Tribunal for a JSA sanction for not receiving a MWA letter

[SabreSheep]

Wish there was some way top bring these people to book. Maladministration comes to mind

[antone]

Wish there was some way top bring these people to book. Maladministration comes to mind

 

They're quite within their rights to request a statement of reasons, but they're probably wasting everyone's time, including their own. I suspect it's not so much "Hahahaha! I'm going to make this person's Xmas miserable!" as it is "How dare that impudent Tribunal overturn my decision?" Some DMs just don't like losing Tribunals.

[jasta11]

A 'no win - no pay' scheme would be rather good. If a sanction is overturned then both the DM who decided it and the JC clerk who instigated it get docked a months pay. Might make them think before handing out doubts left, right and centre.

 

..of course they'd have to do it right and not tell the DM/JC clerk their money had been stopped; let them discover it themselves when they went to their bank, as we have to. Ah, if only life was fair like that..

[antone]

The pressure is all coming from the top, so I wouldn't throw the processors or DMs under the bus. I'd say every policy-level DWP civil servant and every minister in the DWP should cover the cost of overturned sanctions from their own pockets - money paid to claimants, tribunal costs, the whole lot.

 

Well, actually, I think I'd rather just abolish all sanctions. While they could potentially have some uses in extreme cases, the government has shown that it can't be trusted with such a weapon.

[honeybee13]

There's a Christmas or New Year wish, antone.

 

HB

[estellyn]

Just want to warn that a statement of reasons can take several months to arrive, so it may be quite a while before this is sorted.

 

The judge will be pretty annoyed with the DWP appeals officer for not attending then requesting a Sor.

 

And to agree with Antone, some appeals officers loathe when a decision is overturned, though this may be more about the fact that these decisions more often go the other way.

[estellyn]

There's a Christmas or New Year wish, antone.

 

HB

 

Agreed, I'm not subject to sanctions (esa support group), but were I to be given some wishes by a magical genie, that would be on my list.

[Emma078]

I have received a copy of the statement of reasons, some of the reasons it gives are

 

 

* The Appellant attended the hearing. The secretary of state was not represented

 

 

* The tribunal had the opportunity to speak to the appellant. She told the tribunal that when she went to sign on as usual she was not advised that she had missed a placement. She could not explain how the letter was not delivered but she was adamant that it was not delivered. She had complained to the post office but this was the first time she was aware that mail had not been delivered

 

 

* The placement was in walking distance from where she lived and would of been very convenient for her to go there. There was no reason why she would not have gone if she had known about it

 

 

* The tribunal believed the Appellant. Proving a negative - the non receipt of a letter - is of course difficult. The tribunal accepts, however, that on the balance of probabilities the appellant was telling the truth. The alternative, that she received the letter and chose not to attend or simply forgot, knowing what would happen, did not seem credible

 

 

 

 

It says they have one month from the date of the letter if they want to appeal.

I've not heard anything about it from the jobcentre and I'm still only getting hardship

 

 

Went to sign on the other day and I've been put back on Mandatory Work Activity. Hope the letter actually turns up this time and if it does, that its not miles away which I can't afford to get to

 

 

Also been told to bring in my universal jobmatch log in details because they want to go through it with me to see if its set up properly. They tried this before and when I said no they said it could be classed as me refusing help and my jsa could be stopped. I really hate that place

[Lapsed Workaholic]

The Tribunal Service appear to have acted pretty swiftly in preparing and providing a written statement of its reasons for coming to its decision.

 

The DWP said in their letter to you on the 22nd Dec 2014 that they were not going to pay you ".. because we are applying for a statement of reasons from the Tribunals Service for the decision made on 15/12/14 and may appeal against the first-tier Tribunal's decision."

 

At that time then, they were going to wait for the " statement of reasons" before deciding to appeal. In my opinion this can only mean that they have no new evidence to present that would make a difference to the Tribunal's decision and they are hoping that some legal technicality in the "statement of reasons" will give them a glimmer of a chance.

 

According to this statement of reasons the Tribunal makes a point of including the fact that the Secretary of State was not represented. That sounds like a veiled rebuke to start with.

