A reader of my blog has written to me with an update about a case that I referred to her for her expert help some time ago. The appeal against draconian sanctions that she helped our mutual contact to conduct was successful, with the judge ruling that the ‘conditionality’ imposed on a jobseeker was unreasonable – and that the benefit sanction (immediate stoppage) used to punish the supposed miscreant was therefore unlawful.
But the Tory-led government is so single-minded in its determination to penalise benefit claimants for failing to find jobs that don’t exist that it is knowingly ignoring the judicial ruling and the precedent it sets, in order to continue what can only rightly be called persecution of the disadvantaged and vulnerable.
Here’s what she wrote to me:
I am a keen follower of your blog and thought you may be interested in this story…
I have recently helped a Jobseeker (I’ll call him John) to win an appeal at the First Tier Tribunal after his benefit was stopped for allegedly failing to ‘actively seek’ work.
About me
I am a semi-retired business woman and I initially got involved in helping benefit claimants due to the significant and negative impacts of the new Welfare reforms on some of my family and friends. My deep concern led to offering my services as a volunteer at the CAB and now as a ‘Welfare Champion’ on a part-time basis. I do this work mainly on a private basis and receive referrals from various sources. I could not cope with lots of readers contacting me (I am easily traceable), so for this reason I will refer to myself as ‘Mary’.
About John
John has worked from the age of 15 and for over 24 years with a few short breaks, so no-one could ever describe him as a “skiver” or a “shirker”. However, due to the economic downturn he found himself unemployed for longer than expected and could no longer afford to run his car; regretfully he has had to turn down a number of job offers due to the lack of transport.
At the beginning of 2013 a new Jobseeker Agreement was imposed on John; it required him to take at least 14 steps to look for work – it previously stated 3 as per the current legislation. It also required him to seek work on-line 7 days per week and to register with the DWP Universal Jobmatch site, which incidentally is not mandatory, nor is it a condition for receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance despite what Jobcentre Advisers might tell claimants.
Jobcentre errors in law and procedure!
John took 10 strong steps, which included applying for 4-5 jobs to help him secure employment each week during the period in doubt, but the Jobcentre thought this was not good enough and his benefit was stopped for 4 weeks! From my experience unless a claimant fulfils every detail of their agreement the majority will be sanctioned. This is wrong, both legally as well as procedurally! In this particular case I uncovered numerous procedural, policy as well as legal mistakes.
The impact of Jobcentre mistakes!
John was completely stunned and bewildered by the sanction; the impact was immediate and significant. He had no money and was unable to source a food parcel or any assistance from Social Services, so he was completely destitute for 2 weeks.
The regulations do not allow access to an immediate hardship payment if you are not in a vulnerable group I.e., you are sick or, have dependent children. The hardship payment he received after 2 weeks was £43.02pw (his usual payment is £71.70pw) for the remainder of the sanction period. He was already struggling financially and feeling low due to being unemployed for over a year and Christmas was on the horizon. Those feelings darkened and he felt suicidal at times, due to his mistreatment by Jobcentre Plus. He could not pay his bills or afford to eat properly and he certainly could not afford to buy his children any Christmas gifts.
And, to this day he has still not recovered from the loss of his benefits (his arrears are pending). The sanction has not made him any more motivated than he was previously; it has just made him very angry and mistrustful of Jobcentre Staff, hence the reason he was keen to help others by sharing this story.
Sanctions are only used as a last resort!
The government keeps claiming sanctions are only applied as last resort and if a Jobseeker wilfully does not to keep to their side of the bargain (the Jobseeker’s Agreement). This certainly is not true in John’s case, so what is the real reason for the sanction….performance expectations (targets to you or I), reducing the unemployment count, saving money or all 3?
Jobseekers are being set up to fail by Jobcentre Plus!
An ex DWP employee has confirmed:
“But the truth is that benefit claimants are being deliberately set up to fail in order to achieve sanction quotas without regard for natural justice or their welfare. Staff are being asked to behave in a manner that is against the department’s values of integrity and honesty.”
Suspected criminals are treated more fairly in this country than the sick and the unemployed; they are innocent until found guilty, receive swift and free legal assistance, a bed, food, water and a roof over their heads.
A speeding ticket is £60 to people who can generally afford to run a car and the offender is given time to challenge the penalty before it is imposed.
What does the law – the Jobseeker’ Act actually say….
The duty to actively seek work is not to be found in the job seekers agreement but in S7 of the jobseeker’s Act. S7(1), which provides:
“a person is actively seeking work if he takes in that week such steps as he could reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.”
More detail is set out in regulation 18 of the Regulations. Regulation 18(1) provides that:
“… a person shall be expected to have to take more than two steps in any week unless taking one or two steps is all that is reasonable for that person to do in that week.”
Mr Commissioner Williams held at para 10 & 14 of CJSA/1814/2007 (case law)
“That is illustrated by this appeal. C was required by his Agreement to take 6 steps each week and several other steps from time to time. That is clearly more steps than the regulation requires of him to meet the test of “actively seeking work”. And it is more steps than the Agreement asked him to record. On the facts, the secretary of state’s representative now accepts that C took four steps in the week and that those four steps met the test in section 7(1).”
“Further, there is nothing in the Act or the Regulations requiring that a claimant must comply with everything in the Agreement. The reverse is the case. Theagreement must comply with the law. To be valid, a jobseeker’s agreement must comply “with the prescribed regulations in force”: section 9(1) of the Act. The pattern of the legislation is that a jobseeker’s agreement must comply with the test of actively seeking work in sections 1(2)(c) and 7 of the Act and regulation 18 of the Regulations and not the other way round.”
The Outcome of this case – Success!
Using this piece of case law the appeal was allowed, because the judge determined John (the appellant) was actively seeking work as per section 7 of the Jobseeker’ Act 1995 and he took significantly more than 2 steps to in order to have the best prospects of seeking work (Reg. 18 JSA Regs 1996)!
What does this outcome mean?
This result confirms that Jobseeker Allowance claimants are unwittingly agreeing to unreasonable, thus unlawful Jobseeker Agreements (soon to become JSA Claimant Commitments) and, as a result 1000s are being sanctioned unfairly.
However, this achievement is a hollow victory for the thousands of Jobseekers expected to comply with their Jobseeker’s Agreements.
This Tribunal ruling does not set a precedent for DWP to follow. As far as DWP are concerned “it will be business as usual”. DWP’s position will remain that if an individual claimant wishes to challenge their Jobseekers Agreements on the basis of this Tribunal ruling they will have to jump through all the various hoops. Most will decide it is not worth their while and I know from my own experiences how difficult it can be. Further, the claimant must have the capacity to do so (many claimants are vulnerable) and they must also know that their Jobseekers Agreement is unlawful. The majority will not and as for the handful of claimants that do, DWP will cope with these people.
What we appear to be dealing with here is, maladministration by the DWP on a grand scale affecting 1000s of individuals.
What can people do?
I would strongly urge those who have been affected to get in touch with their MP to raise this important issue.
And, you must appeal.
Read the recent news reports about unfair sanctions….
“70,000 job seekers’ benefits withdrawn unfairly, says think-tank”
I believe it is significantly higher.
And:
Rising rates of successful appeals have been seen as a sign that the system for penalising those deemed to have broken job-seeker agreements is flawed.
