How to Challenge an Actively Seeking Work Sanction [JSA]

It doesn’t have any information about mandatory reconsideration.

It sets out both, it can be used as an MR or an appeal. See page 2.

From the leaflet, page 1:

1. After receiving a decision notice for the DWP Decision Maker, you must appeal within one month from the date on the decision notice.
2. Send your appeal by recorded delivery to the address on the decision letter or ask Jobcentre Plus to scan and send directly to the Decision Maker.

That is patently incorrect, I don’t care what it says on page 2, it misleads anyone who picks this up from the start. There are enough problems with sanctions and MR already, without misleading claimants as to the process for properly challenging a decision.

Ouch!

So Page 1 sets out that you’ve asked for a mandy [MR], so why can’t it be used as an MR?  It states at Point 2 send it to the Decision Maker - which makes it a Mandy [MR]

Why can’t it be both in one?

It sets out on Page 2 that you can. One would ordinarily read the whole thing first.

If you wish to amend and then repost feel free to do so, but so far, it’s use has been very successful.

The appeals can go to the Jobcentre as well as the tribunal, there is nothing wrong in that practice

It should explain the process that someone needs to go through with MR and then with direct lodgement of an appeal. It doesn’t. It has links from page 2 to other materials which do explain the process - these won’t help anyone who receives a paper copy, or someone who doesn’t understand how to click through to other information. It has the strong possibility of misleading anyone who doesn’t really understand the social security system and the process for challenging decisions.

It’s not my leaflet, I am not redrafting it. I suggest who ever has drafted it takes the time to include some relevant information about challenging sanction decisions from the point that the original decision is made, and takes the time to include what needs to happen with an MR, and then what needs to happen to lodge an appeal.

Otherwise, this remains incorrect information, and the fact that it confusingly conflates both processes from page 2 doesn’t overcome that fundamental flaw. Sorry Bryan, I’m sure it’s been produced with the best intentions but the information as it stands is incomplete and incorrect.

Oh Dear! Remember we are all in this together!
I am very interested in any work that we can collaborate on to defeat the sanctions now being imposed on the vulnerable and destitute. What we need is some up to date case law so we have something to fight with. Unfortunately there is nothing that helps argue the injustice of a system of sanctions that will punish people who may have difficulty with reading and writing, using a computer or just too chaotic to abide by the claimant commitment or attend appointments.
I have had a SOR sitting on my desk that needs an appeal to the UT but there is no case law. Client with literacy problems and no ability or access to computers—sanctioned for failure to ASE. FTT heard by one (Jolly Hockey Sticks) Judge, I was needed as a translator to understand each other, but Judge so removed from the realities of life in a Jobcentre she saw no problems with them sanctioning someone who had to get her daughter to look at the Universal Jobs Match sight twice a week for her to fulfil her commitment.
We need more appeals to be heard and some case law to argue with, not arguing amongst ourselves about challenging the bloody decision to sanction and the barrier of MR’s that have deliberately been placed in claimants way to put them off. That is working very well and no one at the DWP are really interested in reconsidering anything to do with Sanctions!

[2007] UKSSCSC CJSA_1814_2007

“This appeal illustrates the speed at which technology can go ahead of law and official instructions. In my view it must in 2007 be as reasonable – perhaps more reasonable in some cases - for claimants to conduct regular jobsearches and make job enquiries by internet and email rather than by actual visits to Jobcentres and libraries or by writing letters. I see no reason why someone should have to go to a Jobcentre to use a jobpoint when they can get exactly the same information from any computer connected to the internet.”

Life has moved on since David Williams penned this.

It may have, but the ruling from the FTT was for this year and decided before even getting to the tribunal, so it still carries weight.

If you know of other cases which would assist I’d be glad to put them in an amended version.