400,000 people had their Jobseekers sanctioned

[antone]

Thanks for the reply.

 

Yep, I know as certain I can be I have been reported both for

 

1) raising doubts over my compliance with the work programme mandates, but I have complied with my Job Centre agreement

2) reported as suspected fraud

 

Both occurred less than week after I visited my WP Advisor. Two separate occasions.

 

I can read people well enough to hazard a guess who made the reports.

 

This is not clueless (except in the sense of without evidence or clues), sneaky and underhand rather than offensive, and vindictive rather than cynical. It is a toxic environment there at G4s. I know the difference between deliberate bullying and zealots.They are out of control.

 

Other participants said that the direct sanctions were threatening but did not work. Although, it is obvious that some people have had their benefit suspended although in the one case I know the sanctions seem to have been overturned before a formal appeal.

 

I know from talking to other people I am being treated worse than other people. The Manager has intervened in two out of three interviews.

 

But this is the same old story. But it is not, it is much worse than other reports with people taken into a separate room and group berated like a criminal by three or four people. I have not reports of this happening. I think I would report it to the Police under threatening behaviour if if happened to me.

 

Well:

 

1) WP advisers certainly can send a report to the JCP if they believe you have not complied with a mandatory activity. It's then up to the Decision Maker to, well, decide whether or not a sanction should be applied. Poster Mr P is probably the best person to advise on what is or is not mandatory but yes, WP advisers will report you if they think you've not complied.

 

2) Different matter, though regrettable. But if someone has reported you for fraud, your WP advisers will know nothing about it. The Fraud guys at JCP will take a look at it. They might investigate further (if they think there's something worth looking at) or downgrade it to Compliance for a cursory check (if they think the report is malicious or just not worth their time). None of this will involve WP advisers, who have no special power to report you for fraud.

 

If you're being mistreated in general by your WP provider, the first stage would be to initiate a formal complaint to G4s management.

[Perseus1]

 

If you're being mistreated in general by your WP provider, the first stage would be to initiate a formal complaint to G4s management.

 

Thanks for going to the trouble to reply.

 

I think I will make a formal request for a different advisor. This is more diplomatic. Should I do this in writing? I think I will do this.

 

The complaints/comments form enables me to do this formally.

 

Done now. Understated. Comments rather than complaints.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Perseus1

[Mr.P]

1) WP advisers certainly can send a report to the JCP if they believe you have not complied with a mandatory activity. It's then up to the Decision Maker to, well, decide whether or not a sanction should be applied. Poster Mr P is probably the best person to advise on what is or is not mandatory but yes, WP advisers will report you if they think you've not complied.

 

antone: You give too much credit for what little advice I provide. That said, for JSA claimants, a mandatory activity could be just about anything a WP provider decides is appropriate. There is guidance provided which they must follow:

 

• Ensure that the activity is reasonable in the participant’s circumstances
  
• The activity should be something that will help participants by enhancing their employment prospects and developing skills and disciplines associated with a normal working environment.
  
• Ensure that the timeframe between issuing the notification and the taking part in the activity is reasonable.
  
• The MAN must be either handed directly or posted to the participant. It is not acceptable to use electronic methods, such as text or email, to send the MANs to participants.
  

Words such as should and ensure indicates an advisory, so someone could decide an activity is entirely appropriate (e.g. how to wipe your bottom*).

'Must' indicates prescribed procedure that will result in a benefit doubt being overturned or rejected on a technicality.

 

ESA claimants can not be mandated to undertake certain activities, nor can certain voluntary participants - Some providers choose to ignore the DWP guidance and try to impose their will.

 

 

* Example of totally inappropriate activity and tweet from some buffoon.

*[ATTACH=CONFIG]47553[/ATTACH]

[Perseus1]

All is becoming clear now.

 

I don't think the Advisors (from my experience and reports) are idiots or even clueless. They are just not very good advisers. That itself is a trade like the craft of writing.

 

They are Recruitment Administrators and as such have limited skills. It is deficient aptitudes more than lack of training. With G4S their top boss has experience in recruitment. Contracts seem to have been awarded on the bottom line, when existing charities have intellectual property (training and advice courses) and experienced workers that could do a better job (arguable).

 

Arguable because a lot of the clients are capacity challenged and include people leaving prison, anti-social types, dogsbodies (what my school called factory fodder) etc.

[Tryst]

I have been looking at the HR laws regarding this.

 

Article 23.

 

 

• (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
  
• (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
  
• (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
  
• (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
  

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
  

According to this:

 

• They cannot force you into a job that you do not want to do. (Free choice of employment)
  
• They cannot force you to work for your benefit. (Equal pay for equal work and also, Just and favourable remuneration, also Article 4 regarding slavery or servitude).
  