Regards
Mary
This is absolutely vital information. Any jobseeker who can demonstrate that s/he has taken more than 2 ‘reasonable steps’ a week (or fewer if it is not reasonable to expect them to do that many) to find work has complied with the law. A jobseeker’s ‘agreement’ or JSA ‘claimant commitment’ is a fluid plan and is supposed to guide a claimant into work. If it imposes excessive and unreasonable steps for a claimant’s particular circumstances, it is unenforceable, as John’s case clearly demonstrates. According to the law, ‘excessive’ means more than 3 and any sanctions imposed for not meeting additional conditions is not legally valid. Any claimant sanctioned for failing to meet such an illegal requirement has a right to have it overturned on appeal.
And the scale of this is enormous.
‘Mary’ is right that the numbers stated for people sanctioned are vastly understated in the sources she quotes. 818,000 people had been sanctioned by late Feb 2014, just since the end of 2012.
But the DWP doesn’t care. It relies on the fact that only about 2% of people sanctioned formally appeal to get away with breaking the law 98% of the time – and on ignorance to keep it that way.
This government will never be shamed into changing its treatment of unemployed, disabled and otherwise disadvantaged people – it thinks it has found a formula to make its actions popular: the demonising of the vulnerable.
If it won’t be shamed, it must be removed – and that means relentlessly spreading the word on this and its many other misdeeds so that the election in 2015 becomes unwinnable for these shameless criminals. Please help to do so – publicise this, write to your MP and write to the press until they pay attention.
And if you’ve been sanctioned for failing to comply with an unlawful sanction – appeal, appeal, appeal and seek publicity for your appeal until the scale of the illegality can’t be ignored.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
You are right this abuse is widespread in all welfare reform indeed my own case proves it and is willful psychological abuse which is an offense in law http://diaryofansahstrokesurvivor.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/a-clear-case-of-disability-benefit-denial/
Reblogged this on Diary of an SAH Stroke Survivor.
Reblogged this on Vox Political and commented:
“Any jobseeker who can demonstrate that s/he has taken 3 steps a week to find work has complied with the law. Any jobseeker’s ‘agreement’ that imposes more than three steps is illegal and legally unenforceable. Any claimant sanctioned for failing to meet such an illegal requirement has a right to have it overturned on appeal.”
So now you know. This is vital information for anyone at risk from the Coalition’s vicious and vindictive sanction machine. Please make sure it gets to as many people as possible.
My understanding of the system is that the case that first tier tribunals don’t set a precedent; however, upper tier tribunals do – but having won at 1st tier, the only way to get the case to the UT tribunal would be for the DWP to appeal it. Which, given how comprehensively they’ve been based at 1st tier, they’re extremely unlikely to do.
The best we can do, probably, is to publicise this case, in as much detail as possible, so that as many people as possible can launch their own appeals against unjust sanctions. The good news is that for the first tier to have found as it did, the DWP were *unambiguously* breaking the law; cases only go to the UT when there’s a point of law to settle.
Trouble is, though, that when you have no money for anything at all, figuring out how to appeal takes something of a back seat to the small matter of finding someone who will give you some food. We really need to start organising, so that we can provide a one-stop source for both decent hot meals and legal assistance. Call them “sue kitchens”?
um.
…is that IT IS the case…
…they’ve been basHed at 1st tier…
*swears to learn to proofread someday*
Reblogged this on Benefit tales.
Claimants who have been unjustly or egregiously sanctioned by JobCentre Plus are urged to read http://mydisabilitystudiesblackboard.blogspot.ca/2014/03/how-to-challenge-your-benefit-sanction.html, and should consider filing a complaint with the UN’s human rights office:
Ms.Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland.
E-Mail: srextremepoverty@ohchr.org
See: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/MSepulveda.aspx
and http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rp0uui
Please be aware that the OHCHR cannot base their findings and recommendations solely on media reports. It is recommended that claimants submit personal evidence to OHCHR human rights officials.
Samuel Miller
Montreal, Canada
Thanks for posting this. I am a support worker for a man who has a brain injury which disables him. He was taken off esa and found fit for work although his gp and neurologist say otherwise and had to be on jsa. He is now on an open ended sanction since the end of January because dwp is investigating whether he is self employed because he told the job centre that he had to sell personal possessions on ebay to buy food when they asked him to justify how he was doing. This case will give me ammunition to fight on appeal.
Brilliant expose Steve, as always!
Reblogged this on uppitymonkey and commented:
Had to reblog this. The case and its consequences should be known by more people.
Reblogged this on jaynelinney and commented:
ESSENTIAL reading for all JSA/ESA-WRAG claimants – “Any jobseeker who can demonstrate that s/he has taken 3 steps a week to find work has complied with the law.” Share this widely for all our sakes
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog.
I think it’s been updated in the new regulations – cos I can’t find anything that quotes number of jobs someone must apply for..
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531921/contents
and before appeal – ask for a reconsideration..
There is no number of jobs you have to apply for, until you allow JCP staff to tell you what it is. That’s the point of the message.
The JSA Regulations 2013 only apply in Universal Credit Pathfinder Areas all other areas come under JSA REgs 1996 DWP should review all JSA agreements and ensure all JCP managers and staff work within the regulations. Anyone sanctioned for not actively seeking should seek a review in the light of this appeal decision.
Couldn’t agree more than with Just Passing’s comments. It’s imperative that people are able to appeal with as few complications and extra stress as possible. I’m no legal expert but perhaps some sort of template stating “I appeal this decision to sanction on the following grounds…. etc”, followed by the relevant arguments? This along with guidance on any form filling side of things?
Reblogged this on Christopher John Ball and commented:
Please share this information as widely as you can. By doing so you can help advise others as to the unlawful actions of DWP staff and help protect their victims. And the Liberal Democrats think they are building a fairer society!
“Any jobseeker who can demonstrate that s/he has taken 3 steps a week to find work has complied with the law. Any jobseeker’s ‘agreement’ that imposes more than three steps is illegal and legally unenforceable. Any claimant sanctioned for failing to meet such an illegal requirement has a right to have it overturned on appeal.”
The ideal place to give out this information (including a template letter) would be food banks. Maybe the Trussell Trust should get involved -unless it would damage their ‘business’ to do so, of course…
Although I do not have a Jobseekers agreement any more,rather a Claimant Commitment,when I was processed(?) to sign this commitment I asked what it entailed “It is a contract between the DWP and you,in which you agree to perform certain tasks in order to continue receiving JSA” these were outlined in detail,I then asked what could I expect from the DWP “You get JSA” I am required to use the internet 5 days a week “That is correct” Will you provide an IAD? “Here are a list Charities/Job Clubs/Libraries that are available ” I noticed that all but 1 were over 7 miles away,all had a 2 hour max time limit and were only open 1-2 days per week,will you provide a bus ticket “No,that is what your JSA is for” Is there any other support available? “We have a dedicated team of advisers,if you need additional help” What help is available? “You need to talk to an adviser” Booked an appointment(3 Week wait) “How can I help you?” What if any help is available PWSP? “What help would you like?” Training? “No” Work Placement? “No” Educational? “No” What help is available? “You need to book an appointment with an adviser and discuss what help is available” Repeat again and again. I listen to all the rhetoric from IDS and his ilk,lots of sound bites about the feckless,but I think the question that is unanswered is “You have spent Billions,but on what? Not Training or Tailored support,rather on Companies that have not delivered,much the same as all the internal DWP programmes that are/have/will fail and who is to blame? Obviously the Unemployed!
