× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Income support, JSA and tax credits  →  Thread

Should failing to sign on attract a sanction????

PCLC
forum member

Benefits Supervisor - Plumstead Law Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 240

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’ve left this abit late as my appeal is tomorrow at 10 am, but any input gratefully received.

Client fails to sign, contacts within 2 days bit “good reason” not accepted. Then sanctioned for 4 weeks.

I think correct procedure for a “simple” failure to sign should be;

fails to sign, contacts within 5 days, good reason accepted, claim continues.

fails to sign, contacts within 5 days, good reason not accepted, claim terminated and client has to make rapid reclaim.

Fails to sign, no contact within 5 days, as above.

But no grounds for a sanction - see Vol 2 Sweet and Maxwell Sec 3.103 P 1038.

Am I going mad?

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Check out this information On what grounds can an ‘actively seeking work’ sanction be challenged?

As well as JSA stopping because your client is treated as failing to satisfy the actively seeking work condition due to failing to sign without good reason, a subsequent JSA claim within 13 weeks of that decision will also attract a 4-week sanction, or 13- week sanction if they have already received a 4-week sanction in the previous 52 weeks.

So it’s definitely worth pursuing the appeal and arguing why they did have good reason.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Just looking quickly, it would appear that the ‘sanction’ as such is the ending of entitlement and the need to re-claim.

So a ‘sanction’ in t’other sense is not applicable unless the person also failed to attend an interview or committed some other sanctionable sin.

I looked at JSA Reg 25 - entitlement ceasing on a failure to comply - Reg 27 for good reason.

I suppose DWP may argue the person had also ceased to be available for/actively seeking work at the same time but that isn’t necessarily so if they just missed signing.

Is any argument ongoing on good reason?

Edit - Paul was way ahead of me and better-researched I think!

PCLC
forum member

Benefits Supervisor - Plumstead Law Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 240

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thank you!

Paul - I don’t think a simple failure to sign can be treated as falling foul of actively seeking work?

Andrew - that’s my reading of it too, i.e. that not having good reason for failing to sign just means the claim is terminated.

Problem is unless I can come up something along the above lines, client’s good reason is not so strong - she just forgot. Mind you, we all do that sometimes so…....

I could canvas the Judge about this and see what they think. After all that’s what they are paid for!

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

I’m not so sure. See commentary at p.1040 -

“If a claimant succeeds in showing that [good cause], there could not in practice be a sanctionable failure under s.19A(1)(b). If the claimant does not succeed, entitlement ceases, but a sanction could perhaps also be applied to operate if the claimant became entitled again on reclaiming.”

[ Edited: 25 Nov 2014 at 10:10 am by Paul_Treloar_CPAG ]
PCLC
forum member

Benefits Supervisor - Plumstead Law Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 240

Joined: 16 June 2010

Hi Paul

The Reg they should use for failure to sign on is JSA Regs 2006 Reg 25(1)(c), subject to Reg 27 if you show good reason within 5 days. These Regs refer to ending entitlement, and Reg 26 lays out when that is to end - 26(c) says on the day that you should have signed. Also see the case of Ferguson P.1042 Para 39 (5). Obviously they need to give you 5 days to make contact so they can’t end it straight away.

What happened here was they applied a lower level sanction for 4 weeks straight away from 13/05/14 when the client should have signed and I just don’t think they can do that. They did not end the claim. The Para above says a sanction “could perhaps” be applied to a new claim, but in this case there was no new claim. Also the commentary is not clear that a sanction can be applied on a new claim anyway!

The appeal was adjourned as client could not attend and Judge did not want to hear my legal bit before exploring good reason, which I thought was silly as if my argument were accepted there would be no reason to explore good reason!

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

The historical practice on a failure to sign on is to terminate the claim.  However, it could be arguable that alternatively a sanction can be imposed instead under s19A(2)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995.  Section 19, s19A, s8(1) and regs 23-27 of the 1996 regs have to be read as a totality and are drawn quite broadly (remember, a person may fail to attend to sign, or attend an interview and forget to sign). 

However, if one looks, as one must, at the structure of s19A as a whole it can be seen from subs 5 and 6 that, notwithstanding 5(b), that it would be unreasonable, and potentially an abuse, for a sanction to run over into the period after the claimant signs on again, i.e. two weeks later.  So, either way, if good cause is not shown, which ever method the DWP uses, the reasonable outcome would be two weeks loss of benefit only. 

