Petition to STOP benefit sanctions!

[Alfie29]

I ain't sure if i can post this here so plz delete if not allowed?

 

If allowed then brilliant because I KNOW that this affects alot of us (even me)! So please sign and let's hope this can stop this bully advisers from doing this! OR AT LEAST TRY TOO! :/

 

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/benefit-sanctions-must-be-stopped-without-exceptions-in-uk

 

Make ur vote count!

[caro]

Signed.

[sadone]

Signed.

[citizenB]

Well for sure it looks like you are going to raise the 30,000 signatures.

 

Signed.

[letsgetitsorted]

signed and shared on facebook

[DES_1001]

signed!

[citizenB]

It is on twitter as well, so perhaps people could retweet it

[stu007]

Signed

[Alfie29]

This ain't mine, It came up on my newsfeed on me Facebook account.

 

But I know sanctions have to stop or be at LEAST fair on people!

[SabreSheep]

I think a better way would be a petition to the sanctions system.

 

So basically when a doubt is raised, the claimant offered their side of the story and told the outcome. IF a sanction is to be applied the claimant should be forced to "Accept the sanction" OR "move to mandatory reconsideration"

And then after that to "accept the sanction" or move to "appeal"

 

No sanction should applied until the claimant accepts the sanction OR exhausts the appeals process IMO

 

This in itself would help target sanctions more effectively as DWP staff would KNOW they would be challenged if they did something wrong. It would also allow the claimant time to prepare for the sanction.

 

Sanctions are a nessasary tool. BUT they have been undermined by being used inappropriately and vindictively to such a degree that is has left the DWP with no creditability what so ever.

[tommy456]

IMO the only thing that can be done due to the actions of JCP staff is stop sanctions all together the likes of IDS & Mc vey cant be trusted as they are the drivers behind this sanction claimants at the first opportunity mentality,

So the JCP staff where given this power for them to abuse it,that's how i see it, sanctions therefore have to go

[**Margaret**]

Signed. I'll join any protest that may reduce the, in my opinion, persecution of vulnerable disabled claimants.

 

Local blue Member of Parliament came a calling yesterday. Wanted us to complete a survey about how well she'd done. When regaled with our tale of a particularly fraught week, courtesy of the Health Service and Maximus, a rather unhappy bunny made a hasty retreat.

 

Margaret.

 

 

[twoconcernedsisters]

 

No sanction should applied until the claimant accepts the sanction OR exhausts the appeals process IMO

 

 

 

 

I hope you don't mind a comment from me. I have been hearing and reading about this subject. What would happen if someone was sanctioned for say three years - the maximum I believe - and they played the appeal system all the way down the line. During that time you are suggesting that they carry on receiving their benefit income in full? At the end of all of that they lose and the sanction must be applied. Then say they get a job after the appeal system has run out and sign off. How would you think that the DWP would recover the benefits that had been paid from when the doubt arose?

[twoconcernedsisters]

IMO the only thing that can be done due to the actions of JCP staff is stop sanctions all together the likes of IDS & Mc vey cant be trusted as they are the drivers behind this sanction claimants at the first opportunity mentality,

So the JCP staff where given this power for them to abuse it,that's how i see it, sanctions therefore have to go

 

Sanctions have been a part of the Social Security system for as long as I remember and I'm going back 15 years! They are a necessary evil to deter those intent on not following the rules and directions to the letter.

Then that begs the question of how do you identify those that simply make a mistake as opposed to those that don't quite honestly give a damn about any rule or authority?

I see the latter every day. Those that are using a phone whilst driving, those that consume alcohol outside and within an alcohol free zone, those that allow their dog to foul an open space and then walk away leaving the mess behind.

[crow_raven]

Signed

[antone]

Then that begs the question of how do you identify those that simply make a mistake as opposed to those that don't quite honestly give a damn about any rule or authority?

I see the latter every day. Those that are using a phone whilst driving, those that consume alcohol outside and within an alcohol free zone, those that allow their dog to foul an open space and then walk away leaving the mess behind.

 

The sort of petty crime you describe is hardly the unique preserve of benefit claimants and is properly dealt with by the police.