I was sanctioned for not joining their site despite being homeless at the time and having no internet access.
Hi Abby, if you’d like to send me more information, I’d be interested in writing about your case. You might also be eligible to get the sanctioned money paid if you appeal. Write to me at skwalker1964@gmail.com if you’re interested.
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
In October – December in Swindon, the DWP were insisting on 14 steps (not including actually applying for jobs…) in *specific* categories (so you couldn’t write six targetted emails and make no ‘on-spec’ phone-calls – you had to send a specific number of “letters” and make phone-calls to companies as well as applying for advertised positions). That applied even if you had a job lined up but it was due to start in two weeks – I know a claimant who was told to attend interview and tell potential employers that they could only do the job for two weeks! Talk about wasting everyone’s time.
If someone can produce evidence of starting a job, wouldn’t commonsense suggest that their money should be signed off for the 2-3 weeks that they are waiting to start? That would be cheaper for everyone.
Reblogged this on kickingthecat.
Reblogged this on patricktsudlow and commented:
This Conservative Government continues its attack against those in an unfortunate position, even though the courts find they they are acting illegally. Another problem is, where is the condemnation of these practices by the opposition Labour Party.
“Any jobseeker who can demonstrate that s/he has taken 3 steps a week to find work has complied with the law. Any jobseeker’s ‘agreement’ that imposes more than three steps is illegal and legally unenforceable. Any claimant sanctioned for failing to meet such an illegal requirement has a right to have it overturned on appeal.”
Hi guys/gals. I’ve currently got an appeal pending for disallowance with the tribunals people. I’m also facing 3 seperate sanctions at the moment for varying reasons. Firstly for supposed not actively seeking employment.
I took a copy of the law with me..specfiically regulation 18 of the jobseekers regualtions 1996. And when the chap said i am sanctioning you because i don’t believe your actively seeking work, i said o.k but i’d like you to read this first. He refused outright to read the law, when i said do you know the law on this matter?, he stated “i do not need to know the law”, i asked him if he believed he was above the law then? He refused to comment. I proceeded to start to read out the law to the chap, to which he called over security.
This is what we are dealing with now.
There are 3 sanctions on my claim. One of which i am permanently suspended apparently from claiming benefits for.
This is for my refusal to sign a JSAG (i already have one in place, and refused to sign up to universal jobmtach for various reasons)
I also have a sanction for the above allegedly not Actively seeking employment when i tried to show the guy the law on the matter.
I showed him or tried to show him a copy of the law specifically jobseekers regualtions 1996 reg 18 1) and 2) i showed him a link to the government dwp website that the law is hosted on…
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a11-4001.pdf (pg 44 onwards)
and i showed him my jobsearch which explicitly matches and exceeds the number of jobs that i am desired by law to apply for.
His answer to this, was as aforemntioned to call security over.
I’m gonna try and attend the tribunals appeal in person, because hopefully i can raise the points about the latest sanctions at the same time, and get a ruling on them.
I’ve had no money for a number of weeks now, owe multiple people money, and have been on a starvation diet.
I raised the points about judicvial procedure on my sppeal, about how you are basically found guilty, penalised, and then face a “trial” of sorts, after this, and how it is a fundamentla breach of article 6 of the ECHR – a right to a fair trial.
My argument is that when something that has such a critical effect on someone who has very little is taken away this amounts to such a severe punishment, that to have counter-justice such as sanctions which you then have to appeal against is compeltely opposite to the way natural justice works.
This is but one point i have raised, for i have raised many lol.
This is not just, fair or in my opinion lawful.
My other arguments were that i have heard the terminlogy “reasonable steps” and “best-chance” bandied about at will, and it seems these completely ambiguous terms are being used to sanction people en masse. However in jobseekers regulations 1996 reg 18) 1) & 2) it very clearly defines that three steps per week are required and goes on to define the various steps which are deemed to be suitable/acceptable.
Where there is a clear defintion in law and not an ambiguous one such as “reasonable steps” i suggest that the cl;ear defintion takes priority.
An argument to this end could be.
You are driving a car.
You are doing 61mph in a 60 mph zone.
You are doing nothing wrong until you pass the logical number 60 at which point you are then breaking the law.
The same principle applies with benefits.
You are applying for work. You are not handicapped or have any disabilities (which is why they said that it is 3 steps, less if the circustances afford it (i.e for merciful reasons).
You apply for 3 jobs per week. You have fulfilled what is desired of you caccording to the law.
None of this well reasonable could be this, or it could be that.
Interpretation of dubious/ambiguous terminlogy, in a malignant poltiical cost-cutting exercise is wehat we are encountering here. And we need to get this message out to as many as possible as you mention on your blog.
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
From a DWP Statement of Reasons: “In order the have the best chances of getting employment a person is expected to have taken more than 2 steps in any one week unless the decision maker decides that taking one or two steps in that week is reasonable. There is no “magic number” of steps that would insulate a person from an argument that they are not ASE. The overriding test is whether the person, in the week in question, took such steps as could be reasonably expected to be taken in order to have the best chances of securing employment. A person can be held to have failed that test even if they took three steps in any given week.”
A statement which apparently has no basis in law.
11 More detail is set out in regulation 18 of the Regulations. Regulation 18(1) provides:
“… a person shall be expected to have to take more than two steps in any week unless taking one or two steps is all that is reasonable for that person to do in that week.”
In the perfect world advisers should consider the labour market as well as all the claimants circumstances and abilities. Therefore, it is possible some claimants may fail the test if, for example, in the very rare eventuality there were 100 suitable jobs available and the claimant only applies for 3 of them. However, this is only providing they had reasonable access to all these opportunities as well as the time and resources to apply for more than 3 of the vacancies.
If a claimant takes 3 steps that gives them no prospect of finding work, then the ASE test would not be satisfied.
Jobcentre plus must establish that you have not taken sufficient reasonable steps (the benchmark being 3 for most people) to improve your job prospects! However, this can be very difficult for them to do.
WARNING: For this reason, giving advisers access to your Universal Jobmatch account is not a good idea.
Without the evidence what happens is, many advisers without any consideration of the law (see Dan’s comments here) or what the claimant has actually done to look for work will determine that your agreement states X steps and because you have failed to take all of them (many include 10-70 per week) will apply a suspension of you benefits. The DM then supports the Adviser’s decision and the Jobseeker Agreement without applying the law, as in John’s case.
The judge decided in his case he had in fact taken more than 2 steps in order to have the best prospects of seeking work (Reg 18 JSA Regs 1996).
If you read the full the case law it will hopefully make more sense to you and other readers:
http://ebookbrowsee.net/cjsa-1814-2007-00-doc-d60343460
I have no doubts, the government will be beavering away as I write this to change the regulations to increase the number of reasonable steps Jobseekers must take.
From a DWP “Statement of Reasons”: “You agreed on xx/xx/xxxx steps you would take to improve your chances of getting a job on your Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg). You agreed that you would take a minimum of 50 steps each week to look for work. Those steps included:”
My son was made redundant after 13 years with the same company after leaving uni, he has a wife and 3 children .He was told he had to apply for 10 jobs a week which he did but was very stressful to achieve , on one of his days he had to go into the job centre he was ill he informed them and they said he had to get a sick note from his g.p.he did this after 2 days he continued to register on line with the dwp and look for work even though he was still unwell.He then received a former to fill in about his sickness it asked him how long he had actually been ill so he put 2 weeks even though he only took 2 days off.Because of this they stopped his and his families benefits for 3 months saying he is not allowed to be ill for more than 10 days .He went into the dwp very distressed to explain that he was only off sick for 2 days and they could see the evidence of this which they accepted but told him there was nothing he could do as the sanction was in place .After numerous phone calls he was told he had to reapply for his benefits as they had been permanently stopped , it took 2 weeks for him to get any benefit and he did not get back the benefit he had lost he had to apply to the food bank which was a god send .I helped as much as I could I had only recently lost my dear husband and my son’s dad so not a good time for anyone .My son is now working again he found the job himself I feel he was treated like vermin by the dwp he said he felt like they just didn’t care .
