JobSeekers Sanctions and R(U) 32/52

I have an increasing number of clients who are being sanctioned for not applying for a job. In practice it is often first time signers at their first or second interview and the Jobcentre adviser is printing off jobs without any discussion other than “oh here’s an admin job in gateshead” for example. They take the job home realise they are not qualified or can’t travel and so do not apply and then some weeks later they find themselves sanctioned for up to 2 months at a time. I am arguing that the claimant must be given sufficient information to decide whether the job is suitable before it is printed off and given to them.

The decision R(U) 32/52 refers to this and I wonder does anyone have a copy or any other angles for me to tackle this.

Thanks

Hang on - if it’s so early in the claim surely they are still entitled only to look for work as agreed in the JSAg? And if it is, what on earth were they doing agreeing to work anywhere within 50 miles if they can’t travel?

here’s a link to the story of 22 december 2010 -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/news/story/jobcentre-plus-sets-benchmarks-on-number-of-sanctions-to-be-issued-by-decis/

cheers ros

The group I am currently working with are newly unemployed and having previously been in long term employment some are not restricting their JSAg’s too much under the misconception that common sense will prevail. Some of these clients have never claimed a benefit before.

I am also arguing that the starting point for the DM should be to consider that no sanction is required when looking at the background of the case.

Thanks i have followed the link and it certainly rings true with our Job Centres and it seems to me that the new claimaints are easy targets.

I worked solid for 26 years before falling out of work and also was new to the benefits system. After volunteering for six months at an advice project i was offered a full time job at my placement and told i would start in 2 weeks. When i went to sign on i was asked the usual “what have you done to find work” stuff. I showed them my letter of job acceptance. Rather than the “well done” response i expected I was asked where my “other” 5 job searches were. I asked them why would i search for 5 other jobs when i had clearly been offered one and was starting in a fortnight. I was informed i was in breach of my Jobseekers agreement and was threatened with a sanction as i had not done enough to find work. So : Jobcentre plus were going to sanction my JSA on the basis of not trying hard enough to find work because I had been offered a job? Thanks Byker Jobcentre!
I am also appealing a 26 week sanction for a first offence against one of my clients for failing to apply for a job that she wasnt even told about.
The JC+ mentality is simply staggering.

To me the Job Seeking regime is out of touch with reality.

The system seems to work on the basis that a mill owner or gang master finding himself short of a few workers would hire staff for that one day. 

The idea for the Labour Exchange was formed in 1909.

Meanwhile in 2011, an employment agency would be used on the occasions of temporary workers (probably) due to Health and safety requirements , internal induction procedures, HR processes, CRB and other background checks.

Jobseekers can search and apply for jobs on the beach from the med or in the outback and possibly even be interviewed over the internet or by telephone but 1909 logic does not recognise this.

Some of the decisions are ludicrous. We recently came across a client who had been sanctioned for failing to apply for a job as a fork-lift truck driver. The client pointed out that he had no driving licence, but the decision wasn’t changed. He subsequently won his appeal…

I agree with 1964 regrading some decisions.

I have noted recently that claimants seen to be getting sanctioned for failing to apply for a job that JC+ has told them about (even where there is good cause for the failing) regardless of whether or not the claimant has actually met the terms of thier Jobseekers agreemet.  E.g.  (good cause and if the client was in fact notified arguements aside) client has to apply for 3 jobs per week actually applies for 13 but fails to apply for one given by the JC+ the result is still a sanction.  Is this just me or, although technically correct, going against the spirit of what the whole agreement is about.

1964 & Matthew

I don’t know a great deal about this, but what you both describe seems to me to be barking mad!

Matthew - how can it be “technically correct”?  Does the jobseekers agreement specifically require that each & every job given to the claimant by JC+ must be applied for?

Derek - 01 March 2011 05:59 PM

1964 & Matthew

I don’t know a great deal about this, but what you both describe seems to me to be barking mad!

Matthew - how can it be “technically correct”?  Does the jobseekers agreement specifically require that each & every job given to the claimant by JC+ must be applied for?

Sadly yes, if JC+ adviser directs a client to a job they must follow this up regardless of whether they have exceeded their JS agreement of their own back.
In a way I feel sorry for JC+ staff (I must be having an off day!), the advisers are stuck having to hit their ‘target’ for sanctions and are grasping for technically sound grounds to do so, knowing full well the majority will be overturned at appeal - the barking mad bit is that despite the successful appeal/challenge they have still hit their target.

Chaos

Sadly its “failure to apply for a job notified by the EO” under section 19 for the JSA Act if my memory serves me well at this late hour.

I have rasied the arguement that complience with section 7 overrides it at a FtT, which is still waiting to be heard.  I expect the arguement to be shot down in flames, but as they say up here “shy boys get nowt”.

It’s “shy bairns get nowt”.  That could be the DM’s defence of the sanction.  But, seriously, good luck Matthew.

Fair enough 72dudes but as you say common sense should apply but doesnt always. I was treat like dirt when on JSA and the prevailing attitude of some (but to be fair not all) jobcentre staff was nothing short of appalling.
I think using judgement and experience JC+ staff should be able to work out who has no intention of working and is playing the game versus people who are actually trying to find work.
To threaten a sanction to someone because they have found a job is ridiculous and shows no common sense or human decency. The security staff even threatened to confiscate my mobile one time as LLoyds tsb call centre rang me up at 2pm in Byker Jobcentre to give me a telephone based job interview to test my telephone manner. I was due to sign on at 1pm but i was left waiting half an hour and i was then forbidden from taking the call for the telephone based job interview even though i should have been out of the jobcentre by 1.30 in order to take the call. I explained the call was an actual Job interview but was told i was lying and if i didnt turn off me phone immediately they would take it off me. Marvellous!

PS Jeanette : Say hello to Annabel for me. Ta