Decision make this!!

[FORTUNATA]

Well, it took me a mere one week to get a JSA sanction after friends and famly persuaded me to sign on. I'd already being looking for work and scraping by whatever way I could but just tried to avoid signing on.

Here's how I managed it (the sanction):

At start of the new claim, I was apparently given an appointment and this was written down and given me with a pile of forms which I stuck into a plastic bag. I do that (even with cylinder head bearings). Except somehow I didn't notice this one piece of paper. I'm typically absent minded anyway. When I went to the job centre again (after my claim had been assessed) I was told I ought to have been there 2 days ago. I then explained I'd had no idea. Thus, one of those proverbial "decision makers" was contacted and whoever that was sanctioned my claim.

I had attended all appointments since then and my take on it is this: If someone doesn't attend an appointment because wasn't bothered to get out of bed, I guess it's fair enough. However, if it's a mistake at the beginning of a process.... I mean, geez, when I was employed I sometimes made mistakes. We used to somtimes get out shift dates mixed up. In such a case we'd get a written warning or ticked off but wages certainly not docked (wouldn't workers strike if that happened?)

By the way, I did openly admit my mistake but said it was just a mistake and not intentional.

One of my friends was annoyed because her sister has got a job and is waiting for a check to be made before she can start her job as a home carer. The job centre apparently hammered her for not having applied for enough jobs meantime but she told them she now had a job. I told her to just keep applying till her actual job started although I must admit it still seems strange. I think she may be close to sanction yet she found a job!!

[cheshire~rose]

They do like to get you to jump through so many hoops and seem to have such a long winded way of going about it (and provide you with so many pieces of paper) it is enough to try anyone!

 

I can't help thinking that if this was actually the start of a term of employment you were starting and your new employer had requested you attend a certain training course on a given date prior to starting your employment and you failed to turn up for it then you would be unlikely to still have the offer of the job to start.

 

I would think if some genuine problem had cropped up meaning you were unable to attend the appointment and you had rung then they would have rescheduled it but if someone just fails to show up then how do they know whether the "no show" was someone who forgot or someone who could not be bothered to get out of bed?

 

I suspect there is a valuable lesson to be learned about getting your paperwork sorted out and organised into different carrier bags to your engine gaskets!

[Smelly]

Appeal, saying pretty much what you have done here. AnyJCP appeals officer worth their salt, when deciding whether to spend loads of time writing the submission or revising the decision in your favour, is likely to accept good cause on a first offence such as this.

 

The only stumbling block, if it landed on a Jobsworth, would be that you didn't contact them to notify; you stumbed across it when you signed on; I've seen that argued. However if, when you signed on, you were given the impression you had notified your reasons for not attending then they're arguably estopped from demanding further notification.

 

As an aside; I found myself in the same position as your friend. Job offer in hand (as a senior benefits caseworker at a big solicitor's firm no less) I was directed to apply for a load of mundane jobs.

 

I went through the motions just for the look of it. Don't know whether I've got anywhere mind as I'd moved before the closing dates on all of them either way, and my CV; citing a list of the high profile cases I've been involved in, probably put off most of the people looking for admin clerks and the like... They might've had a good smirk at my expense if they read it though.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Smelly

[JDR]

In the early 90s I had a mate who was signing on but desperately wanted a job.He applied to EuroDisney in Paris when they first started up.It wasn't a job he wanted but he was sick of being on the dole so he got an interview and rode his decrepit CB250RS to Paris.On the way back he ran into torrential rain and gale force winds.He got as far as Bath before the engine blew up and he had to hitch the last 15 miles home.The next day when he signed on he was asked what he was doing to look for work and he proudly related the tale above.Whereupon they stopped his claim for leaving the country without informing him and gave him a load of forms and an appointment to start a new claim.He got turned down for the job and a week later Disney held interviews in his own city.

 

Okey dokey, pig in a pokey jobseekers....

Edited April 19, 2012 by JDR

[deletedaccount]

The system is designed to make it as difficult and long winded as possible to get anything.

[mickspangle]

Yes. When I was signing on last year the job centre in Bath decided to move the signing point for single mums from the ground floor to the second floor. The meanies.

 

It gave me great pleasure when I signed off to tell them "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to let you go. You've been very good to me. Admittedly the money wasnt great, but the hours were always pretty reasonable. I've been offered something for more money and I think I'm going to take it"

 

Good luck to the OP - you never know when something will turn up. In my case it was when I least expected it.