It’s an obscene way to treat human beings.
It is. Your right.
No dignity or respect. And completely 100% untrusting.
No one has mentioned the 35 hours per week jobsearch requirement.
If you only need to take three steps per week, will that activity take 35 hours to complete?
How are you going to explain that it took 35 hours to take three steps – unless you take very big steps!!!
Of course, the 35 hours rule is detached from the real world – just like the most of the coalitions antics.
The 35 hours per week job search and preparation only applies to people who claim Universal Credit. There are only circa 3500 at present.
There is no such requirement in the JSA regulations.
However, many elements have sneaked into Jobseeker Agreements!
Hi guys/gals. I’ve currently got an appeal pending for disallowance with the tribunals people. I’m also facing 3 seperate sanctions at the moment for varying reasons. Firstly for supposed not actively seeking employment.
I took a copy of the law with me..specfiically regulation 18 of the jobseekers regualtions 1996. And when the chap said i am sanctioning you because i don’t believe your actively seeking work, i said o.k but i’d like you to read this first. He refused outright to read the law, when i said do you know the law on this matter?, he stated “i do not need to know the law”, i asked him if he believed he was above the law then? He refused to comment. I proceeded to start to read out the law to the chap, to which he called over security.
This is what we are dealing with now.
There are 3 sanctions on my claim. One of which i am permanently suspended apparently from claiming benefits for.
This is for my refusal to sign a JSAG (i already have one in place, and refused to sign up to universal jobmtach for various reasons)
I also have a sanction for the above allegedly not Actively seeking employment when i tried to show the guy the law on the matter.
I showed him or tried to show him a copy of the law specifically jobseekers regualtions 1996 reg 18 1) and 2) i showed him a link to the government dwp website that the law is hosted on…
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a11-4001.pdf (pg 44 onwards)
and i showed him my jobsearch which explicitly matches and exceeds the number of jobs that i am desired by law to apply for.
His answer to this, was as aforemntioned to call security over.
I’m gonna try and attend the tribunals appeal in person, because hopefully i can raise the points about the latest sanctions at the same time, and get a ruling on them.
I’ve had no money for a number of weeks now, owe multiple people money, and have been on a starvation diet.
I raised the points about judicvial procedure on my sppeal, about how you are basically found guilty, penalised, and then face a “trial” of sorts, after this, and how it is a fundamentla breach of article 6 of the ECHR – a right to a fair trial.
My argument is that when something that has such a critical effect on someone who has very little is taken away this amounts to such a severe punishment, that to have counter-justice such as sanctions which you then have to appeal against is compeltely opposite to the way natural justice works.
This is but one point i have raised, for i have raised many lol.
This is not just, fair or in my opinion lawful.
Perhaps ‘Mary’ can help you? I’m sure she’ll read this and help if she can.
Wow! Some inspiring information, maby it can help me to get UJ taken of my Js agreement.
Mary gives good advice.
Dan, have you thought about an urgent Judicial Review, it would take the matter out of the Tribunal, because it is a point of law the JCP “Adviser” was not following, it is obvious this particular JCP would do the same to others, I would also look at using Sections 6 1(a) and Section 7 1(a) of the Human Rights act, include that in the judicial Review, as your deprived of any financial assistance those acts are suitable besides with a JR you can seek urgent action, I have posted below an incident I had with an Appeal I was assisting my Client with, The DWP will drag their feet with a Teibunal Appeal, however with a JR they cannot do that
Thanks Jerry
I have recently made enquiries regarding a judicial review.
Hi Jerry,
No to be fair, i have not thought nor did realise about a judicial review, perhaps though it is an avenue that might be worth taking a proverbial wander down 😉
As you can probably imagine haviong at least 3 seperate sanctions against you, and trying to repeal them singlehandedly, gets rather a)confusing and b) time consuming.
All the while trying to search for jobs, and to exist, (i.e mild starvation e.t.c) its actually a fairly great challenge, truth be told 😉
I’m sure there are others who it gets too much for, this really annoys me. And is an extreme injustice, that needs addressing urgently. Imho.
Hello Dan
I am so sorry to read about your plight.
I am happy for Steve to pass on my email address to you.
It’s o.k Mary, i can hack it, i’m a tough cookie. 😉 thankyou for your kind words though.
What worries me is people who might not fight this/these injustices for whatever reasons, whether they just find it too much, whether they are disabled, whether the paperwork confused them.
I would say, without being big-headed i’m a reasonably intelligent person, and even i, find the enormous amount of paper-work that comes associated with trying to fight a cause such as this, completely confusing and time-consuming.
Confusing because there are such a large percentage of mistakes/contradicting statements on behalf of the DWP. They are far from straight forward, and usually include various conflicting logic/statements, wrong dates e.t.c e.t.c. Whether this is intentional or not is questionable.
However so as not to get lost or inundated. I have made it a habit to detail virtually every encounter with the DWP (a log of about 50 seperate entries) on facebook, and then compiled this information into a “case-file” of sorts.
From the offset i have treated most encounters as legal-ones, therefore documented what happened e.t.c.
I have been given wrong/false information by the local jobcentre plus employees on a number of occasions. (Wrong forms e.t.c that sort of thing).
I have proof of departmental corruption from earlier sanctions, which i appealed and had overturned. I have tried to make this more widely known, and approached a media outlet, with no response, as of yet. (ommitance of steps taken to look for employment on the “ASE” form they use internally, in order to present a more “sanctionable” claim) I have hard-proof of this, whether intentional or not. (I have mentioned this on my tribunal appeal also, i.e i said i had proof of corruption which is available upon request, but not directly linked to the current claim, insomuch that it was a previous sanction.
I have also had JCP staff, omitt evidence ASE forms. I had 2 meetings with an adviser and they only gave evidence for second meeting.
Yes, me too, that ASE “stencil” the jobcentre fills in is a complete stitch up.
The whole benefit ‘reform’ (a codeword for ‘rape’) started a few years ago and continued to get worse later, and still the monster grows…
Thanks for the pointer!
FAO Mary
If there is no requirement for jobseekers on JSA to seek work for 35 hours a week, why is it that those same jobseekers on JSA were suddenly told to seek work for 20 hours a week from Janauary 2013? Is that change actually LEGAL?
Also, will people on Universal Credit still only have to do 2 or 3 jobseeking steps a week – even if they have to spend a ludicrous 35 hours doing so?
The JSA regulations require that a least 3 steps are taken per week for most people to meet the test of actively seeking work. There is absolutely no reference to time in the JSA regulations.
From 2012, many elements of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Universal Credit) have crept into Jobseeker Agreements! Hence the reason for the increase in job search steps, registration with Universal Jobmatch, 7 day a week job seeking and hours spent looking and preparing for work being introduced to Jobseeker Agreements.
