. I'm sure my husband would enjoy being a full time Dad whilst trying to work but I think it might finish him off so i'll pass!! I'm applying for a job that will allow me to manage my own hours and I'm keeping everything crossed I have enough sanity left to persuade them I can do it.

 

I'll let you know when 'they' phone me back. Thanks for your interest everyone, it really helps.