 

Your evidence was accepted and favourable conclusions reached by the Judge as to its consistency, veracity and genuine honesty. The DWP's assumptions appear to be being regarded as not credible.

 

Not being a lawyer, particularly a devious DWP lawyer, I can't say if there are any legal loopholes in the statement of reasons that the DWP can exploit. I can see nothing glaringly obvious.

 

I would put money (if I had any) on the DWP deciding not to take the matter any further. Either way they must make their mind up within a month and provide the tribunal with reasons. You will also get a copy of those reasons that they come up with and be given the opportunity to contest them.

 

So, KBO for another month at the most. You have fought the good fight for well over a year now, you are a winner, you are winning so far and you will beat them yet. Your fortitude, perspicacity and indefatigability is an example to us all.

 

On the subject of MWA you could do well to check that the proper procedure for placing you on it again was followed, that you are given a full account of what is involved and how it is expected to benefit you and that travel arrangements are appropriate and affordable and do not incur loss to you.

 

On the subject of UJ, stick to your guns.Tell the adviser in no uncertain terms that coercion, force or threats to allow them access to your personal account will result in an official complaint being lodged charging him/her personally with Maladministration and Breach of the Civil Service Code of Practice.

 

Some might regard my phraseology as overly aggressive, even offensive. I'm here to tell you that nothing I say here, or whichever way I say it here, can top the vocabulary I would use or the action I would take against anyone who treated me they way you have been treated for well over a year now. Reasonableness and common decency appears to be foreign concepts to those people.

[SabreSheep]

As far as UJM goes, all you need to do is prove you use it daily. A screenshot of your activity log showing a note you make on there will suffice the regulations.

 

Please feel free to refer them to the UJM toolkit

[Lapsed Workaholic]

As far as UJM is concerned there is plenty of evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no legal obligation on the claimant to use it, to keep a log of its use, or to allow anyone else access to any records of activity on it even if it is being used, if claimant chooses not to do so. If a claimant wants to check for jobs on the UJ site he/she can do so just as easily without logging in or on.

 

As well as the Toolkit you mention there are numerous FOI Responses and other threads on this site that explain emphatically and categorically that advisers can't make the claimant use UJM under any circumstance. Nor can the claimant be penalised in any way or sanctioned for not using it.

 

On this issue there are no regulations that require sufficing. Be under no illusion that advisers don't know this already, they try all sorts of tricks to compel the claimant to comply, hoping that the claimant doesn't know. It's like being told that there is a gate in your way and that you must do this, that and the other to get beyond it, over it, under it, round it, through it. If you find out that there is no gate after all, would you still do this, that and the other? Of course not, people would find your actions unusual, to say the least, if you did.

 

The problem for claimants who accept that there are such regulations and that they must comply with them is that they then leave themselves wide open to all sorts of further pressures and complications to prove that they are complying. It becomes a never ending nightmare trying to comply with the whims of what advisers deem to be necessary to conform with non-existent regulations.

 

In my own case, I posted several weeks ago an account of my own negotiations with an adviser to change my JSAg to JSAg/CC. I took the stance that I wanted no reference at all to UJ in the agreement. Eventually the adviser gave in, having tried both the carrot and the stick approach to get me to comply. There is no mention of UJ in my new JSAg/UJ agreement.

 

I took the same stance with the"workbook" rubbish, and with the daily work search and the 35 hours each week work search activity nonsense with the same result, there is no mention of any of it on my new agreement.

 

The tool I found more useful than any of those numerous others that I used to help me, both in the negotiations mentioned above and in my recent Tribunal hearing, was a copy of CJSA 1814 2007. I would recommend every claimant to have a copy to hand at all times. Neither the adviser or the Tribunal Judge gave me any indication that the findings and conclusions of the Judge in that case are not still valid.

[jasta11]

Also been told to bring in my universal jobmatch log in details because they want to go through it with me to see if its set up properly. They tried this before and when I said no they said it could be classed as me refusing help and my jsa could be stopped. I really hate that place

 

'Set up properly'??? What rubbish! Sounds like they're now trying to look for other things to darken your name with, as they've obviously failed on the 'missed appoinment' trick.