[FORTUNATA]

It's a very typical scenario but also indicates where the failings of the economy lie within the spehere of social security, employment, health care and so on. It's always the notion of following a system but absolutely no common sense in evidence. I also think when we get to the point where you have to employ decision makers every step of the way, we're in even deeper trouble.

I haven't bothered to create a scene because I made a mistake and apparently the sanction is for only one week.

I do get the feeling though that job centres now exist mainly to trick people. It's a bit like opportunism where they're waiting for the slightest mistake to pounce. And even at work, mistakes do happen all the time.

According to The Guardian, a whistleblower from inside the system claimed the staff were shown charts of sanctions applied in other areas of the country and the highest figures were quoted as examples of efficiency to emulate and copy. They forget actual human beings are involved and many of those don't really understand the rules and regulations or have the support to ride it through (as fortunately I do).

To be honest, very often now people are asking me for advice or help. There is one girl who found employment and will start work in two weeks but the job centre didn't understand why she was no longer applying for dozens of jobs. I advised her to apply for a few similar jobs to the one she now has as I've actually heard of people being sanctioned for accepting a job different to one forwarded by a job centre.

Anyway, I can't help but think if Albert Einstein was applying for social security in this country he'd not get very far down the line (given he often forgot to put his socks on).

 

In the early 90s I had a mate who was signing on but desperately wanted a job.He applied to EuroDisney in Paris when they first started up.It wasn't a job he wanted but he was sick of being on the dole so he got an interview and rode his decrepit CB250RS to Paris.On the way back he ran into torrential rain and gale force winds.He got as far as Bath before the engine blew up and he had to hitch the last 15 miles home.The next day when he signed on he was asked what he was doing to look for work and he proudly related the tale above.Whereupon they stopped his claim for leaving the country without informing him and gave him a load of forms and an appointment to start a new claim.He got turned down for the job and a week later Disney held interviews in his own city.

 

Okey dokey, pig in a pokey jobseekers....

[Athy]

Reading your post I'm slightly confused. You say that the Job Centre has sanctioned your dole money, but then you suggest that you haven't been allowed it. To me, if you sanction siomething you allow or authorise it. Do you mean that there will bve a week's delay in paying it? From memory (it is some years since I was on the dole) this is quite normal.

[Leni]

Reading your post I'm slightly confused. You say that the Job Centre has sanctioned your dole money, but then you suggest that you haven't been allowed it. To me, if you sanction siomething you allow or authorise it. Do you mean that there will bve a week's delay in paying it? From memory (it is some years since I was on the dole) this is quite normal.

 

Sanctions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_%28law%29

 

I used to have a friend who worked in the dole office. She crowed with glee at being able to refuse a chap's application for his bus fare to get to a job interview because he had got on at the 'wrong' stop - something to do with the distance involved - and thus saved the government a couple of quid. She's not a friend any more.

[FORTUNATA]

What happens is the system has changed dramatically. Back in the nineties if you were a bit late or missed an appointment they would ask you to be more punctual and then simply rebook. Now what they do is sanction a claim. In my case it was only a week so not worth the hassle appealing over my own mistake. However, sanctions can increase from 4 weeks up to several weeks and can be applied for not having shown enough evidence you're genuinely looking for work. So someone who arrives unprepared can find his or herself with no money. In theory.

Having said that, in some ways the system is a bit of a con. The jobcentres use scare tactics a lot to bully people but, in actual fact, what they do is stop one benefit and transfer to a less generous benefit called Hardship. Thus, I could apply for hardship for one week but it's not worth the hassle really. I don't know a great deal about hardship but it replaces JSA if you've been sanctioned and can provide evidence you're suffering as a result of a sanction and can't afford to get by and so on.

My own view is I don't think most people are really made aware of so many rules and regulations and I can see definitely it's leading to frustration and anger. I keep meeting people who seem increasingly wound up over similar issues and I tell them it's very important to understand your rights and how rules are now applied.

Of course, you should always look for employment but I personally think the sanctions idea has gone too far, involves too many cases and is undermining trust towards job centres by creating a "them and us" divide. It did use to happen in the past but fairly rarely and with very good cause.