To answer your question, none of these requirements are applicable to those people claiming JSA in a Job Centre that has not migrated to Universal Credit.
I was given a 35 hour a week activity log at my last sign on, and told it was a “new form” to be used in place of the old. I didn’t question it, when perhaps I should have at the time. I have now been desperately trying to fill the time, as it doesn’t take all day to search for new jobs nor apply for no new jobs advertised. My jcp isn’t part of the Universal Credit pilot scheme as far as I know, and my jobseeker’s agreement includes no minimum hours requirement. I was simply told this is a “new form”. Advice?
Readers may find this interesting, apologies for the length of the comment, many would be able to agree with the problems I faced while assisting a Client.
The Appeals Process against the Sanctioning and Removal of State Benefits
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble petition of Jerry Lonsdale, a Lay Advocate/McKenzie Friend residing in Merseyside, England,
Declares that, the Petitioner’s client, Miss D residing in Merseyside, England, who was a Litigant in Person, found herself in severe hardship for a period of over two years following significant delays in the determination of her appeal(s) against sanctions placed upon her by the Department of Work and Pensions, thus, accumulating in the none receipt of state benefits for these said periods:-
1. 20/04/2012 – 03/05/2012
2. 27/04/2012 – 25/10/2012
3. 11/05/2012 – 08/11/2012
The Petitioner assisted Miss D throughout the whole of the appeals process, over two years, which reached its conclusion on the 6th day of March 2014, the concluding decision was the Appeal was allowed and the sanctions were wrongly applied.
The Petitioner asserts that those hardships faced by his client as well as the lack of Legal Aid assistance further compounded the difficulties in the way in which his client was able to pursue her such appeal to its conclusion.
The Petitioner recognises that there is no legal aid support for those people who wish to argue against a sanction or sanctions made against them, through the Tribunal Process, The Petitioner believes that it is difficult for someone to believe the equality of arms when a Litigant in Person is challenging the appealed decisions, alone, whereas in matters contained within this petition are opposed or challenged by the respective departments, notably the Department for Work and Pensions, those oppositions are progressed through the process by the use of Tax Payer funded Counsel or Representing Officers.
The Petitioner raises that, in this specific appeal, the Department for Work and Pensions failed on all occasions to attend any preliminary, or directional hearings, nor was there any Representing Officer present during the final hearing of the said appeal, despite the requests made by Her Gracious Majesties Courts and Tribunals Service, on six separate occasions, over a 2 year period, the respective department failed to communicate or respond to those requests made by HMCTS, and, failed to attend on all six reported occasions.
The Petitioner raises that, during a directional hearing on the 25th May 2013, the Tribunal Judge, Mr Cooke, requested that, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Rt. Honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP do attend at the next timetabled hearing in order to explain the notable failings of his department, again the Petitioner notes that his attendance did not happen, however, the respective Department simply applied to the Tribunal for a stay of proceedings.
The Petitioner asserts that from the 25th May 2013 until the conclusion of the appeal on the 6th March 2014 the Department for Work and Pensions applied on four separate occasions for a stay of proceedings, those stays were granted because of the Department’s exclusive powers contained within Section 26 of the Social Security Act 1998 to stay, any and all appeals within that calendar years legislation, pending the outcome of a test case, the Petitioner asserts that, that was an abuse of power due to the Petitioner’s Clients Appeal which fell outside the parameters of the test case and was made significantly prior to that of the test case being made, and, that the test case was challenging the consequential years legislation, that year being 2012 and not 2011 as in the Petitioners Clients Appeal.
The Petitioner had applied for the Tribunal Court not to accept the application made for the stays applied for by the Department of Work and Pensions, however, until the start of this year, the Petitioners applications were not responded upon.
The Petitioner wholeheartedly asserts that, due to the significant delays in reaching the conclusion of his Client’s Appeal, Miss D suffered undue and severe hardship and was prevented from concluding her appeal matters in a time frame that reduced those hardships faced. The detrimental effect further compounded Miss D’s place in society in that she was on many occasions destitute and in significant risk of losing her home due to the sanctions placed upon her by the Department of Work and Pensions.
The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons Justice Committee investigates the procedures that are used within the English and Welsh Tribunal Courts, and that the House of Commons Justice Committee calls for the provision of independent legal assistance for those people who wish to appeal against Department of Work and Pensions Sanctions, The Petitioner also requests that the same committee urgently review the benefit appeal process in the view that delays and not attendance by Representing Officers does not further delay any of the appeal process similar to those aforementioned above.
The Petitioner further requests that the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee investigates procedures and formulates fresh legislation for when people who are faced with applied Sanctions, do not face compounded and further hardships until the outcome of any applied appeals are concluded, in that, the person appealing should still be entitled to receive State assistance through a state benefit, including any required Housing Benefit.
The Petitioner finally requests that the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee make available a direct compensation scheme open to those people who through no fault of their own are faced with those difficulties outlined within this petition, specifically, those people significantly affected by the noted failing state benefit appeal processes, most notably, when an appeal is found in favour of the appellant, costs incurred by the appellant should be recoverable and compensation should be duly made available to the appellant.
Signed on this Day, the 7th of March in the year 2014
Mr Jerry Lonsdale, the Petitioner.
In Regards to the above comment it could be beneficial for those of you in the midst of appeals and other to use these specific Human Rights Law.
6 Acts of public authorities.
(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if—
(a)as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or
(b)in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.
(3)In this section “public authority” includes—
(a)a court or tribunal, and
(b)any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.
(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5)In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the nature of the act is private.
(6)“An act” includes a failure to act but does not include a failure to—
(a)introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or
(b)make any primary legislation or remedial order.
7 Proceedings.
(1)A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(a)bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b)rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.
(2)In subsection (1)(a) “appropriate court or tribunal” means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules; and proceedings against an authority include a counter claim or similar proceeding.
(3)If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant is to be taken to have a sufficient interest in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act.
(4)If the proceedings are made by way of a petition for judicial review in Scotland, the applicant shall be taken to have title and interest to sue in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act.
(5)Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of—
(a)the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or
(b)such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.
(6)In subsection (1)(b) “legal proceedings” includes—
(a)proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority; and
(b)an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal.
(7)For the purposes of this section, a person is a victim of an unlawful act only if he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of that act.
(8)Nothing in this Act creates a criminal offence.
Hi there Jerry,
Interesting points you raise there, and specifically the amount of time taken to resolve your clients woes is terrible! That being said i am currently fighting multiple sanctions dating from november (not quite as bad as your client, but nonetheless, its put me in a harsh situation, that is not of my own making (i.e i abided by the steps desired of me according to the law)).
Anyways Apparently there is a backlog of 5-9 weeks before an independent tribunal can hear my case.
People who are solely reliant upon jobseekers allowance as their only means to exist are being punished extremely harshly, essentially “pre-trial” by the sanctions that are placed upon them (myself included). This entire sanctioning system is the wrong way round.
For the time being they have permanently sanctioned my claim (i am not even eligle to claim hardship payments apparently) for refusing to sign a jobseekers agreement, mandating me to create a universal jobmatch account.
I refused, with the reasoning that UJM is a service provided by monster an american corporation, which has recently been proven to be compromised by the NSA (American government) and that by complying with this direction, i would essentially be rendering personal information to the american government.
Being a U.K citizen, i feel this would be traitorous of me to comply with, and feel that i should not have to render my personal information to a foreign nation state, in order to receive a social security payment.