• Article 25 basically states that they cannot take your benefits away from you as it would leave you without "a standard of living adequate for your health and well being".
  

The DWP often sanction those who refuse a job offered to them. These offered jobs are often in no way similar to the jobs you are qualified or experienced to do. That means, if you are a qualified engineer, you could quite legitimately turn down a job stacking shelves in Tesco.

 

You can also be sanctioned for refusing to do work for your benefits. As this contravenes so many HR laws (slavery, equal pay and just remuneration), I do believe one person already won a case using this clause.

 

Anyone want to take out a law suit? How about a group action with all those who have suffered this indignity taking the DWP to court all at once? If they also demanded significant compensation for the stress and possible health issues, caused by lack of adequate food, suffered while on sanctions, that would hurt the government who have perpetrated this.

 

Many are unemployed through no fault of their own. With mass immigration, comes the problem of not enough jobs to go around. One cannot be penalised for not getting a job if the jobs simply are not there to begin with. Even the age old standby jobs with temp agencies are filled to capacity now, mostly by immigrant workers. I'm not knocking them, at least they are working but it's at the expense of our own people's jobs and the government constantly penalise us for it and call British people "lazy" etc which simply isn't true.

[Perseus1]

I find the jobs to be mostly in sales and retail which I happen to be unsuited to and also (in the south-east) situated in London and the Thames Valley, prosperous areas and not on the less well off coastal strip. There has been a trend for a larger companies to close down their local branches and all the factories are closed.

 

Some jobs in finance (not suited) and very few in publishing (except sales) which I would be suited. Not many jobs on the docks nowadays and the airport does not employ many. Mining jobs gone a long time ago.

[deadthings]

My Niece has been sanctioned repeatedly over the past 18 months, and each time she got put straight onto as crisis loan. Each time the sanction ended and she began getting money again. This last time I took note of it, and found that when sanctioned she had not been getting a letter, just a lack of money in the bank. I found this was the case the entire time.

So, I got her to go into the jobcentre and ask why her money had been stopped and why not letter. They stated she was sanctioned due to not applying for enough jobs. A few days later a letter turned up!

I printed off the GL24 appeal form, and wrote her a letter of complaint to the centre manager. On the appeal I wrote that the sanction was incorrect as her advisor had never set her targets for application, never explained how to fill in her JSA form with application details, never had a letter about anything in 18 months. In the complaint letter I stated the same, complaining that her advisor had repeatedly told her it was someone else sanctioning her, and that she had failed to provide any advice or assistance ever, which she had not.

The appeal was immediately successful, but again no letter stating so, only all her money back.

The complaint led to a meeting with the female centre manager, where she apologized, and explained she was aware of the situation and that it would be corrected.

 

What was learned from this is that jobcentres are not sending out any letters, concerning sanctions or otherwise, and the result is that claimants who are sanctioned do not know they can appeal a sanction. They also do not know they can complain about their advisor.

 

I got some good advice from here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/browse/benefits/entitlement

https://www.gov.uk/appeal-benefit/decisions-made-on-after-28-october-2013

https://www.gov.uk/complain-jobcentre-plus

 

These should stand most in good stead, they did for us and it worked.

 

Another primary reason written on the appeal was if my niece had not done enough to find work, how was it she had actually managed to get some work? which she has, a temp job til Christmas.

 

The problem is most claimants don't know their rights, and the centre staff don't do their job.

 

Hope this is of help to someone.

 

D.

[sickasapig]

I've been almost sanctioned a few times but luckily now in employment.

 

One time it was at the JC when they said I hadn't applied for enough jobs although I had but due to the directgov site playing up meaning I didn't add a few on and when it was later working I forgot to add them, but when she pointed this out I told her about the missing jobs and I don't think she was too impressed.

 

Other times its always been the WP's fault. They have cancelled appointments because the advisor was ill and then I got "a doubt has arisen on your claim..." letter which I then had to explain it wasn't my fault, then another time I got another letter which I didn't have a clue about. I rang up the WP and they said it was because I didn't attend an appointment for a job for a local company that they were holding pre-interviews for.

 

The thing was they claimed the appointment was on a Friday and that it was a mandatory thing, but it wasn't mandatory and I actually turned up on the Monday after that as was arranged, then the Wednesday for a follow-up pre-interview and then yet again on Friday for an actual interview with the employer as I had passed their two days of time wasting nonsense.

 

They reluctantly admitted fault in the end and I wasn't sanctioned but I'm so glad I don't have to go in that place no more! One other time I went for my appointment but as I'm a single parent and it was school holidays I had no choice but to bring my child with me to the appointment. They said I couldn't come in as they don't have insurance to cover children in the building and said they would mark me as did not attend. I ended up having a rather heated argument with the stuck up old cow as they knew I was a single parent and every other time they had made me an appointment it was within school hours.