 

Once a UJ account has been created and a CV uploaded - and you only do this if mandated by the JC - what else is there to 'set up'? It's not Mission Control at NASA. a screen print off your UJ will show them you've actually done it - plus if they enter the email address you used (if you tell them it) they'll get an 'access denied' message which also proves you have created an account.

 

Remind the adviser that her own PCS Union issued a written memo to all staff in 2013 that they must NOT try to gain access to anyone's UJ without permission.

 

...and then ask for a new adviser.

[Tj rodgers]

As far as UJM is concerned there is plenty of evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no legal obligation on the claimant to use it, to keep a log of its use, or to allow anyone else access to any records of activity on it even if it is being used, if claimant chooses not to do so. If a claimant wants to check for jobs on the UJ site he/she can do so just as easily without logging in or on.

 

As well as the Toolkit you mention there are numerous FOI Responses and other threads on this site that explain emphatically and categorically that advisers can't make the claimant use UJM under any circumstance. Nor can the claimant be penalised in any way or sanctioned for not using it.

 

On this issue there are no regulations that require sufficing. Be under no illusion that advisers don't know this already, they try all sorts of tricks to compel the claimant to comply, hoping that the claimant doesn't know. It's like being told that there is a gate in your way and that you must do this, that and the other to get beyond it, over it, under it, round it, through it. If you find out that there is no gate after all, would you still do this, that and the other? Of course not, people would find your actions unusual, to say the least, if you did.

 

The problem for claimants who accept that there are such regulations and that they must comply with them is that they then leave themselves wide open to all sorts of further pressures and complications to prove that they are complying. It becomes a never ending nightmare trying to comply with the whims of what advisers deem to be necessary to conform with non-existent regulations.

 

In my own case, I posted several weeks ago an account of my own negotiations with an adviser to change my JSAg to JSAg/CC. I took the stance that I wanted no reference at all to UJ in the agreement. Eventually the adviser gave in, having tried both the carrot and the stick approach to get me to comply. There is no mention of UJ in my new JSAg/UJ agreement.

 

I took the same stance with the"workbook" rubbish, and with the daily work search and the 35 hours each week work search activity nonsense with the same result, there is no mention of any of it on my new agreement.

 

The tool I found more useful than any of those numerous others that I used to help me, both in the negotiations mentioned above and in my recent Tribunal hearing, was a copy of CJSA 1814 2007. I would recommend every claimant to have a copy to hand at all times. Neither the adviser or the Tribunal Judge gave me any indication that the findings and conclusions of the Judge in that case are not still valid.

ive also been told to bring in my UJ login every other week that i dnt sign on as im doing weekly signing still - ive been given a new adviser who has come from another larger branch in my district shes worked for the jcp for a lot longer than the staff at my local jcp and she said shes going to put me on one of the jcp computers every other week for an hour of assisted jobsearch ???

[Tj rodgers]

My advisor also wants to check if my UJ is set up properly too ?

[Mr.P]

[...] she said shes going to put me on one of the jcp computers every other week for an hour of assisted jobsearch ???

 

Make sure that it is genuine "assisted" job search with a member of staff spending a full hour with you each time. I'm sure you can find creative ways of wasting her time

 

My advisor also wants to check if my UJ is set up properly too ?

 

That will be to check that you have allowed DWP full access. If that is what she is after, print out the relevant page from the UJM toolkit and stick to your guns. Might be as well to record the conversations if you are threatened with sanctions.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

As a seasoned campaigner and regular contributor to this forum you will be aware from the abundance of threads that have addressed the subject of UJM that claimants cannot be compelled to use it.

 

It follows therefore that whatever claimants choose to do whilst on it, is irrelevant and certainly not for an adviser to advise on or judge.

 

Even where claimants do choose to use it they are not compelled to allow access to their personal accounts to advisers.

 

Where claimants feel obliged to use it in Jobcentres then they could at least use it without logging on, or if they do log on, keep their password and account number secret by not allowing the adviser to watch while logging on.

 

It would be interesting to know what exactly is involved in this Weekly Work Search Review. How long have you been on it now? What is it that you have to do when you're there. What sort of help do you get? Do you do stuff that could be just as easily done elsewhere? Is UJM the only site that you are required to log on to?

[Tj rodgers]

As a seasoned campaigner and regular contributor to this forum you will be aware from the abundance of threads that have addressed the subject of UJM that claimants cannot be compelled to use it.

