Claimant Commitment Advice for Universal Credit

[Piano Cube]

Hi guys, hope someone can help me with this.

 

Attended my first Universal Credit appointment today and went through the usual paperwork. I’ve not granted them access to my UJM account and didn’t sign the Claimant Commitment after arguing most of the points. I’ve attached it so I could get some feedback first.

 

I’m especially interested about the 35 hours they quote, (29 in my case) I know this isn’t applicable to the JSA agreement, but does the CC still count as a JSA agreement?

 

It all seems very vague and so I don’t want to get caught out.

 

Any links or further advice would be extremely helpful, cheers in advance. PC.

[Mr.P]

Yes, a Claimant Commitment does count as a Job Seeker's Agreement. You were right to argue most points, including the "Use Universal Jobmatch daily" - As we have seen recently, the site is not always available, and it is quite possible for you to have outages with your internet connection. The JCP will probably say "use the library if you have no internet connection at home" - All well and good, but public libraries are not open every day. The same would apply to the requirement to "monitor e-mails daily".

 

I would also argue that Universal Credit is not a government agency or company. It is a benefit intended to replace Job Seeker's Allowance and (some) other benefits paid by the DWP. Phrases such as "I will contact Universal Credit" should be replaced by "I will contact the DWP".

 

You could also argue that the CC is invalid as it does not display the DWP and JCP+ logos in keeping with all other "official" documents.

 

One question: Do you currently have a valid JSAg ?

 

L.W. will be along shortly to offer valuable advice.

[Piano Cube]

Hey Mr.P, thanks for the quick response.

 

You raise a lot of interesting points that I can deal with when renegotiating the CC.

 

In regards to the contractual stuff, how would I go about dealing with them without it affecting my benefit?

I understand that I have a seven day cooling off period in which to sign the CC but I don't want it to affect the payment date as I am currently without any other income.

 

I don't have a valid JSAg, my claim for JSA ended in December and was shut down, this is a new claim.

[citizenB]

There are two activities on that commitment that suggests you should be doing them "daily". Does this mean for 7 days a week or 5 ?

[Mr.P]

I don't have a valid JSAg, my claim for JSA ended in December and was shut down, this is a new claim.

 

If it is less that thirteen weeks since you closed your last claim, I would have thought you would have done a 'rapid reclaim'. Under such circumstances, your original JSAg would still be valid (unless they have changed the rules).

 

 

There are two activities on that commitment that suggests you should be doing them "daily". Does this mean for 7 days a week or 5 ?

 

For DWP staff, it means Mon-Fri 09:30-16:30. For the unemployed, who have nothing better to do with their time (according to popular opinion), daily would mean seven days a week including public holidays from 00:00-24:00.

 

One suggestion for Piano Cube: If you value home time (with partner & children if applicable) and/or are reliant on public transport, restrict the hours available. Starting an early shift at 06:00 when the first available bus turns up 07:15, or finishing a night shift and having to wait two hours for a bus is not good. Office based staff generally work 09:00-17:00 Mon-Fri and outside those hours, subject to negotiation.

[jasta11]

Regarding the '35 hour a week jobsearch' that's just a figure the wonderful JC have dreamt up as a way of threatening people - they wouldn't have the time nor man (person?) power to enforce it anyway and they know it. They're just basically saying that if they think you're cracking along on your own okay then fine but if they think you need 'encouragement' then they can ask more of you which will naturally take more of your time. As long as you're doing what's on your CC and it's a reasonable amount then the time taken doesn't matter.

 

If you do a search in this forum you'll find a thread I started a while ago on CC which contains extracts from the JC advisers own CC training course - which they'll all have gone through - that clearly states that quality of jobsearch is paramount and that if a person has fulfilled all the requirements of their CC in a lesser time then this is perfectly acceptable. Naturally they don't want us to know any of this or their threats won't work

 

If you want the full JC advisers classroom course and notes on CC then it's downloadable from here;

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/claimant_commitment_4

 

A lot to read but well worth it as you'll be as wise as they are - I slapped the whole lot down on the desk when I had my first CC appointment and the adviser looked rather worried that a customer had a full copy of her training course. I actually went away with a very simple CC as, having the guidance there, I was in a position to challenge everything she said. Give it a read through; it'll definitely help.

