× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC conditionality

FIT Advisor
forum member

benefit advice officer, three rivers housing association, co durham

Send message

Total Posts: 144

Joined: 18 June 2010

Client has claimant commitment that require her to be prepared to work up to 48 hours, work any day of week, travel up to 90 minutes each way. She also has to prove 35 hours of work related search each week. Work coach not prepared to allow travel time involved in the work related search….walking 30 minutes to use PC in library, cycling to out of town retail parks etc. Obviously at risk of sanction, but clearly unreasonable. Under considerable stress, particularly around not being able to include the travel time in her work search.

Also finding it difficult to get CC adjusted to take into consideration caring responsibilities, though easier to challenge.

What is the best way to approach unreasonable CC and in particular work search activity?

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1966

Joined: 12 October 2012

What about a formal complaint - get it to your local Complaints Resolution Team - that the CC is unreasonable, that it breaches DWP’s own regulations (Reg 88 for expected hours Reg 96 re. caring responsibilities, and the rather useless and loaded provisions at Reg 15 for reviewing a CC) I am finding CRT to be the only way to get through certain problems without a long, fruitless wait.

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

Sanwyp, JCP partnership managers locally are promoting a ‘Case Conference Stencil’ - which is apparently a form that organisations can complete if we have concerns about the content of the claimant commitment and feel amendments should be made to take account of the client’s particular needs or difficulties.  I have missed all the meetings where this has been discussed and I will need to have an email trawl to see if the said document has actually been circulated yet. 

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

I can easily envisage a situation in which eventually the majority of UC claimants will be permanently on a sanction.

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

Apologies Sandra I was mistaken.  The ‘Case Conference Request Form’ which has been circulated is for the purpose of helping customers ‘move towards employment’ by identifying employment goals, barriers and training needs.

It expressly says it is not for sharing any medical-related or non-employment related information!

I will suggest at next meeting that a similar template could be used to outline concerns.

File Attachments

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

JCP now suggesting use this form to highlight that there are amendments needed but don’t disclose the medical info, come into job centre for a Meeting with client and work coach to discuss. I think the time constraints on advisers would prevent that in most cases, meaning phone is more likely.

Carol Laidlaw
forum member

Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 68

Joined: 20 June 2013

Myself and a colleague successfully got an unreasonable claimant commitment changed about two years ago by making a complaint, and in the written complaint, spelled out where the CC broke the regulations and drafted a new CC that the client considered reasonable. She got what she asked for. But before the claimant commitment was changed, we got a phone call from the client’s job centre adviser saying, in effect, that she didn’t understand the regulations and would have to refer the request to her supervisor.
I have heard occasional complaints from job centre staff that new recruits are usually given short term (though in theory renewable) employment contracts and are not being given adequate training.