I believe this is a deliberate attempt by a foreign nation state to acquire intelligence on the citizens of a foreign entity. And have refused to create a universal jobmtach account for this reasoning.
I have said that i am willing to use the universal jobmatch service “anonymously” and that i do not believe this hinders me in any way from my ability to perform 3 steps per week to search for employment.
This is currently about to get a hearing at a tribunal service. I had requested a paper hearing, however i’m starting to think perhaps i should ask for a proper hearing. I still have about 10 days to change my hearing from paper, to a proper one. What are your thoughts on this Jerry/everyone?
Cheers,
– dan
Although i mentioned the universal jobmatch account thing in the current pending tribunal, it is only recently that i found out that they have permanently suspended me for this.
Basically they said that i must sign up to universal jobmatch, to which i refused, it then got sent to “decision makers” who changed it slightly, but still insisted that i sign up for a universal jobmtach account, i refused again. And was told that after 21 days my claim would be stoped.
21 days elapsed, without any sort of mediation from the DWP, i.e they did not propose any “fresh” jobseekers agreements, or compromise in any way. And since theni found out there is now a permanent sanction on my claim.
My last visit basically they tried to say that i did not have a valid jobseekers agreement, although i said “that is not true” as i have an original agreement which i signed a couple of years ago.
However as is stated on the document, it is not a full statement of the law, i.e it is not a legal document, but a set of general guidelines, as we now know.
any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
– dan
Dan, I have had some royal rumbles of late with the JCP and “UJM”, one of my other cases the Client has had to set up 4 different accounts for the use of UJM, simply due to UJ loosing her job searches, one thing to remember which I am almost certain you know UJM is simply an advertising agency paid for by tax payers under the illusion of a Job Matching Scheme, as you know it is nothing of the sorts, look at it like a set of traffic lights, JCP put you at the red light in forcing you to use UJB then hopefully UJM would then turn the lights green however its always stuck on Amber, I played a very good curve ball last year with this matter after personal data went missing, as soon as I got on the case and started to raise awkward questions on behalf of my client, all use of UJM for my client was stopped. this is the letter I assisted my client in producing that started it off at time of writing no one from Monster has yet to comment and JCP avoid the questions when my client asks about the answers form the questions asked below.
Sirs,
I am simply emailing in utter disgust at this gateway system, notably, Universal Jobmatch, I have been looking for Jobs on this system for over 2 weeks, however I have encountered several significant problems with this site, it is, also my understanding that I am not the only one,
I am due to visit JCP in the morning however, while checking my previous account there was no “Activity Available” I logged out and back in again I find my account did not work, I could not log in, I was directed to call a “Help Desk” which is of no help even if I took that approach, I have now registered again using a new account using the same email address and details in the hope it would still be there, save for the gateway number was different however it is not and I had to start from scratch.
Those issues do not concern me as much as these, what does concern me is that now I am having to search again to form some record of my job search for the past two weeks that is now not available, what happens now if I am faced with Problems at the Jobcentre if they see I have done very little job searching,
Will the Data Controllers and Webmasters take responsibility for the problems caused on the UJM site which lead to further actions I or others would face from JCP or other?
I have allowed the DWP to see my searches, which by the looks of things are none existent,
I have had significant reservations about the use of Universal Job Match due to security lapses and the scrupulous job adverts along with the none existent or expired jobs that are advertised, I have evidence of these previously as only last week I found a job which should have been removed but wasn’t, also I would like to know why we, Job seekers have to register through third parties when we come across a suitable Job that seem promising, Jobs
I now have some questions I would seek answers too, I am also prepared to seek this information using an FOI request or Judicial Review direct to the DWP.
1. What happens when a person who has been job searching using UJM finds their account activity is none existent?
2. Could question 1 be answered by the forced use of having to use the back button? to return to the search which simply looses the search criteria and one finds they have to start again, this is with every search, which I am finding is happening now and highly frustrating.
3. Nationally, How many people have suffered Sanctions due to them not being able to “Show” they have job searched using UJM?
4.Will the Data Controllers and Web-masters take responsibility for the problems caused on the UJM website which lead to further actions I or others would face from JCP or other.
5. If the answer is no response to question 4 I would like a fuller response as to why not?, since, your the ones who would be controlling peoples data and job search activity.
6. What procedures are in place at UJM which addresses my problems, put simply what happens next?
I am almost certain that your Data Controller should be made aware of this email as I will be raising this matter with the ICO [Information Commissioners Office] as it is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, section 7 which means that all data held by a public body must be protected,
I feel that you have failed to protect my data in the auspices of my recent Job Searches for the past two weeks, that is in clear breach to the described act above, actions should be taken by yourselves to correct this, I would like a print out, as a matter of course, if any you hold of my recent 2 weeks of Job searches
I would seek an urgent response to these simple 6 questions within the next 48 hours I am poised to seek Judicial Review having seen what people like myself have to go through when using this erratic and quite damaging website.
I intend to contact various press offices due to the serious damage your problem website could cause, it should also be noted that I have only been using this website for little over two weeks and I am appalled at the complexity of it, yet again people in a lower disposition to mine would find this behemoth of a site not fit for purpose, I am more than happy to deal with this matter through email however this not just a complaint it is more than that, I seek the direct contact details of your data controllers and/or a member of the management team who monitors this UJM website,
I also want it noting that I tried to make direct contact using the ask a question facility however UJM would not allow me to do that, although it said “Message Sent” you can see it asks me to correct errors that do not exist, a screen print of that has been attached.
I have searched on UJM this evening and found 4 possible jobs however I feel that it is not worthy for me to continue searching if I encounter the same problem again.
Could you also direct me in the possibility I do take this matter up with the Website Providers that is Monster, who, I believe hold the Government contract to run the UMJ website, I would also suggest that someone contacts me as a matter of urgency regarding the use of public money to fund an organisation like Monster who are simply advertising Jobs on behalf of third parties, in essence the main Government website which is Gov.UK is simply sending Job Seekers onto an advertising Agency, That, I think you will find is illegal, which sadly that is all UJM, that you may feel is a stark comment to make however put yourselves now in my shoes, if you find that instruction complex, I will emphasise more as soon as I receive a response to this email.
The 48 hours time limit begin from the time this message was received by you, which, I will add is being copied and used further if answers are not forthwith.
Kindest Regards
Dan. throwing in curve balls like that all the time to these people sends them in to a tis was, Dan Thanks for raising the UJ matter, it had slipped my mind recently, I think its time I now chase this up with those that be.
I would also emphasise that for anyone taking on the DWP or other, always obtain all your Data from them either by FOI or a Data Subject Access Request, you would be surprised just what the clonks hold on you, like in the UJM case, there were personal attacks by members of JCP written on my clients file, it is so difficult fighting these people as it is there is no point having your hands tied behind your backs as well.
Thanks again Dan.
Hot off the Press, Guardian’s Article, not sure of the validity of it yet but should be a step in right direction
DWP plans to ditch ridiculed jobs website
Universal Jobmatch set to be jettisoned after it was found to be carrying a series of fake, repeat or fraudulent jobs ads
Share 855
inShare
2
Email
Shiv Malik
The Guardian, Sunday 16 March 2014 21.01 GMT
Jump to comments (162)
DWP
At the start of March, the DWP removed more than 120,000 job adverts because they failed to meet the website’s terms and conditions. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA
The government has drawn up plans to scrap its official jobs website, Universal Jobmatch, after recognising it is too expensive and that its purpose is undermined by fake and repeat job entries, according to leaked internal communications from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
A cache of documents seen by the Guardian details how the government’s main website for job hunters – which tens of thousands of unemployed people have been required by the DWP to sign up to – is likely to be jettisoned when the contract for the service comes up for renewal in two years.