 

It follows therefore that whatever claimants choose to do whilst on it, is irrelevant and certainly not for an adviser to advise on or judge.

 

Even where claimants do choose to use it they are not compelled to allow access to their personal accounts to advisers.

 

Where claimants feel obliged to use it in Jobcentres then they could at least use it without logging on, or if they do log on, keep their password and account number secret by not allowing the adviser to watch while logging on.

 

It would be interesting to know what exactly is involved in this Weekly Work Search Review. How long have you been on it now? What is it that you have to do when you're there. What sort of help do you get? Do you do stuff that could be just as easily done elsewhere? Is UJM the only site that you are required to log on to?

Since october but from then till christmas i was only expected to bring evidence of jobsearch in- and i also found out its not just the one woman advisor i kept seeing being awkward to me as the new advisor from a larger jcp new i was attending the jobcentre weekly coz it must be written on the computer as she appeard to read it as she was sayin to bring in my ujm login details the weeks i dnt sign on - but i remember reading in the guidlines ages ago bout people who didnt go on help to work schem coz they finished the work program earlier could be reviewed after a minimum of 26 weeks of post work program support so im thinking it is to do with that

[Lapsed Workaholic]

I seem to recall that, like me, you came off the Work Programme before April 2014, the date when HtW Schemes Guidances came into force.

 

If that is so then the old Post Work Programme Support Guidances and rules apply.

 

Either way there is no way that you can be pressured into providing access to your UJM Account.

 

Just out of interest, what is recorded on your UJM site that you can't write out and show them on paper copy?

[Tj rodgers]

I seem to recall that, like me, you came off the Work Programme before April 2014, the date when HtW Schemes Guidances came into force.

 

If that is so then the old Post Work Programme Support Guidances and rules apply.

 

Either way there is no way that you can be pressured into providing access to your UJM Account.

 

Just out of interest, what is recorded on your UJM site that you can't write out and show them on paper copy?

 

Its somthing to do with my skills matching or somthin im not that good with computers

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Its somthing to do with my skills matching or somthin im not that good with computers

 

 

When you say "skills matching" do you mean being able to match the skills that you have with the skills required for any prospective job that you apply for?

 

You have been a regular and well informed contributor to this site for some time now and I can't see that you have been hampered in that by any deficiency in your computer skills.

 

It would certainly not be considered a legitimate reason for an adviser to insist on access to your UJM Account to enhance your grasp of any skills that they may think they are capable of imparting to you.

 

From what I've seen of UJM one doesn't need to have any sort of expertise to use or navigate it. From what I've seen of advisers I would conclude that they would be the last ones to seek advice or skills training from.

 

Is it still the case that when applying for a job on UJM all that is necessary is to click on "Apply" and that no email composed by the claimant is required?

 

When applying for any other job on any other site do you show the advisers copies of the emails that you send, or do you just show proof of sending it?

[Emma078]

I wont be allowing them access to my ujm and I'm sick of them asking

 

 

 

 

Last time she wanted me to log on and go through it with her was to check my cv and searches were ok- so she said

 

 

When I said they are set up fine and how I like it, I don't want it messed with and I don't have to allow you access that's when she said it could be classed as refusing help which I just laughed at

 

 

She then said she was sending my job search of to a decision maker because I'd not done enough, when I pointed out to her I do the same amount all the time and you've always said your happy with it and now because I wont let you see my ujm your trying to sanction me again- she replied we like to push you to do more and you can't be sanctioned again when your already sanctioned (which I know is not true as I have had a sanction when I've already been sanctioned)

 

 

Had my MWA letter and Its another charity shop - Shaw Trust

This time the letter has a proper timetable showing 10am to 4pm Mon to Fri, so I hope they stick to these times

 

 

One of the reasons I put in my last mandatory reconsideration was they are supposed to tell you the times you'll be working but on mine it said 8am to 6pm each day. This was done in August and I've still not heard from this

 

 

Is there anyone in charge of the jobcentre who I could make a complaint to, to make them do things quicker and not leave me waiting for months. I don't know how they expect me to live on £35 per week, let alone do a placement on it

[jasta11]