 

(Thanks to Citizen B for her help in resetting my account after I lost my password and original email address)

Edited February 3, 2015 by honeybee13
Removing site team member's name

[Piano Cube]

Thanks everyone for the advice, I'll definitely print a copy of the training handbook for my next meeting. I'll print it from their computers too, no point using my ink for it!

[Lapsed Workaholic]

The JSAg/CC that I recently negotiated is a different beast from the CC applicable under Universal Credit. The document that you have shown here appears to be the CC applicable to Universal Credit claimants.

 

Mr. P. has made the point on Rapid Reclaim You have not given any reasons as to why your Jobseeker's Allowance ended in December. There are rules that allow a new claim made within a certain period of the ending of an older one to be regarded as a continuation. Not sure if this might be applicable in your case.

 

Also, has it been explained to you what exactly you are claiming for, is it Universal Credit or Jobseeker's Allowance?

 

In addition to the pointers Jasta11 gave here's a bit more reading for you: (Trying to avoid JCP vindictiveness can become a full time job in itself)

 

For a discussion on JSAg/CC have a read through this link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431218-Claimant-Commitment

 

There's a discussion on the 35 hours per week nonsense at this link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?439500-35-Hours-of-Work-Search-Activity-Each-Week

[SabreSheep]

Last tiem i was unemployed it took two full meetings to agree the Claiment Commitment. We argued over UJM and other things.

They even tried to tell me it was policy to record all job search activity on ujm and that they had done away with all the paper forms. (Funny how person next to me was being given them)

 

At the end of the secodn meeting I too had a simple CC and the advisor also saw me refering to things such as the universal jobmatch toolkit

 

Never went back for meeting 3, signed off into full time work

[Piano Cube]

When I had the initial phone conversation to apply for a new claim for Universal Credit, they advised me to check my previous claim for JSA had been shut down. I called the number and it was confirmed to me that the JSA claim had indeed been shut down and that I could continue with a new claim for Universal Credit. Apologies if I didn’t address that point properly earlier. This is definitely UC, monthly payments with HB incorporated into it.

 

I totally agree about JCP vindictiveness becoming a full time job in itself, all we can do is arm ourselves with all the available information and take printed copies with us to meetings to quote back if the advisors start going off written guidelines.

 

Thankfully I was well versed in the UJM side of things so it’s made my life easier in that respect. I mentioned the fact the UJM has lost job action information and that I refuse to use it to record my actions, neither of the advisors had ever heard of that happening, funny that.

 

I’ve got a meeting later today to discuss the CC, so I’ll do some further reading, including the helpful links Lapsed Workaholic has provided.

 

Congrats SabreSheep, I look forward to the day I no longer have to deal with JCP.

[tommy456]

Wow I just had a read of the FOI request regarding i think their handbook? who dreams up these ideas? You can see where some of the work coaches get their idea of what the DWP require, as some of what is printed isn't actually law,the suggestion like "I will apply for 5 jobs " amongst other things that IMO are wrong to

I can see all this that is being brought in by this government is going to end in tears, within a few years if not sooner, you cannot treat human beings like this we are no longer in Victorian times

 

re the 35hrs http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/302/30209.htm#a31

 

Talk about conflicting info

[jasta11]

As I've said before, DWP staff who fail to apply and follow clear guidelines should be made examples of; they're public servants committing fraud - and 'fraud' is exactly what it is if they've conspired to deprive someone of their rightful income by lying, intimidation and falsifying evidence.

 

Mass prosecutions and sackings of offenders might make the rest take note and play fairly. I rarely hear of any DWP staff being dismissed as a result of their actions. When I worked for the DHSS back in the 70's it was impossible to be sacked for anything - and I worked with some really incompetent idiots Harshest action ever taken was to transfer them to another office. Nobody ever got sacked, no matter what they did.

 

Think of how much more dangerous such people are now, with this Government's hare-brained schemes and policies.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

As I've said before, DWP staff who fail to apply and follow clear guidelines should be made examples of; they're public servants committing fraud - and 'fraud' is exactly what it is if they've conspired to deprive someone of their rightful income by lying, intimidation and falsifying evidence.