 

Reading your post I'm slightly confused. You say that the Job Centre has sanctioned your dole money, but then you suggest that you haven't been allowed it. To me, if you sanction siomething you allow or authorise it. Do you mean that there will bve a week's delay in paying it? From memory (it is some years since I was on the dole) this is quite normal.

[MtB]

Sanctions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_%28law%29

 

I don't find your link helps clarify the answer to Athy's question.

 

From your link:

 

Sanctions are penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law, or with rules and regulations.

 

 

And:

 

Conversely and to some surprisingly, the word may be used to mean "approve of," especially in an official sense.

 

Under the circumstances I consider the second meaning to be the most approriate, so I agree, FORTUNA's application appears to have been approved. Missing an apppointment can hardly be construed as breaking a law, rule or regulation and witholding benefit as a penalty for missing an appointment must surely be staff acting beyond their powers.

 

Mike

[Athy]

Thanks Mike - but it has cleared up my confusion. Come to think of it, I remember the Government imposing "sanctions" on Ian Smith's government in Rhodesia, and they were certainly not approving it!

[FORTUNATA]

That's the problem. You can easily create a system that encourages abuse of personal power. Once you give power to individuals it can be abused unless you create checks and balances. They do employ the decision makers to make actual decisions over sanctions and to act as a supposedly neutral third party (who never met you). However, looking at this logically the decision maker in my own case doesn't really know the facts. The facts are someone didn't notice an appointment at the start of a new claim and got confused. It wasn't deliberate. All the decision maker was made aware of was a very basic report of what happened. No meeting so I could represent my case fairly. Suppose someone at work forgot to make a phone call, misbooked an appointment, missed a bus and so on. Do they lose pay as a result (in some cases up to 4 weeks or more?)

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a whinge about myself as this doesn't effect me. It does, however, effect the less well off. I know younger people who have hardly any savings and can definitely be bullied and even made to feel depressed through bureacracy.

Funny thing is it's not helping the Government at all.

 

Sanctions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_%28law%29

 

I used to have a friend who worked in the dole office. She crowed with glee at being able to refuse a chap's application for his bus fare to get to a job interview because he had got on at the 'wrong' stop - something to do with the distance involved - and thus saved the government a couple of quid. She's not a friend any more.

[mickspangle]

As someone who signed on in the early 90s and again last year I can concur that the Jobcentre has changed a lot. It is now all about finding reasons to stop benefits rather than actually helping people find work.

[Janet S]

I work in the Housing Benefit / Council Tax section of a local council...you wouldn't believe the flimsy excuses the JobCentre uses to "sanction" benefits...and when they sanction their JSA, they also ask us to reduce their entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax benefit for the same period...

 

I had the misfortune to have to deal with a lovely, recently discharged army guy...he'd genuinely misunderstood the hoops he was supposed to jump through and had his JSA stopped for a while and also had a reduction in the help towards his rent...it was simply heartbreaking to see someone so deserving being treated so dispassionately.

 

He was discharged from the Army after being disabled whilst serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and what did our Government do for him? Virtually nothing..

 

Meanwhile, I have had benefit claimants phoning up from abroad asking when their Housing Benefit payment will be made as they've run out of spending money....

 

You couldn't make it up!

 

Janet

[Arthur Brown]

In my locality there was a (court case) published for a benefit claimant who had taken her allowed two weeks of annual leave from signing, then returned to make a claim for child benefit as well, strangely she hadn't been pregnant at the start of the two weeks leave.

 

I have a personal friend who is ex military and has been awarded the George for bravery in the service of HMG after time in their employment. He has adopted an Islamic name now because he gets better benefits and treated better by various offices.

 

Sometimes the various benefit officers don't deserve the 10/6 label in their hats - they are worse than that.

[Athy]

As someone who signed on in the early 90s and again last year I can concur that the Jobcentre has changed a lot. It is now all about finding reasons to stop benefits rather than actually helping people find work.

Silly of them: after all, finding work for someone is the most sure way of being able to stop their benefits!

[onionbargee]

In my locality there was a (court case) published for a benefit claimant who had taken her allowed two weeks of annual leave from signing, then returned to make a claim for child benefit as well, strangely she hadn't been pregnant at the start of the two weeks leave.

 

I have a personal friend who is ex military and has been awarded the George for bravery in the service of HMG after time in their employment. He has adopted an Islamic name now because he gets better benefits and treated better by various offices.