Is there anyone in charge of the jobcentre who I could make a complaint to, to make them do things quicker and not leave me waiting for months. I don't know how they expect me to live on £35 per week, let alone do a placement on it

 

Though I'm not labelling all JC managers as bad, I have no doubt that the majority of them are fully aware their staff aren't following guidelines and not doing their job efficiently..and that's without mentioning staff who've been specifically told by the JC manager to look for sanction targets any way they can. A recent PCS Union survey showed that out of the JC staff who took part, 84% of them - that's more than 4 out of 5 - said they'd had pressure put upon them by their manager to make 'inappropriate' sanctions; in other words, fit people up. 1 in 4 of them said they'd been directly given a sanction target by their manager.

 

You can always try your JC manager as they may be one of the decent ones, plus you can also write to their boss, the District Manager of your area too. Before you go any higher it's best to try these first then at least you can say you tried every route and did things properly before the matter escalates very high.

 

As for asking you do do more jobsearch - fine.. as long as it's reasonable and they tell you about it, preferably in writing. if you're showing the same amount of satisfactory jobsearch and nobody has officially mandated you to do more then there's nothing they can do about it. Always get your fortnight's jobsearch signed and dated by the adviser, so you know there was no problem with it should they try and claim otherwise later on.

[Mr.P]

Is there anyone in charge of the jobcentre who I could make a complaint to, to make them do things quicker and not leave me waiting for months.

 

You might find a complaint addressed via your MP gets a quicker response. But that depends on which party he/she represents, and also if your vote is considered valuable. With elections coming up, you might find the MP more amenable to helping you out of your plight.

[Tj rodgers]

When you say "skills matching" do you mean being able to match the skills that you have with the skills required for any prospective job that you apply for?

 

You have been a regular and well informed contributor to this site for some time now and I can't see that you have been hampered in that by any deficiency in your computer skills.

 

It would certainly not be considered a legitimate reason for an adviser to insist on access to your UJM Account to enhance your grasp of any skills that they may think they are capable of imparting to you.

 

From what I've seen of UJM one doesn't need to have any sort of expertise to use or navigate it. From what I've seen of advisers I would conclude that they would be the last ones to seek advice or skills training from.

 

Is it still the case that when applying for a job on UJM all that is necessary is to click on "Apply" and that no email composed by the claimant is required?

 

When applying for any other job on any other site do you show the advisers copies of the emails that you send, or do you just show proof of sending it?

 

I just right the job title down n ref num if the job doesnt automaticaly let me send an email of my cv when i click apply an takes me to another site that i dnt hav my cv saved on im stumpd coz im useless at this pasting buisness

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Emma:

UJM:

 

You are quite within your rights to stick to your guns regarding UJM.

I sent a letter of complaint to the manager at the Jobcentre when I was being repeatedly harassed, intimidated and threaten over access to UJM. I asked for a response in writing within the prescribed time period. I warned that unless he took steps to control the behaviour of his advisers I would be taking my complaint to the next stage.

 

I did not get a written response but he told me verbally that the advisers were being overbearing in insisting on my using UJM and letting them have access to it because in some cases it was necessary. In my case, he said, such tactics were not necessary and he would instruct his advisers accordingly. I have not had any issues on the subject of UJM since. Even when negotiating a new agreement several weeks ago I managed to have any specific reference to UJM excluded.

By the way, are you recording all interviews?

 

 

MWA:

The timetable for my MWA said the same thing; 8am - 6pm. This is because they make allowance for some slight flexibility between those hours. As it happened my actual hours were 9am -4.30pm. I believe there is a limit on the actual number of hours one can be expected to work.

 

No update on what stage they are at with their appeal against the Tribunal decision?

 

JCP Complaints:

Check out the following links for details of JCP complaints procedure:

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

 

 

An FOI Response, loads of useful stuff:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jobcentre_plus_complaints

 

A discussion on JCP staff behaviour, could provide useful tips;

http://dpac.uk.net/2013/02/job-centre-plus-staffs-behaviour-a-disgrace/

 

 

This one is a bit dated but still has useful information:

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/reports-and-consultations/reports/parliamentary/small-mistakes,-big-consequences/15

 

Hope this helps. Good luck