Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Working instead of coming in to the Jobcentre? You’ll get sanctioned!
Client works part-time on UC.
Gets offered an extra day’s work, which clashes with a fixed JC+ meeting. Calls JC+, explains, all seems to be well.
Sanctioned for non-attendance.
Requests MR on 8/8/16 and sends letter from employer dated 12/8/16 proving he was at work on the day in question.
MRN 14/8/16 - no change to decision, says he has not produced evidence he was at work.
Apart from the sheer haste behind the issuing of the MRN, this is a decision that places attending JC+ appointments telling you how to get work over and above…. actually working.
What…...?
You should probably take this to the media. Not sure if anyone here has a contact. Total joke.
You should probably take this to the media. Not sure if anyone here has a contact. Total joke.
This is exactly the type of case we should take to the sympathetic media. The more we can do this the better as DWP seem to be largely deaf to concerns raised by advisers.
I do have media contacts of the client is willing to go public. I’m on 01473 251100
Utterly ludicrous in both principle and practice. One would think this was a one-off silly mistake easily corrected, if it wasn’t blatantly obvious that the system is designed to act in this illogical way, and that it is systematically riddled with poor administration.
The expectation of ‘proof’ that you were working, when the purported aim of UC is to help you to work. The sheer administrative burden of ‘proof’ of everything falling to claimants instead of any good faith in them whatsoever. Surely if he hadn’t have worked an extra day this would have showed up on RTI anyway?
The issuing of the MR decision and citing non-evidence when no opportunity for evidence has been allowed. Presumably you are also complaining about the process used by DWP?
the guardian has been running some good stuff around this sort of thing (francis ryan)
and of course, write to the MP (enclosing with the DWP letter a copy of the employer’s letter proving person ws at work)
and what is better proof than a letter from employer anyway?
a friend of mine keeps saying “there are no words”......
Please do contact Frances Ryan who is very interested and has expressed an interest in running these types of articles Her twitter is @DrFrancesRyan.
I am awaiting an update - from information received this morning, I think the claimant may have been sanctioned for a second time, despite now being signed off. Approaching someone like Frances Ryan would be a great idea, but the claimant is vulnerable in a number of ways and may not be able to cope. I’ll keep you posted.
If your client is vulnerable as you describe it and the Jobcentre know this, that makes the whole farrago an even bigger piece of utter maladministration.
Agreed; I’m not even sure he should ever have been on UC. It gets worse every time I take a call.
You should probably take this to the media. Not sure if anyone here has a contact. Total joke.
This is exactly the type of case we should take to the sympathetic media. The more we can do this the better as DWP seem to be largely deaf to concerns raised by advisers.
I do have media contacts of the client is willing to go public. I’m on 01473 251100
Hi Neil,
Useful to know. I will message you if I encounter any other such cases.
Thanks,
A
Did you get my direct message about this case Andrew?
Hi Paul - yes, I was away for one day and I am playing catch-up!!!
Latest development - client’s MP has contacted UC to try to sort things out - they refused to speak to the MP’s staff as they ‘failed the security questions’.....
Latest development - client’s MP has contacted UC to try to sort things out - they refused to speak to the MP’s staff as they ‘failed the security questions’.....
“there are no words” .........(quoting a friend there )
I think even Kafka is turning in his grave now
http://www.bigissuenorth.com/2016/09/looking-glass-world-of-work/20536
In work conditionality issue discussed with examples
Sanction dropped at MR as the decision was made ‘in ignorance of a material fact’ - well well well. I still feel I ought to take this further but for various reasons I must tread carefully.