Sometimes the various benefit officers don't deserve the 10/6 label in their hats - they are worse than that.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2012 by Theo
Moderated

[Higgs]

I sometimes (most fo the time) get the feeling that the government are only interested in your tax payments, and that your welfare is something of an inconvenience.

[Graham Davis]

 

I agree with what you originally put, which has been moderated.

Basically RUBBISH!!

[JDR]

Rabid Daily Mail politics aside I can guarantee that nobody in any of the services has been awarded a George Cross while on duty.Probably due to the fact it is only awarded to civilians.

Edited April 22, 2012 by JDR

[petalponk]

Back to the original post.

 

The dole WILL make you jump through hoops - a friend of mine was asked to provide 2 years worth of payslips because she didn't work the same hours every week.

 

The dole WILL make you look for work EVEN if you have a firm job offer.

 

The dole WILL not treat you like a human being (sure the people you have meetings with will, but the organisation won't)YOU are a number and they don't want you signing on.

 

Just be thankful they haven't asked you to go to job club or back to work or A4E yet - same muppets all about numbers, oh but they psycho-analyse you too - oh and you'll realise why you haven't been able to get a job yet - because A4E and similar get first bite of the cherry with certain jobs!

[nbfiresprite]

Rabid Daily Mail politics aside I can guarantee that nobody in any of the services has been awarded a George Cross while on duty.Probably due to the fact it is only awarded to civilians.

 

Incorrect, the GC is also awarded to military personnel for those acts for which military honours would not normally granted, such as acts of gallantry not in presence of the enemy.

 

The three most recent recipients of the GC have been Army personnel serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. One was awarded posthumously for gallantry displayed both before and after sustaining mortal injuries when entering a minefield in Afghanistan. The other two were awarded for service in Iraq, for gallantry displayed in a 'friendly-fire' incident and for gallantry displayed after receiving severe injuries caused by an Improvised Explosive Device. All were hugely courageous acts, although not in actual presence of the enemy, and therefore were successfully considered for award of the GC.

 

 

Firesprite

 

In the wet and windy Fens

 

 

[JDR]

Incorrect, the GC is also awarded to military personnel for those acts for which military honours would not normally granted, such as acts of gallantry not in presence of the enemy.

 

The three most recent recipients of the GC have been Army personnel serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. One was awarded posthumously for gallantry displayed both before and after sustaining mortal injuries when entering a minefield in Afghanistan. The other two were awarded for service in Iraq, for gallantry displayed in a 'friendly-fire' incident and for gallantry displayed after receiving severe injuries caused by an Improvised Explosive Device. All were hugely courageous acts, although not in actual presence of the enemy, and therefore were successfully considered for award of the GC.

 

 

Firesprite

 

In the wet and windy Fens

 

I stand corrected. I didn't know about the recipients in Afghanistan/Iraq or that it couild be awarded to non civilians and no disrespect intended to the men who who were awarded the medal while serving.

[FORTUNATA]

I went to the related work program today and couldn't help thinking I've suddenly somehow become similar to a criminal. It's a bit like being on probation with interviews and your rights being read out (together with warnings).

I think the problem is a lot of people unwittingly voted for this because there was a feeling that the working man was somehow being fleeced by "scroungers". I'm aware this has happened in the past but I do think the majority of unemployed would prefer to work and earn a decent wage than just collect a few quid in benefits.

However, the Government has reacted to a perceived feeling of discontent and now ironically all working people are suffering. I met a lady yesterday who's just been made redundant and many people now dread going to job centres where they get little sympathy normally.

I repeat my old line that what Governments should be doing is making a proper work program that pays normal wages at an hourly rate and thereby create work. Instead there seems to be a tendency to treat people like criminals due to a situation that is mainly economic. There is resentment too so at the very least I can see massive voter backlash looming ahead. At worst, who knows?

 

Back to the original post.

 

The dole WILL make you jump through hoops - a friend of mine was asked to provide 2 years worth of payslips because she didn't work the same hours every week.

 

The dole WILL make you look for work EVEN if you have a firm job offer.

 

The dole WILL not treat you like a human being (sure the people you have meetings with will, but the organisation won't)YOU are a number and they don't want you signing on.

 

Just be thankful they haven't asked you to go to job club or back to work or A4E yet - same muppets all about numbers, oh but they psycho-analyse you too - oh and you'll realise why you haven't been able to get a job yet - because A4E and similar get first bite of the cherry with certain jobs!