 

While it might be reasonable to set a few, very basic, requirements for benefit claimants (fortnightly signing for jobseekers, for example) it is completely unnecessary for the government to attempt to micromanage the lives of said claimants. Removal of the present sanction regime would effectively render useless many of the pointless, expensive, ineffective and degrading attempts by the government to do so. It would force us to design and operate the system on the basis that many people need help for certain periods of their lives, rather than on the basis that someone, somewhere, might be getting away with something.

[antone]

I hope you don't mind a comment from me. I have been hearing and reading about this subject. What would happen if someone was sanctioned for say three years - the maximum I believe - and they played the appeal system all the way down the line. During that time you are suggesting that they carry on receiving their benefit income in full? At the end of all of that they lose and the sanction must be applied. Then say they get a job after the appeal system has run out and sign off. How would you think that the DWP would recover the benefits that had been paid from when the doubt arose?

 

They wouldn't. People getting jobs is the desired outcome of the system, and as such it would have functioned perfectly.

[SabreSheep]

I hope you don't mind a comment from me. I have been hearing and reading about this subject. What would happen if someone was sanctioned for say three years - the maximum I believe - and they played the appeal system all the way down the line. During that time you are suggesting that they carry on receiving their benefit income in full? At the end of all of that they lose and the sanction must be applied. Then say they get a job after the appeal system has run out and sign off. How would you think that the DWP would recover the benefits that had been paid from when the doubt arose?

 

Quite simply the answer is simple. If they sign off/get a job it is treated as any other dwp overpayment.

[sillygirl1]

I would sign but last time I signed a 38 degree petition I got bombarded with other petitions from them 'based on demographical info about me' - most of the petitions were of no interest whatsoever. Took about week to finally get rid of the continual assault from them on my inbox.

[tommy456]

I can recall signing on back in 2004/5 there was hardly any of the nonsense that there is now ,they have charged the system so people will fail their hoop jumping exercises and get a sanction , be it a 4 week (new min term sanction) or 2 yrs the new max , And lets not forget all those who have been sanctioned and are not getting JSA payments, are also not counted in the jobless figures, in just the same way as those who are placed in unpaid work schemes are not counted, This stinks too

[tfp]

Signed. Whilst there have always been some form of sanctioning, their usage has skyrocketed during the term of this government. The targets regime is also a major concern despite Smith and Mcvey denying the bleeding obvious.

 

 

A friend of mine told me he was sanctioned for a month recently. Why? Because he failed to apply to a particular vacancy. Fair enough some may say. However, he felt he could not apply due to the vacancy having the minimum of details. According to my friend, there was no accurate job description, no details of where the company was based, and no contact phone number. When enquiring further, not even the JCP staff were any the wiser about the vacancy! Thus if they were in my friends boots, they'd either have to apply to a dodgy vacancy or else face a sanction themselves!

[sadone]

Just a heads up that tonight on channel 4 at 8 pm there's a program about benefit sanctions.

[tommy456]

Signed. Whilst there have always been some form of sanctioning, their usage has skyrocketed during the term of this government. The targets regime is also a major concern despite Smith and Mcvey denying the bleeding obvious.

 

 

A friend of mine told me he was sanctioned for a month recently. Why? Because he failed to apply to a particular vacancy. Fair enough some may say. However, he felt he could not apply due to the vacancy having the minimum of details. According to my friend, there was no accurate job description, no details of where the company was based, and no contact phone number. When enquiring further, not even the JCP staff were any the wiser about the vacancy! Thus if they were in my friends boots, they'd either have to apply to a dodgy vacancy or else face a sanction themselves!

that's how they work asking the unreasonable and unrealistic from people

[SabreSheep]

I hope that person appealed

[tfp]

Don't know if he appealed SabreSheep. He did have a word with the JC manager about it but to no avail.

 

 

I was in this situation myself when signing on. I regularly saw badly descriptive vacancies on JC job points. One vacancy I can remember was for an SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) specialist. They wanted a £2,000 TRAINING FEE!!! Upon enquiring, the £2k had nothing to do with training. It was a FRANCHISE investment. This was not clear in the body of the text.

 

 

Not only is it unlikely a jobseeker will not have ready access to two grand, the vacancy was not only vague but wholly misleading. Things are worse still under UJM.