 

Mass prosecutions and sackings of offenders might make the rest take note and play fairly. I rarely hear of any DWP staff being dismissed as a result of their actions. When I worked for the DHSS back in the 70's it was impossible to be sacked for anything - and I worked with some really incompetent idiots Harshest action ever taken was to transfer them to another office. Nobody ever got sacked, no matter what they did.

 

Think of how much more dangerous such people are now, with this Government's hare-brained schemes and policies.

 

You've hit the nail on the head there. This is exactly why I keep emphasising that at the first whiff of advisers deviating from the letter of the law the claimant should commence the complaints procedure and insist on appropriate redress.

[Littleredriding]

When I worked for the DHSS back in the 70's it was impossible to be sacked for anything - and I worked with some really incompetent idiots Harshest action ever taken was to transfer them to another office. Nobody ever got sacked, no matter what they did.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately that is untrue. Back in the 60's/70's you COULD be sacked if you were ever convicted of theft, breech of the Official Secrets Act or be convicted of High Treason.

Apart from those offences, it was a job for life. Many people that I worked with who were totally incompetent were in fact transferred and most were promoted!

As an example, one individual who was fine at Tax Officer HG grade, made a complete and utter mess after being promoted to Inspector level. He ended his career eventually as the District Inspector!!

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Unfortunately that is untrue. Back in the 60's/70's you COULD be sacked if you were ever convicted of theft, breech of the Official Secrets Act or be convicted of High Treason.

Apart from those offences, it was a job for life. Many people that I worked with who were totally incompetent were in fact transferred and most were promoted!

As an example, one individual who was fine at Tax Officer HG grade, made a complete and utter mess after being promoted to Inspector level. He ended his career eventually as the District Inspector!!

 

 

The context in which we discuss civil servants here is in the interaction between DWP staff and claimants. We all understand that and on that basis accept Jasta's comments.

 

We are not talking Profumo, Smiley, and the Fourth Man here.

 

Considering the picture you civil servants paint of each other, I am amazed that so many of you are still out there on the loose. Then again, it probably isn't that surprising. And to think that back in the 70's my taxes were paying for such idiots and gross incompetence. I can't recall being considered the underclass in them days. Maybe the term 'MUG' would have been more appropriate back then.

 

Anyway, now that we have some insight into your past 'form' I'm sure your views will be eagerly sought, invaluable and add immensely to our discussions.

[Littleredriding]

The context in which we discuss civil servants here is in the interaction between DWP staff and claimants. We all understand that and on that basis accept Jasta's comments.

 

We are not talking Profumo, Smiley, and the Fourth Man here.

 

Considering the picture you civil servants paint of each other, I am amazed that so many of you are still out there on the loose. Then again, it probably isn't that surprising. And to think that back in the 70's my taxes were paying for such idiots and gross incompetence. I can't recall being considered the underclass in them days. Maybe the term 'MUG' would have been more appropriate back then.

 

Anyway, now that we have some insight into your past 'form' I'm sure your views will be eagerly sought, invaluable and add immensely to our discussions.

 

 

Thank you, I was a good girl in my life as a civil servant. Maybe that is why I was never really noticed and never was promoted.

[jasta11]

Many people that I worked with who were totally incompetent were in fact transferred and most were promoted!!

 

Yes, that was the order of the day when I was there too. In fact, when I was at school my old maths teacher used to tell us 'If you don't stop messing about in class you're going to end up in the Ministry!' In my case she was dead right No cases of high treason in my office but I recall many cases of people coming back to work drunk after a lunchtime 'session' and being put at the back of the office to sort mail well away from the eyes of any passing HEO's.

 

A different world then; totally un-pc and all the better for it.

[Littleredriding]

Yes, that was the order of the day when I was there too. In fact, when I was at school my old maths teacher used to tell us 'If you don't stop messing about in class you're going to end up in the Ministry!' In my case she was dead right No cases of high treason in my office but I recall many cases of people coming back to work drunk after a lunchtime 'session' and being put at the back of the office to sort mail well away from the eyes of any passing HEO's.

 

A different world then; totally un-pc and all the better for it.