A year and a half after its launch, Universal Jobmatch has been ridiculed for hosting numerous fake jobs, including one for an MI6 “target elimination specialist” and “international couriers” for CosaNostra Holdings, as well as listings for pornographic websites.
More recently very serious problems have emerged. Separate investigations by Channel 4 News and the Labour MP Frank Field have uncovered hundreds of thousands of fake, repeat or, in a minority of cases, fraudulent job postings that enticed jobseekers to spend money needlessly – for example on fake criminal records checks – or were a means of harvesting personal information for identity fraud.
At the start of March, the DWP removed more than 120,000, or one-fifth, of all job adverts from over 180 employer accounts, because the ads did not abide by the site’s terms and conditions.
Field is now pressing the National Audit Office to investigate the site which he described as “bedevilled with fraud”.
The DWP said they regularly monitor Universal Jobmatch to remove jobs that do not meet their rules and that of 524,640 employer accounts only a tiny minority have proven to be in breach of them. The leaked information about Universal Jobmatch contained in the leaked documents became public after the chair of the public accounts committee said last week that the DWP was on the verge of a “meltdown” over its relationship with private companies and welfare reform.
They say that some of the website’s problems have partly stemmed from the decision by ministers that the site – which is run by the international online recruitment company Monster – be as “open” as possible to all types of employers. Recruitment agencies have taken advantage of this openness by uploading repeat adverts on the site.
The effect, the documents go on to say, has been that civil servants have been unable to determine how many genuine employment vacancies are listed on the site. According to one email, the data simply is not “robust” and rectifying the issue will be expensive.
Other internal communications suggest that civil servants have asked for more than one hundred changes to the service. However senior managers have decided to pass on only a handful of them to Monster because they have given up on improving the current site and expect to start afresh after April 2016.
In light of the high possibility that Universal Jobmatch will be cancelled in its current form, a communique to project heads said that the relationship with Monster now had to be managed “very carefully”.
A paper detailing options for overhauling the site includes:
• Getting an outside company to create a new service that would “learn the lessons” from Universal Jobmatch.
• Designing a site that would only cater for small employers. Jobseekers would be expected to use other sites to find work that was with larger employers.
• Coming to some contractual agreement with other major jobs sites to cross-post adverts and merge them into one larger DWP-run database. It is understood that ministers have not been involved in discussions about the new options.
The project to digitise job-searching activity for millions of unemployed people has been beset with problems from its start. The DWP was forced to rerun the bidding process for the contract and previously leaked documents detail how the department had to pay compensation to one of the failed bidders.
The multimillion-pound contract was won by Monster but Iain Duncan Smith’s department has been struggling to justify its rapidly rising expenditure. Civil servants say that the US company that pioneered online recruitment two decades ago, has demanded an extra £975,000 to clear Universal Jobmatch of fraudulent employment ads.
Stephen O’Donnell, who runs the National Online Recruitment Awards, said that Monster was “quite exercised”. He said that while the company had made “very good money” on the contract, the DWP was to blame for creating a “real mongrel of a website”. “Monster … have real expertise worldwide in building spectacular job boards. They more or less invented the industry. So you do think ‘how come it’s so bad’? The reason for that is the civil servants basically told Monster ‘forget everything you know about job boards, this is what we want’.”
O’Donnell said: “Job centres used to have good checks before the site was launched. It used to be, to put a job in a job centre, a recruitment agency had to call and identify themselves, go through various checks and identify the employer.” However without those checks he said many more anonymous postings were being hosted under the DWP’s logo. Anonymous job adverts are terrible. [The job] may or may not exist. It might just be a fishing trip for other information.
“I do not hold Monster at fault: they have been directed by the DWP to do what they are told.”
“I think it’s criminally unfair to sanction jobseekers for not using such a clumsily built website, rife with spammers … identity thieves and anonymous job ads.”
A spokesman for the DWP said that the search for work had become increasingly digital in the last decade and that over the next six months, wifi and 6,000 extra terminals would be installed into jobcentres across the country so jobseekers had access to the latest technology.
Responding to the leak, the department said: “Universal Jobmatch revolutionises the way jobseekers find work and it has already helped many jobseekers find the jobs they want since it was launched in 2012.
“How people find work has become increasingly digital so it’s right – and responsible – that DWP should continually look to ensure we are making the best offer to jobseekers.
“The current Universal Jobmatch contract comes to an end in 2016 so any speculation on what will happen after that is premature.”
Monster declined to comment.
FAO Mary
You say “there is absolutely no reference to time [spent jobseeking] in the JSA regulations”
Perhaps you can comment on the following:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/378/regulation/9/made
The Regulations of 2013 is currently under Judicial Review, those Time Directives were forced into legislation by IDS on the same day he lost the Cait Reilly case, the Judgement of that explains more in depth,
That particular regulation is not about how many hours claimants should be looking for jobs [Job Seeking], it refers to the hours of the in the jobs the claimant must be looking for, i.e full time hours unless there are circumstances that prevent this. it should be read in conjunction with section 14 which gives more details.
The reasons why the legislation is under Judicial Review is simply down to the half arsed way in which the legislation was written, how on earth is a Job Seeker claiming JAS supposed to know all the regulations, it seem now that JSA claimants must have a Law degree before claiming any benefits, reading over the regulations again you should also have a maths degree to get around your head on the sanctions section.
Even in the use of the word “Expected” is not something that should be in legislation, it either is “that” or it is not,
It is worth reading the whole legislation IDS made for the 2013 regulations, it makes interesting reading more so there are so many contraindicative parts, one section could say one thing then further down it is irrelevant.
It should be noted that rather than any hours the JSA claimant must be actively seeking work it simply the claimant for JSA must undertake 20 activities per week, that could include 20 job searches on “Monster” in any given day, that would satisfy the looking for work requirement.
the whole of the 2013 regulations can be found here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/378/made
the particular section Questioner refers too is this….
Expected hours
9. (1) The expected number of hours per week in relation to a claimant for the purposes of determining any limitations on work search or work availability requirements is 35 unless some lesser number of hours applies in the claimant’s case under paragraph (2).
(2) The lesser number of hours referred to in paragraph (1) is—
(a)where—
(i)the claimant is a relevant carer, a responsible carer or a responsible foster parent; and
(ii)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant has reasonable prospects of obtaining paid work,the number of hours, being less than 35, that the Secretary of State considers is compatible with those caring responsibilities;
(b)where the claimant is a responsible carer or a responsible foster carer for a child under the age of 13, the number of hours that the Secretary of State considers is compatible with their caring responsibilities for the child during the child’s normal school hours (including the normal time it takes the child to travel to and from school); or
(c)where the claimant has a physical or mental impairment, the number of hours that the Secretary of State considers is reasonable in light of the impairment.
FAO Jerry Lonsdale
Keeping things simple (if that’s possible!), if a JSA claimant was taking 3 STEPS a week to actively seek work before January 2013, and that requirement was suddenly stepped up to 20 HOURS a week at the end of January 2013, is that change legally enforceable?
