× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Income support, JSA and tax credits  →  Thread

Banned from local JC

 1 2 > 

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Would be grateful for some suggestions/tips.

Client is subject to 6 month ban from local JC following a ‘bit of a do’ (he admits he became frustrated and a little heated though he was not physically aggressive) and has been asked to sign in neighbouring town (some 20 miles away). Has no form of transport and has nil income at present due to a JSA sanction (reliant on food parcels) which is- incidentally- what resulted in him losing his temper in the first place. We’ve requested they revisit their decision to ban him but what does he do in the meantime? The only thing I can think of is that we request he is allowed to sign on by post. Ideas/tactics gratefully accepted.

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

Any chance of an ESA claim? Looks like he potentially could at least get 9 points for (not) behaving appropriately if you could show that these altercations were associated with a mental health problem.

Don’t deal with a lot of Jobseekers so not really able to be of much help on that side I’m afraid - I guess if you think that the ban is disproportionate and/or client is particularly vulnerable I guess you could make a complaint? Can’t see them backing down though. Any Jobcentres closer than 20 miles?

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

Having recently witnessed the provocative behaviour of the G4S security guards in my local JC (hey guys, where were you at the Olympics?), I’m not surprised that some people have “a bit of a do”.  And if I had a pound for every time a DWP officer has been discourteous to me as an adviser…

On a serious note, I am unclear what legal powers DWP can use to impose these fixed term bans.  Yes they can ask people to leave their property and withdraw permission to be there (as can any owner or tenant of land) and yes they have a duty to protect their staff and other customers, but this has to be balanced against the general public law duty to allow access to the service and this raises doubts in my mind about the lawfulness and reasonableness of fixed term bans - especially if it cuts people off from an income as has happened here.

There are of course other ways to manage aggressive behaviour and most public services go down those routes before banning anyone.  Moreover, we also know that most aggressive outbursts in public service settings are of limited duration triggered by specific situations which raises further doubts about the reasonableness of a fixed term ban. 

It rings of parent (DWP) putting naughty child (customer) on the naughty step until they say sorry.

Consider judicial review action?

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks both

Client has no mental or physical health issues so an ESA claim is not an option. In all honesty, I truly believe that he was goaded to the point of losing his temper rather than being particularly aggressive or short-fused generally. Trouble with threatening JR is that we have no means of carrying it through…

I’ve laid on the ‘he’s very sorry’ stuff as much as possible in the hope they will reconsider but if not I’m really stuck as to where to go with it next. MP I suppose.

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

It’s a sad fact of life that there are some people working in services who have a position of authority over others who get a kick out of winding up their service users.

It happens in mental health services, children’s homes, the armed forces, police, prisons, the Border Service and it also goes on within DWP.

There are counsel and solicitors who still have public law contracts to do JR.

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

Sitting on the other side of the desk. I have made a recommendation that a client was placed on an incident list, he had made threats to kill one member of staff and shown a knife to a couple of members of staff while making threats to kill.

As a responsible Authority we do have a responsibility to protect the staff and public. I don’t think anyone would disagree, you do have to manage risks.

What I find strange in the 64 case, is that this is clearly not being done on the basis of a risk assessment. Even if the client had been guilty of kicking off, forcing him to attend another office does not decrease risks to staff, if anything, it would be adding additional risk. In another office.

I honestly see no logic in this type of ban.

If a client is placed on an incident list, they should surely be advised, and given a right of review? It should be done on the basis of a proper risk assessment.

Just my view.


   

 

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

Presumably a ban on attending a Jobcentre also has to be taken as a waiver/modification of the need to attend in person for JSA purposes. It is logically impossible to ban someone from attending a place while also requiring them to do so.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Letter states client ‘will only be seen in a screened environment’ (at the alternative Jobcentre) ‘and there will be no home visits’ and ‘you will be unable to use our computers, telephones, etc.’  Apparently ‘other organisations that you have contact with, for example the local authority, may have been notified of the fact that your behaviour was unacceptable and your records have been marked….your records will be reviewed at regular intervals to establish whether your behaviour has improved sufficiently to remove the marking. This is normally carried out annually…’

The letter also refers to a ‘letter you will have received from our solicitors informing you that you are banned’ but client does not appear to have received this. Letter makes it clear client is still expected to sign on/attend appointments at alternative jobcentre as well as comply with his jobsearch, etc.

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks both.

Nevip- yes, I found that link via a Google search yesterday but it was good of you to flag it up.

Andy- client may (just) fall within the remit for postal signing as journey to alternative jobcentre would involve a bus & train journey (or a double bus journey) but I’m not banking on it. Trouble is, if not, there really is nothing he can do other than teleport himself there & back.

Edited to say that according to Google travel the journey to alternative JC will take 1 hour 7 minutes so he might be OK. We’ll see…

[ Edited: 8 Jul 2015 at 01:55 pm by 1964 ]
Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Bumping this. Thoughts on permanently banning an LD client on ESA from their local branch because of their behaviour? Refuses to access money via cash point. Insists on going into the bank and kicking off. In light of this thread I am working on the assumption there is again no specific legislation under which they can be banned and that they could ask for a review. Banks attitude is that a social worker can do your banking for you. Er, no. Not in a position to have an appointee as does have capacity.

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

Mike Hughes - 31 May 2016 10:31 AM

Thoughts on permanently banning an LD client on ESA from their local branch because of their behaviour? Refuses to access money via cash point. Insists on going into the bank and kicking off. In light of this thread I am working on the assumption there is again no specific legislation under which they can be banned and that they could ask for a review. Banks attitude is that a social worker can do your banking for you. Er, no. Not in a position to have an appointee as does have capacity.


I do think it might be worth alerting social care, about this issue.  They are probably not, as you say, going to act as appointees but they might be willing to help you address the problem, the client has a LD and needs help accessing his money.  I have seen support workers help out folks in this situation, going in with clients, and smoothing over any difficulties. If the client doesn’t get money, the risks for all, are going to get worse, so a joint approach should be the way forward not a ban.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Question came from them. They’re not in a position to assist other than to explain to the bank why they cannot. Has a parent who I am advised would not be a good appointee. Corporate appointeeship probably wouldn’t assist as the client is still going to want to go into the bank regardless.

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’m not sure why a bank would need specific legal authority in order to bar someone from their premises? Or to decline to have them as a customer at all for that matter.

However, they will need to have regard to the Equalities Act. An example from the EHRC website:

A bank has a policy not to accept calls from customers through a third party. This could amount to indirect discrimination against a disabled person with a learning disability who may use a support worker to call the bank. The right sort of approach is to make sure the customer’s records show anyone who deals with them that they may be communicating using a support worker. This is also likely to be a reasonable adjustment.

(I’m not saying that taking 3rd party calls is the answer in this case, just an example of a reasonable adjustment)

There’s possibly also something relevant to fair treatment in the FCA’s Conduct of Business.

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

Aaargh!.....

Still it does not change my opinion, its not unreasonable for a bank to make some adjustments to help someone with a LD, but… if they are trying, then it becomes a social care issue.

Its really in the interests of Social Care to help this client. To my mind SC signposting to a welfare rights unit…...is just not resolving this.

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1994

Joined: 16 June 2010

For some good work about LD and banking services see http://www.dosh.org/banking-report .  Dosh is very good for financial issues and LD; even though I used to be its chair.