Now you are taking me back many years. Many times after a birthday bash in the pub at lunchtime the sickbay was full up with legless members of staff sleeping it off for the afternoon. I actually had to see members of the public one day due to staff shortages and really didn't know what time of day it was after having one too many Cherry B's!

Yes looking back it was a brilliant time if you were young and single!!!

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Now you are taking me back many years. Many times after a birthday bash in the pub at lunchtime the sickbay was full up with legless members of staff sleeping it off for the afternoon. I actually had to see members of the public one day due to staff shortages and really didn't know what time of day it was after having one too many Cherry B's!

Yes looking back it was a brilliant time if you were young and single!!!

 

 

It's all very cosy reminiscing about the 'good old days' as you lived them but do you not have the common sense to realise that your comments here and remarks generally are very offensive to the many followers on this site who come here seeking help and advice with issues that concern them and leaves them at the end of their tether and, in many cases, destitute.

 

The picture you paint of civil servants and ex-civil servants, who by the way are also members of the public, is a grim one indeed. I would go as far as to say that many of them, your ex-colleagues, if they knew who you were, would have grounds to sue you for libel. You have described them as incompetent idiots who were routinely placed in positions that they were unqualified and unsuited for, who got away with almost anything short of larceny and high treason. Add to that their habitual drunken sprees during break times in the middle of their working day necessitating the provision of 'sickbays' so they could 'sleep off' their excesses. I hear no call from you insisting that the state should make a concerted effort to recoup the cost to it of all this. I am surprised that the many ex-civil servants who ably contribute to this site are not more vocal in their rejection of the picture you paint.

 

As far as your own contribution whilst a civil servant is concerned, you should be ashamed of yourself. Admitting to being so drunk, whilst being paid to carry out your duties as a civil servant, as to not knowing what time of day it was, reflects, not only your ignorance and indifference, but your bold cheek and brass neck. What consideration have you given the effect that your failure to perform your duty may have had on those who were dependent on the service you were paid to provide. If you had a shred of decency you would repay the wages you did not earn but purloined under false pretences and, one could argue, by deception.

 

You say that you " actually had to see members of the public one day". What an imposition that must have been, asking you to do a part of the job you were employed for and paid to do. If you do not consider yourself as a member of the public perhaps you could enlighten us as to what superior grouping or class you consider yourself to be in.

 

Some of your comments in your posts would suggest that your husband is not being treated under the present welfare system as you would like. I feel as sorry for him as I do for everyone else who is facing hardship. But I sympathise with him most of all for the callous indifference to the poor, the disabled and the needy shown by his partner who should be fighting to support him and improve his condition rather than belittling and demeaning the groups in which he would appear to be included, thereby showing your contempt for him. No amount of knocking and seeking to punish and reduce the condition of others is going to be of any help to him.

 

It is obvious from your comments that in your dotage your attitude has not changed. In those days that you describe as brilliant I worked to defend the jobs and conditions of my class. We were looked upon as 'the enemy within' and 'not one of us'. Police were deployed to knock seven bells out of genuine workers fighting to defend their jobs and their communities. Had you been sober at the time you would have recognised the reality. If you could desist from taking whatever it is you are on now to maintain you in your stupor you would recognise the current reality, perhaps even atone for your past transgressions by helping and not hindering in the efforts to do something about it.

 

I believe Sabresheep's conclusion on another thread that you are in fact a troll isn't far off the mark. I don't think it would be too presumptuous of me to conclude either that Antone's remarks would suggest that she is beginning to get hacked off with your contributions, to put it mildly. You appear to be hijacking threads by genuine people with genuine concerns seeking genuine advice and hopefully genuine guidance. It is not helpful to them to be belittled and abused.

 

Time perhaps for administrators to give serious consideration to the negative effect of your contributions to this site and insist that you moderate them. Don't know who Andy is, or what he's done, but I would be inclined to go as far as to echo the call; "Give us Barabbas".

[jasta11]

You have described them as incompetent idiots.

 

It was actually me who described them thus in my post #12, if you check back, so you must be annoyed with me too?