Having said that, I don’t think it was the intention of the legislature nor the executive for the sanction regime to be used in this way.  I agree that the appropriate mechanism for a failure to sign is regs 25 and 26 as otherwise there would be no need for those regs if a sanction could be imposed under s19A.

PCLC
forum member

Benefits Supervisor - Plumstead Law Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 240

Joined: 16 June 2010

Sorry to go on about this, for what is a relatively small matter given the stuff we all routinely deal with but… I don’t even think they can disallow the claim for the previous 2 weeks, if it is a “simple” failure to sign. In this case, client contacted the DWP when not paid 2 days after she should have signed - told to come in and sign, which she did, and give reason why she did not attend on her signing day. So she did attend, produce her jobsearch records and they were not queried. The only issue was then did she have a good reason for signing late, not whether there was an issue over her availability for work etc. And on reading the Regs I cannot see that a “simple” failure to sign without good reason can attract a sanction…..

Paul_Treloar_CPAG
forum member

Advice and Rights Team, Child Poverty Action Group

Send message

Total Posts: 550

Joined: 30 June 2014

Reg.25(1)(c) states JSA shall cease if client fails to make required declaration under reg.24(6). However, reg.27 states that where someone contacts DWP within 5 days and shows good reason, JSA shall not cease. On the basis of what you’ve written, the only way therefore that JSA claim wouldn’t cease at that time must be because reg.27 applied to your client, so you could argue that DWP have implicitly accepted her good reason because they didn’t close her claim. There’s no two ways about that element from what you’ve written.

However, if the above is true, I still feel that DWP could attempt to revert to s.19A(2)(a) and look to impose an on-going sanction using this power (notwithstanding Paul’s point about this potentially being an abuse of process). p.112 of S&W certainly states that non-compliance with regs 23-27 is a failure that is sanctionable under this section of the Act. p.1051-1054 of WBH 2014/15 makes similar points. It’s not dissimilar to what happens if you miss a WFI, whereby the sanction holds until you attend, and you can then also be sanctioned for a further period of time.

However, if this were to be the case, on the basis of the argument that DWP has previously accepted that she had good reason for failing to sign as they didn’t close the JSA claim down, then it could be argued that similarly, she must have demonstrated good reason in relation to this strand and therefore the sanction decision should be overturned anyway.

Haven’t the DWP laid out the grounds in the appeal paper submission about what powers they’re using to impose this sanction?

PCLC
forum member

Benefits Supervisor - Plumstead Law Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 240

Joined: 16 June 2010

Well that’s part of the problem! They say good reason (i.e. forgetting to sign on ) not accepted and that a sanction should be imposed. Then “Having been given or sent a notification requiring attendance, other than at an employment programme or training scheme, Ms O did not attend on the date and time specified in that notification”.

Then in the body of the sub they say “When a person is given a notification requiring them to participate in an interview in connection with their Jobseeker’s Allowance claim and they fail to particpate in that interview without good reason Jobseeker’s Allowance may be reduced for a period of 4 or 13 weeks…........In order for any good reasons for failure to participate to be taken into account the person must make contact and provide the reasons for the failure within 5 working days of the date of the appointment”

They then list Jobseekers Act 95 8(1)(a) and 19(A)(2)(a) and JSA regs 96 Regs 23,25,27 69A 70 and 70A - i.e. the classic scattergun “lets hope one of them sticks” approach.

My point is this was not an interview, other wise why have 25(1)(c) which is specifically about failure to sign?

19A Jobseekers Act is other sanctions, all of which have a “good reason” get out - but nothing about making contact within 5 days, which only relates to failure to sign. In other words, they are mixing this all up!

benefitsadviser
forum member

Sunderland West Advice Project

Send message

Total Posts: 1003

Joined: 22 June 2010

“Good reason” and “Good cause” ??

I have a young client on JSA who wants to better himself

He wants to start UNI next summer and has to go to an interview at the uni to assess his eligibility next week.

JC+ have told him he starts a 2 week training course on the same day as his UNI appt.

If he chooses to go to his university appointment and miss the first day of his wonderful JSA training course would this be viewed as “reasonable use of a sanction”?

Opinions guys and gals?