 

They keep leaving me answer phone messages to check up on me. What a joke, if they ring when I'm not at work and I answer the phone i'm going to tell them where to go, its bad enough having to put up with the idiots when your forced to but they can F.O. now I had no obligation to have anything to do with them.

[joeski]

its not the jobcentre staff who made the rules, if your looking for someone to blame then look no further than our not so glorious prime minister david cameron and IDS. the tories always have and always will be for the rich and well off, anything that doesn't benefit the rich is of no interest to them what so ever

[Darcus42]

I did some Freedom of Information requests and found that my local Jobcentre had increased sanctions by 40%, the district office saw an overall increase of 25% (16 offices in district). I also caught the manager attempting to sanction people using Universal Credit criteria, which wasn't in force, leading to the district business manager coming to the office to speak with me. I recorded the meeting and he admitted that something had been going on, and that all managers were now made aware not to use criteria that wasn't in force. No mention of an official investigation, no mention of returning money to those who were affected. Overall, the district had increased sanctions from 30,000 to 40,000 over 12 months.

 

They basically tried to cover it all up. My local newspaper ran an article on it.

[caledfwlch]

Just before I had to go onto ESA I was on JSA and had my last two appointments while waiting for esa claim to go through with an advisor who was unbelievable.

 

She told me she was going to have me Sanctioned.

 

Why? Because she couldn't read my handwriting on my jobsearch diary. She proceeded to have a right go at me, accusing me of doing a fake diary and using extremely poor writing to hide that.

 

I demanded to speak with the Manager (I used to work for social security and the JC manager had been my supervisor there)

 

She came over the advisor went off glowering at the cheek of a prole making a complaint about her

 

I explain that the advisor is threatening me with major sanctions because of my handwriting. My old supervisor goes a little pale says I remember, I'll go sort her out now, I'm really sorry for that.

 

Advisor comes back looking even paler. I have a thing called Dysphraxia which causes hand/eye coordination problems, I also have nerve damage due to diabetes and possibly carpal tunnel syndrome in my writing hand. My Dysphraxia is also on the notes with my jsa on screen file.

 

To cut a rambling story short staff are being put under so much pressure to sanctiom everyone for everything inc made up breaches that the mad Moo of an advisor very nearly dropped a nice claim for compensation and restitution due to disability discrimination!!

[Nystagmite]

I almost got sanctioned. I had a wonderful adviser and then went on to the work programme and changed advisers. Someone had edited the information held about me to having no disabilities and there's no reason why I can't work full time. I wasn't looking for full time work and was told to either look for full time work, or I'd be sanctioned. I then informed them that I am disabled and that I can't work full time.

[caro]

Can anyone advise how long appeals against sanctions take to be considered/resolved?

[Perseus1]

I almost got sanctioned. I had a wonderful adviser and then went on to the work programme and changed advisers. Someone had edited the information held about me to having no disabilities and there's no reason why I can't work full time. I wasn't looking for full time work and was told to either look for full time work, or I'd be sanctioned. I then informed them that I am disabled and that I can't work full time.

 

It is really unfair at times. I just saying I am trying as hard as I can and I am finding it very difficult at times.

 

IB used to be given for people who could not work in their normal job. Now any suitable job has to be considered.

#

 

If you are in a specialist job and having being made redundant that is a disability in itself. Some people can adapt others have more problems just because of their ingrained personality.

 

I consider myself quite bright and I have difficulties. Ironically, the ambivalent ones that have fewer skills sometimes find it easier.

 

I just bung everything I remember down on my job log and let them work it out. If I think I am being browbeaten, I tend to get upset.

 

I looked to update my skills but the training facilities are a bit rank. Best to volunteer for these before you are mandated. Then if they pile on too much crap, you can walk out. I do not complain about the workers though. They are doing a difficult job in awkward circumstances. I just say it is not helping me as I am a volunteer I feel able to do this. If I was mandated I would not be able to do this without threats of sanctions.

[Nystagmite]

If you are in a specialist job and having being made redundant that is a disability in itself. Some people can adapt others have more problems just because of their ingrained personality.

 

Er, how on earth is that a disability?

[Perseus1]

Er, how on earth is that a disability?

 

Because you are unable to do the jobs offered to you. Dis = lack of

 

Lack of ability.

 

Hence, re-skilling is needed. Redundant people have to learn new skills.

 

It is more than a bit of a problem.

 

In real human terms, it does not happen overnight. It takes a long time to get up to speed. Thats why the system is a bit unfair. The employers want people experienced and right up to speed straight away. Redundant people might be just as useless in the job market as school leavers.