 

I stand by my statement; it's hard for anyone who didn't work there at the time to appreciate just exactly what it was like in the Civil Service - it was absolutely a world unto itself in every way. None of it would be allowed these days and probably quite rightly too.

[Littleredriding]

It was actually me who described them thus in my post #12, if you check back, so you must be annoyed with me too?

 

I stand by my statement; it's hard for anyone who didn't work there at the time to appreciate just exactly what it was like in the Civil Service - it was absolutely a world unto itself in every way. None of it would be allowed these days and probably quite rightly too.

 

 

 

Seems that someone on here isn't too happy to hear about what the Civil Service was like in the 60'70's. looking at Workaholics' posts, they verge on the extreme where government policy is being discussed. I've met many of that ilk who cannot see beyond their own fixed opinion. Yes I agree with you, what we got up to in those days would certainly not be tolerated today - mind you it was good fun through!! Most Crown buildings had their own sick rooms for staff, most were occupied by those that had one too many. Canteen/restrooms - it certainly was a world away from what the public ever got to know about.

[sadone]

Littleredriding is a troll lads. We all discovered that last night, so no need to explain anything to this one.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

I did not take from your comments Jasta that you were personally involved in the abuse of your position. I took it that you were describing others that you were obliged to work with. My apologies if I got that wrong.

 

The wolf, on the other hand, not only braggs about being among the worst of them but appears to positively relish having been so whilst at the same time spitting bile at the most vulnerable members of the public.

 

My own opinion of civil servants, admittedly not very high, is based on my experience of those I have had dealings with. It was never as low, however, as both your descriptions of them would suggest it ought to be. I even accepted and allowed that advisers themselves were under extreme pressure to push the current government's punitive policies by fair means or foul and in some cases under protest. But what you'se two appear to be happy to have been involved in is a whole new ball game and scrapes new depths of depravity certainly unknown to me and I would suggest to most of those who the wolf condescendingly refers to as the public.

 

I would also suggest it's a tad hypocritical to now be so critical of current civil servants while at the same time admitting that in your day you were much worse and appear to have had no moral scruples at all.

 

I agree with your conclusion Sadone, best to ignore trolls and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

[Littleredriding]

I did not take from your comments Jasta that you were personally involved in the abuse of your position. I took it that you were describing others that you were obliged to work with. My apologies if I got that wrong.

 

The wolf, on the other hand, not only braggs about being among the worst of them but appears to positively relish having been so whilst at the same time spitting bile at the most vulnerable members of the public.

 

My own opinion of civil servants, admittedly not very high, is based on my experience of those I have had dealings with. It was never as low, however, as both your descriptions of them would suggest it ought to be. I even accepted and allowed that advisers themselves were under extreme pressure to push the current government's punitive policies by fair means or foul and in some cases under protest. But what you'se two appear to be happy to have been involved in is a whole new ball game and scrapes new depths of depravity certainly unknown to me and I would suggest to most of those who the wolf condescendingly refers to as the public.

 

I would also suggest it's a tad hypocritical to now be so critical of current civil servants while at the same time admitting that in your day you were much worse and appear to have had no moral scruples at all.

 

I agree with your conclusion Sadone, best to ignore trolls and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

 

 

Even as recent as 2006/2009, the shinanigans continued to some greater or lesser extent. The core hours of work were from 10am to 3.30pm, with lunch between 12 noon and 2.30pm. If you had built up your time with 'unpaid' overtime, you only needed to work from 10am - 12noon then 2 1/2 hours in the pub until 2.30pm, leaving to go home at 3pm!

On top of that 'breakfast' could be cooked and eaten up to 10.30am.

Of course Civil Servants have always worked hard but as you should expect in exchange for that they played hard as well. Given the poor pay levels, something had to take its place.

As an example: a fully qualified 25 year old solicitor would be in the salary range of £20 - £28K pa. In outside industry, in the city of London, the pay was anything up to £100K for doing the same exact job.

As for criticising current Civil Servants, In my day you tried your level best to get the right result/answer first time as quickly as possible and we didn't shy away from the public being able to ring us up on our direct telephone number. We were directly accountable for what we did to the public. In fact if there was any outstanding post older than 7 days you had to explain why it was to your line manager writing to the member of public explaining why there was a delay.