Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
losing your phone is a change of circs
From DWP submission to tribunal about a sanction:
“X stated he did not know about the appointment as he had lost his moblie telephone but had not notified Universal Credit of this despite his Claimant Commitment advising him he must notify any changes to UC.”
And:
“A “UC Outlet” is another terminology under Universal Credit for the Jobcentre.”
From DWP submission to tribunal about a sanction:
“X stated he did not know about the appointment as he had lost his moblie telephone but had not notified Universal Credit of this despite his Claimant Commitment advising him he must notify any changes to UC.”
And:
“A “UC Outlet” is another terminology under Universal Credit for the Jobcentre.”
seriously?
well clearly they’re serious, but they’re surely having a laugh. losing phone as change of circs. i should hope tribunal give that short shrift.
From DWP submission to tribunal about a sanction:
“X stated he did not know about the appointment as he had lost his moblie telephone but had not notified Universal Credit of this despite his Claimant Commitment advising him he must notify any changes to UC.”
And:
“A “UC Outlet” is another terminology under Universal Credit for the Jobcentre.”
seriously?
well clearly they’re serious, but they’re surely having a laugh. losing phone as change of circs. i should hope tribunal give that short shrift.
As you might expect, the reasoning for this is far from coherent. It would seem the SSWP is relying on the standard statement on the claimant commitment inc. ” I understand that if I don’t report any changes that affect my UC claim as soon as possible, I may be prosecuted or face a financial penalty”. Presumably because UC use ‘phone calls/SMS to notify clients of appointments etc and therefore if they do not notify unavailablitity / change of phone number then notification of conditionallity requirments will be unsuccessful - or something to that effect!?
It will be interesting to see what the tribunal make of it (although the case doesn’t turn on that issue). There are several other ‘entertainments’ in the submission!
If he hasn’t got a phone, how can he call them?
I see a very scary prospect with this.
Imagine the claimant has been waiting 10 plus weeks for their first UC payment, so their internet provider cuts them off and technically marks their card so they may not go to another provider.
The only choice thereafter is their mobile phone as they cant use the local library due to the fact its full every day with UC claimants.
Given that they now have to use their mobile phone to do the hours of job search requested in their commitment and the fact mobile phones use data quicker than a Tory excuse on question Time. How are they going to afford the massive costs that will be incurred.
Notwithstanding this if an individual is placed in a situation whereby they arte advised to say use the free internet in a shopping complex or supermarket, how often will they be sanctioned when they fail to report a poor signal while in Asda or the local Mall.
All joking aside the above is a real and present danger lurking for UC claimants
Sadly UC should be referred to as UNDER CONSIDERED
It could be worse than that. I was recently on holiday in very rural part of the country that’s in a UC full service area. While the broadband is excellent there is absolutely no mobile phone signal and the nearest public library is an hour’s journey by bus that only runs twice a day (unless booked a day in advance).
We don’t even have reliable broadband in some areas of Somerset. Massive issues.