suspension of JSA sanction pending appeal?

when a sanction decision is under appeal, would it not be reasonable for the Jobcentre to wait until the outcome of the appeal before applying it? like withholding recovery of an overpayment pending appeal

I am aware that sanctions always take effect immediately irrespective of any appeal, and that this has always been the case for as long as I’ve been aware, but I’m wondering whether they should be able to do this.

can anyone advise me how the Jobcentre are legally empowered to do this, assuming that they are.

also, if a sanction decision is overturned on appeal, are the jobcentre liable for consequential losses, in addition to the benefit arrears that are due?

The legal power to issue sanctions can be found under section 19 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 and delegated legislation thereunder.

Think for a moment what a sanction is trying to achieve.  The principle, broadly similar to forfeiture, is that a person should not profit from his misconduct, failure to comply, etc.  In order to make the sanction truly effective as a policy measure it has to be implemented straightaway. 

Imagine if it wasn’t and was paid pending an appeal.  This would allow the claimant time to make provision, either from careful saving, borrowing or a combination of both so that when the sanction is actually applied the claimant is in a position to cushion himself from its worst effects.  Thus, its deterrent effect is diminished.

I don’t think it’s as simple as innocent until proven guilty.  The state, under the rule of law, must be in a position to make administrative decisions which unfortunately sometimes will operate to the detriment of the citizen.  This is why a right of appeal to an independent tribunal is vital.  However, for proper decision making and good governance decision makers must be properly trained in collecting and weighing evidence and exercising proportionality and reasonableness.  Unfortunately, what often happens is the rule of law and proper administration is sidestepped by short term political expediency and target driven economic considerations.

What is needed is balance.  Far too easily since 1997 in particular, although it had begun to accelerate under the Tories (remember John Major, “we need to judge more and understand less”), the default policy and legislative position has been conditionality from which punitive policies naturally follow.  What is required is more focus on the assessment of just how the citizen finds himself in a particular position, a refusal to play to the media gallery and a diminishing of the tendency to sit in harsh judgement of those who don’t necessarily understand the rules and are, more often than not, found to be floating around the margins of society. 

If sanctions are to be seen as credible they need to be targeted properly at the more ‘serious’ of offences and not to be used in an overly broad way, catching minnows for fear of missing the sharks.

Of course there would be nothing to prevent there being a right of appeal against a decision to impose a sanction (or indeed to require a claimant to attend a course etc- eg one of the things that failure to do leads to a sanction) if that was legislated for.

It seems to me that such appeals could be dealt with very quickly by the Tribunals Service and so the desire of the DWP to have immediate punishment etc could be balanced with right of claimants.

The difficulty is at the moment that the threat of sanction can be used easily by DWP - the claimant can’t resist and say “no I wont go on that course as I will win the appeal”....in 9 months time and so goes on the course.

The Tribunal Service deal with Asylum Support appeals very quickly indeed- why not do the same for sanctions.