Number of jobs I must apply for in a week

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Does anyone know of any law, rule or regulation that specifically states the number of jobs that have to be applied for weekly?

 

 

Could a claimant be sanctioned for not applying for a specific number?

[tfp]

I think they can be sanctioned. Don't know what the official number is. I don't think one exists as it varies depending on the steps a jobseeker agrees to within his / her jobseekers agreement. And sadly at the whim of the JCP+ adviser.

[Chester6]

I think they may sanction you if you agree to a set amount and don't do that many?

[kernowlife]

I think it depends on what is on your agreement. I had this argument with them last year. They changed my agreement and told me to sign or it would go to a decision maker. On a whim they upped me from 5 a week to 12 a week. I signed it and then added at the bottom "signed under duress" My adviser went mad and ripped it up and printed it out again, so I did the same.

 

The way I see it, its an easy way to sanction. If the jobs weren't there and you only applied for 11........sanction cos you agreed to apply for 12. (example)

 

If I get anything with a specific figure on like that........signed under duress

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Thanks for your quick response chaps, though it grieves me to read them.

 

 

My JSAg does not stipulate applying for any.

 

 

It does say that I must check my UJ Account at least 3 times a week. I have been ignoring that particular stipulation since it was inserted many months ago without my consent and there is nothing they can do about that.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Your reply raised a chuckle, Kernowlife. Recall when I did exactly the same, added 'signed under duress' after my signature. My adviser went ballistic, he ended up claiming that it made no difference anyway as long as he signed it. I did notice that he later deleted it from his monitor.

 

 

I was later made aware of a Latin phrase, "Vi Coactus" sometimes abbreviated to "V.C.", used in legal circles to signify 'signed under duress'. I wish I'd known it at the time, just to see the look on that pompous adviser's face.

[jasta11]

Regulation 18 of the Jobseekers Allowance Regulations state that 'more than two actions should be carried out' to comply with the requirement of 'actively seeking work'. So basically, do three things and you're covered. Here's a report from a case where someone was sanctioned for apparantly not doing enough but the Information Commissioner decided they were - using these rules - and the sanction was quashed. Interesting reading.

 

Remember, everything can be argued with the JC adviser - everything they do has to be 'reasonable in your circumstances' and designed to help you, not just done for the hell of it.

[SabreSheep]

...but the Information Commissioner decided they were - using these rules - and the sanction was quashed. Interesting reading.

 

Remember, everything can be argued with the JC adviser - everything they do has to be 'reasonable in your circumstances' and designed to help you, not just done for the hell of it.

 

Not quite the information commissioner. It was the Social Security Commissioner.

 

This was in 2007

 

Id be careful about using this case law as many reforms in the legislation that this was based on I think have been altered or added to. What we could do with is someone to get hold of the new book of DWP regulations

[THNX4THT]

Not quite the information commissioner. It was the Social Security Commissioner.

 

This was in 2007

 

Id be careful about using this case law as many reforms in the legislation that this was based on I think have been altered or added to. What we could do with is someone to get hold of the new book of DWP regulations

 

When my niece was on JSA, she was told to apply for 10 jobs per week. So she did....including Editor to Financial Times, Executive to some sort of manufacturing company. She didn't have a hope in getting the job, but she did at least for-fill her obligation to applying for 10 jobs per week. She has now got a job and one she really enjoys, but it was at least a way round the ridiculous demand to apply for so many jobs when she wasn't qualified or experienced in any the Job Centre were offering or suggesting!

[jasta11]

Not quite the information commissioner. It was the Social Security Commissioner.

 

This was in 2007

 

Id be careful about using this case law as many reforms in the legislation that this was based on I think have been altered or added to. What we could do with is someone to get hold of the new book of DWP regulations

 

I stand corrected Yes, best not to rely on this but it at least shows that things can be questioned and in some cases, won. So many people seem to just accept everything the JC say as gospel and law - and therein lies the problem.

 

A complete - and ongoing - list of current DWP/SS regulations is exactly what's needed; it's the getting it that's the hard part. I'm sure we've all noticed on the FOI site 'Whatdotheyknow' that whenever someone asks for disclosure of information which would really be helpful (or potentially damning to the DWP), the DWP claim 'it's not in the public interest to disclose' or 'it would cost more than the £600 limit to find the information requested'.

[Chester6]

I think many accept the jobcentre staff's word as law and don't believe there's any reason not to, it's only when they fall foul to bad treatment or/and sanctions they feel otherwise

[essexmat]

As a rule (I am at INGEUS) I just do one per day, usually one click apps unless I really fancy something so around 10-12 per 2 week period as I have NEVER and NEVER WILL jobsearch on weekend or Bank Holidays. All the jobs are repeats or fake so I also think I have applied for certain 'jobs' about 6 times

[Charlotte_Henderson]

I think they may sanction you if you agree to a set amount and don't do that many?