 

Even if you have just missed three years through injury or illness, the world moves on. Computer programs change, Pagemaker to Indesign and suddenly the job searcher is out of contention.

 

Rider: Disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Perseus1

[Nystagmite]

That's not a disability though. You have transferable skills from that job.

 

You don't have a lack of ability and certainly don't meet the criteria for disability under the Equalities Act.

 

What a bizarre argument.

[Perseus1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activities_of_daily_living

 

Perhaps, it could include "working in your normal occupation".

 

Now the rules have changed, and it means "working in any suitable job".

 

But what constitutes a suitable job? It really depends on the personality of the person. Perhaps, the greatest complaint from soem people is that the current system tries to shoehorn people in jobs that are unsuitable.

[caro]

That's not a disability though. You have transferable skills from that job.

 

You don't have a lack of ability and certainly don't meet the criteria for disability under the Equalities Act.

 

What a bizarre argument.

 

Not all jobs have transferable skills.

[Perseus1]

That's not a disability though. You have transferable skills from that job.

 

You don't have a lack of ability and certainly don't meet the criteria for disability under the Equalities Act.

 

What a bizarre argument.

 

PS: My CV had a list of transferrable skills. I changed it on advice. I might change it back.

 

I did not make the rules. The new ATOS tests are rather rigid.

 

It abolished disability for lots of people and replaced it with the term "barriers to work". So there isn't any excuses any more. But I do not think it is quite so easy for redundant people, people recovering from illness, to find suitable jobs without third party help.

 

I am trying to think my way around it of what is he best thing to do? It seems that the advice is to look into the job market and see what skills are needed and try and match them up with best aptitudes. Disabled of any kind is verboten.

 

Reduced capacities might be allowed for a bit. This means lowering my/your sights for available work cause the jobs are crappy or the applicant is out of date (not enough skills or ability, suffering from middle-age etc.)

 

You can't learn on the job any more as the employers want you made to measure. Skills gap.

 

I went with the attitude, these are the skills, I have got, do you want them? Advice came back is that you have to tailor your skills to what they want (for good or bad). This adaptation is the difficult bit.

[Perseus1]

To cut a long story short it seems the difficulty is matching my/your skills (or lack of) to the jobs are available. Claimants can't find them and get sanctioned.

 

Then I thought I would try to find my aptitudes and try and match them with training courses.

 

But WP want you get a job immediately so they get paid. There is an inherent conflict unless I have got the rules wrong?

 

There is the horsehit/bull**** theory where you lie or bluff your way into a job and work out the consequences afterwards. This may be good for sales and politicians? I might try it for advisor type jobs?

 

Or the Diceman theory where you apply for any old job and hope you get lucky.

 

 

Shall I sign the application forms, "Yours optimistically," ?

Edited November 28, 2013 by Perseus1

[pitcher]

With jobcentre staff (not counting the bad employees which you get everywhere), what are they supposed to do? It has been made public that there are targets and staff are monitored for the number of sanctions and face action if they are not seen to be performing.

 

If you are on the sharp end of administering the system, the last thing you want to do is resign, be sacked or be more likely to be chosen for redundancy due to ethical issues with sanctions. The one thing worse than having a job you hate at the moment is having no job at all and having to claim JSA - seeing your colleagues every two weeks when you sign.

 

There is no right path for these people.

Hi estellyn,

sometime back I was in a job where I was told to ignore well-known H&S rules. I said no and was told to “Get a grip” or leave.

 

I did leave.

 

Did it help the staff that I had to protect? No.

Did it cause the company any trouble? No. They just hired someone else.

Did it cause me loss of income? Yes.

Did I sleep well at night? Yes.

I think there is a right path for all people.

I can look myself in the mirror knowing I've not hurt or put anyone a risk just to draw a salary.

Best regards,

pitcher

(Thanks for the edit, who ever you may be, I did not want to offend)

Edited November 28, 2013 by pitcher

[Nystagmite]

Not all jobs have transferable skills.

 

Examples? Surely all jobs have some sort of transferable skill?

[Perseus1]

The trouble is I don't really want to adapt to a job I don't like. I am not sure if I can without distress anyway. I think they call it "out of my comfort zone".

 

The WP advisor said I looked uncomfortable when I felt OK.

 

Well that is an explanation. Not sure it is an excuse though.?

 

Camels Required (One Hump or Two)

Do I feel uncomfortable selling dodgy products (something that people don't want or need or even work properly) to mugs (unwitting punters)?

 

Maybe, but then the line manager gets arsey it is the final straw!

[Nystagmite]

I think it's an excuse. Different if you have a disability which means you can't do certain jobs though.