Mary, that particular matter went nation wide in January that “Expectations” from Job Seekers should be increased, however, just like in the discussion on legislation and the confusion about it, it would be deemed unlawful,
hypothetically speaking here for someone who was actively seeking work 3 times a week, increased to 20 would obviously have an increase in their financial commitments, i.e telephone calls, posting C.V’s and the likes what is never taken into account is say last year JSA paid “X” amount per week for Job Seeking, at 3 “Activities” per week how can that person possibly do 20 on the same JSA, these are the principle arguments I use in the Tribunals, don’t get me wrong if a person is actively seeking work then it should just be that, all this nonsense of needing to prove everything is where the system fails, the JSA claimant signs a fortnightly declaration to that effect.
This would also sway into the territory of the Sanction process, if “A” is sanctioned for 7,14 21 days, or what ever length of time, then that person cannot possibly look for work, how do they attend interviews, how do they even afford to make phone calls or pay for their internet, these simple brass tack points are what never get taken into account,
However saying that, the person who’s found an increase on their commitments may have been lackadaisical previously and as a consequence the JCP have increased the commitment to see if the person is really trying,
Many of the directives placed on JSA claimants is down to the targets set by each individual Job Center Manager, sanctions et al.
What galls me about all of this and have I have seen many JCP’s around the country is that every single JCP has their own ways of doings things, for example in Chesterfield the job search activity sheet is completely different from the ones used in Merseyside, different processes and procedures are also in place, in Merseyside the JCP will not assist claimants to address any benefit problems where as in say Surrey they cannot be helpful enough,
I am wondering in your particular instance Mary if the person was to change JCP to another one, it is possible and just because the Job Centre is in on the persons particular catchment area nothing prevents a claimant using another one, there is a particular form I think its the ES90 which could be used as a simple mechanism to transfer Job Centers, don’t quote me on the form number, there are that many forms these days, there’s forms just for making new forms’,
This issue also is prevalent if a Claimant has an official complaint against the Job Center or specific Adviser, they cannot be forced to continue to use the Job Center and as such can use another local to them.
Hi Jerry
Just to say thank you very much for all you helpful comments and advice here.
This legislation refers to JSA claimants under the Universal Credit and not the JSA legislation.
It is really confusing!
This FOI may help:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/186287/response/459078/attach/7/WDTK%205508.pdf
FAO Mary
Yes, confusing is the word!!!
I thought Universal Credit replaces Jobseeker’s Allowance and a whole assortment of other benefits.
Once anyone is on Universal Credit, they will no longer be in receipt of JSA, so there would then be no such thing as, in your own words, “JSA claimants under the Universal Credit”!
Yes, it really is confusing!!!
Questioner
This is incorrect. ‘New style’ JSA contribution based claimants will exist under Universal Credit as per the link you provided.
‘Old style’ JSA claimants under the JSA regulations will disappear once each Jobcentre Plus office eventually migrates to Universal Credit.
I bet you are really scratching your head now! 🙂
I know I am, I am going to put a claim in against the DWP for a wig
Put simply! 🙂 Claimants with still be able to claim JSA (new style) within the Universal Credit model based on their NI contributions. Universal Credit is a means tested, household benefit.
Don’t ask me why they are still using the term JSA! Universal Credit (Contribution Based) would have made things easier to understand; perhaps reference to JSA will be phased out over time.
Under the existing JSA regs Jobseekers can claim:
JSA IB (income based)
JSA CB (contribution based)
or a combination of both for a couple.
“ES40 20/03/2014 at 5:16 pm · ·
From a DWP “Statement of Reasons”: “You agreed on xx/xx/xxxx steps you would take to improve your chances of getting a job on your Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg). You agreed that you would take a minimum of 50 steps each week to look for work. Those steps included:”
I am shocked, but not surprised to read your comments, ES40. How long ago was this please? Did you appeal?
I am guessing you might be a younger (18-24) Jobseeker?
Yes, I have appealed, Mary and yes I am a younger jobseeker.
I would love to hear how you get on; 87% of people win their appeal with the right support.
You can reach me privately via this site if you need assistance:
http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/unemployment-and-job-centre-plus/9022-jsa-actively-seeking-work-sanction-tribunal-hearing-2?limitstart=0
Best of luck!
A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
Here is an interesting piece on sanctions:
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/five-times-more-sanctions-than-jobs-on-government-s-work-programme
I wonder how many steps will be needed to right this wrong?
The DWP whistleblower in 2012 said:
“I’ve seen dyslexic customers given written job searches, and when they don’t produce them – what a surprise – they’re sanctioned. “
And, it these people who do have the capacity to complain or appeal! So we do not get hear their stories.
If ‘John’ a proud, hardworking man can get sanctioned when he has complied with the law – anyone can be tripped up by the Jobcentre. The DWP Decision Maker provides no protection for the adviser’s incompetence either!
This is cruelty beyond belief!
Why did it take so long to root out this judgement ( CJSA/1814/2007)? This is from 2007!
This case law is used by Welfare Advisers, but the appeal successes cases are not revealed on the internet.
John’s story highlights the fact, that advisers and DWP decision makers are not applying the law correctly and 1000’s of people are being sanctioned unlawfully.
Even when this caselaw is presented to advisers and Decision makers, they ignore it.
The internal guidance that is available to DWP staff is misleading and reflects Universal Credit regs.
Jobseeker Agreements/JSA Claimant Commitments now contain many elements of Universal Credit, for example:
Time spent looking for work – this is not a requirement within the JSA legislation.
Creating an on-line profile with a job site is not a JSA requirement.
The significant increase in steps/activities exceeds the current JSA legislation.
Claimants now need a law degree to protect themselves from the regime that is currently in force.
So can nothing be done to make them have to take this decision into account?
If DWP, do not heed the decision, a tribunal judge will.
This is very unfair, but it seems DWP staff seem determined that if you do not take all the steps (up to 70 per week) within your agreement you are highly likely to be sanctioned.
Has this happened to you or anyone you know, Angel?
I am helping a friend with a mandatory recon and I will be including a copy of the appeal decision as supporting evidence, I just think it is so unfair they can get away with ignoring it, but thanks for putting it on here.
I have just received the written reasons from the Tribunal in the appeal I won for a client on the 6th of March, I wish I could show you the full reasons on here but I unable to put up the order due to blog not allowing images, I will repeat a couple of points though,
4. The tribunal in normal circumstances may have found the appellant’s evidence quite incredible, however, judging by the experience of the tribunal services, of how the department has failed to respond to any of the directions, or enquiries made to them, by both the Regional Judge and the District Judge on a number of occasions. Plus their blatant disregard to attend the hearing, when requested to do so by both Regional and District Judges.
5, The Tribunal therefore finds the evidence provided by the appellant as credible, she states she made a number of enquiries about what was required of her and was unable to obtain any information about what she had to do, why she had to do it, and the consequences of not doing so.
What has happened in this matter is for over 2 years the DWP failed to respond or turn up to court, following on from that the DWP have asked the Tribunal for the reasons in the view to appeal the judges decision, this is absolutely out of order and the tribunals are not taking it lightly, we have pushed since May last year for a decision, we get one but the DWP are still not playing ball,
Following on from this I have now issued a Civil Claim against the DWP for costs and compensation [including the entitled back dated benefits] for my client, it is time we took these matters all the way through the processes available, unless we do this they will continue to control the tribunal Courts and the appellants.
That’s quite something, Jerry. Do you want to send me the images and I’ll use some excerpts in a new post?