 

When i first signed on, i was told i had to find 3 a week. so 6 in a fortnight other wise id be sanctioned.

[SabreSheep]

I stand corrected Yes, best not to rely on this but it at least shows that things can be questioned and in some cases, won. So many people seem to just accept everything the JC say as gospel and law - and therein lies the problem.

 

A complete - and ongoing - list of current DWP/SS regulations is exactly what's needed; it's the getting it that's the hard part. I'm sure we've all noticed on the FOI site 'Whatdotheyknow' that whenever someone asks for disclosure of information which would really be helpful (or potentially damning to the DWP), the DWP claim 'it's not in the public interest to disclose' or 'it would cost more than the £600 limit to find the information requested'.

 

There is a book of regulations somewhere that I have seen. It has everything that they use for reference. Will try and find it. It is not cheap if I recall about £70.

 

Problem then is you have to then interpret the information correctly and use case law to back you.

 

But yes you are right, people should stop taking their advisors as custodians of the law and where needed challenge them to put things in writing and to refer to the regulations.

[Charlotte_Henderson]

As a rule (I am at INGEUS) I just do one per day, usually one click apps unless I really fancy something so around 10-12 per 2 week period as I have NEVER and NEVER WILL jobsearch on weekend or Bank Holidays. All the jobs are repeats or fake so I also think I have applied for certain 'jobs' about 6 times

 

Yeah but you dont sign on at ingeus, i am at Ingeus. but still go to JCP to sign on.

[louise2012]

My JSA agreement was drawn up in September 2012, includes visiting UJ website 7 times a week, look in local newspapers and write to 7 employers a week.

[Nystagmite]

My JSA agreement was drawn up in September 2012, includes visiting UJ website 7 times a week, look in local newspapers and write to 7 employers a week.

 

I am surprised your agreement hasn't changed. My agreement was done in January 2010 and was changed sometime at the end of 2011, I do believe.

[SabreSheep]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296135/v4am42.pdf

 

Decision makers hand book for JSA ESA and many other things, updated 2014 Have fun

[louise2012]

I am surprised your agreement hasn't changed. My agreement was done in January 2010 and was changed sometime at the end of 2011, I do believe.

 

I know. I have two appointments at the job centre this week, one tomorrow to sign on and a work review appointment on Thursday with my adviser.

[Charlotte_Henderson]

I am surprised your agreement hasn't changed. My agreement was done in January 2010 and was changed sometime at the end of 2011, I do believe.

 

Mine hasn't changed once since i started 4 yrs ago.

[Chester6]

Mine hasn't changed once since i started 4 yrs ago.

 

They change mine regularly like at the beginning if the lie that is PWP supposed support which is far from anything actually supportive

[estellyn]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296135/v4am42.pdf

 

Decision makers hand book for JSA ESA and many other things, updated 2014 Have fun

 

 

You'd be surprised how often the handbook doesn't exactly reflect the regulations.

[jasta11]

You'd be surprised how often the handbook doesn't exactly reflect the regulations.

 

It's even even more surprising how many JC/DWP staff have never even looked at the damn thing! (or even heard of it, in some cases).

 

I had an adviser once say 'We can't be expected to know all the rules, you know' to which I replied 'Your ignorance of the rules could - and no doubt has - caused people to wrongly lose their income so I'd think it was absolutely vital that you knew them'. Adviser not interested, naturally.

[estellyn]

It's even even more surprising how many JC/DWP staff have never even looked at the damn thing! (or even heard of it, in some cases).

 

I had an adviser once say 'We can't be expected to know all the rules, you know' to which I replied 'Your ignorance of the rules could - and no doubt has - caused people to wrongly lose their income so I'd think it was absolutely vital that you knew them'. Adviser not interested, naturally.

 

 

My understanding is that the training is nothing like it used to be. To be a decision maker we had to do three months in 'school' learning the rules and system, then another 3 months in a training group having all our work checked, then an assessment over a number of claims - can't remember how many - where we had to get 95% totally correct with no errors, even the smallest error was a fail on that claim, and there was no leeway, even for regs that were so obscure we couldn't possibly have come across them before.

 

 

I doubt very much the training is so intense now - heard someone say it was 4 weeks, not sure if that is correct.

[Charlotte_Henderson]

I think it depends on what is on your agreement. I had this argument with them last year. They changed my agreement and told me to sign or it would go to a decision maker. On a whim they upped me from 5 a week to 12 a week. I signed it and then added at the bottom "signed under duress" My adviser went mad and ripped it up and printed it out again, so I did the same.

 

The way I see it, its an easy way to sanction. If the jobs weren't there and you only applied for 11........sanction cos you agreed to apply for 12. (example)

 

If I get anything with a specific figure on like that........signed under duress

 

But is signing under duress every time worth the risk of getting sanctioned for?