JSA sanctions and a4e

[cabvol]

I have just (today) received a letter from a4e informing me that an appointment had been arranged for yesterday and I had failed to attend and that Jobcentreplus would be informed and the possible outcome of sanctions explained. (As if I hadn't had this threat rammed at me constantly since "joining" work programme!)

 

The only reminder of this appointment in my possession is a letter given to me on my first appointment with a4e dated 2/7/12 This letter has four different dates on it for four appointments in the following order:

 

Friday 13/7/12 Info session

Friday 17/8/12 With a specific adviser

Tuesday 2/7/12 Job search

Tuesday 7/8/12 Job search

 

At the end of my last visit I was told "see you in a fortnight" (Tuesday 21/8/12) as the guy running the session had decided fortnightly jobsearches were all that they require from me (I volunteer for CAB 2 days a week) I remarked at the time (and showed the appointments to the adviser) of the chaotic nature of the letter and suggested they ought to use proper appointment cards to avoid confusion!

 

Unfortunately this is exactly what happened. Obviously I will challenge any sanction given (I aint a CAB adviser for nothing!) but just wondered if anyone might have "heads up" on reasoning for challenging a sanctions decision in my case?

 

My only ideas are the chaotic state of the original letter and my busy schedule with CAB (I also assess people for a foodbank on a 3rd day per week as a CAB adviser)

 

I feel like I am battling DWP 24/7 for others but when it comes to my own problems I get sooooooooo depressed!!!!!!

 

And it would happen at a weekend!!!!!

[snoid01]

I have just (today) received a letter from a4e informing me that an appointment had been arranged for yesterday and I had failed to attend and that Jobcentreplus would be informed and the possible outcome of sanctions explained. (As if I hadn't had this threat rammed at me constantly since "joining" work programme!)

 

The only reminder of this appointment in my possession is a letter given to me on my first appointment with a4e dated 2/7/12 This letter has four different dates on it for four appointments in the following order:

 

Friday 13/7/12 Info session

Friday 17/8/12 With a specific adviser

Tuesday 2/7/12 Job search

Tuesday 7/8/12 Job search

 

At the end of my last visit I was told "see you in a fortnight" (Tuesday 21/8/12) as the guy running the session had decided fortnightly jobsearches were all that they require from me (I volunteer for CAB 2 days a week) I remarked at the time (and showed the appointments to the adviser) of the chaotic nature of the letter and suggested they ought to use proper appointment cards to avoid confusion!

 

Unfortunately this is exactly what happened. Obviously I will challenge any sanction given (I aint a CAB adviser for nothing!) but just wondered if anyone might have "heads up" on reasoning for challenging a sanctions decision in my case?

 

My only ideas are the chaotic state of the original letter and my busy schedule with CAB (I also assess people for a foodbank on a 3rd day per week as a CAB adviser)

 

I feel like I am battling DWP 24/7 for others but when it comes to my own problems I get sooooooooo depressed!!!!!!

 

And it would happen at a weekend!!!!!

 

 

What do you mean chaotic state, it told you you had an app and you didn't turn up?

[cabvol]

The letter is all over the place and not as neatly set out as above. Hand scribbled dates (can't even make out the name of the person I was supposed to see), two at the top of the letter two at the bottom not in date order, another appointment cancelled and scribbled out. Showed this to the adviser last week and he was in agreement that the letter was all over the show. I said then that someone was bound to mess up - just didn't think it would be me! The whole thing was wriiten about a month ago. Having been told "see you in two weeks" the 21st was firmly in my head not the 17th. Yes it is ultimately my fault. I am merely looking for opinions as to whether the confusion is enough to persuade a decision maker that there was no intent not to comply and whether there is likelyhood of sanctions. Whether it is worth trying to explain this to a4e in the hope that they might request a lenient take on this matter.

[Nystagmite]

But the letter states the 17th and not the 21st. so I don't understand the confusion?

[down'n'out]

Hello,

 

I can understand what you are putting forward, the possibility of a change of appointment verbally. The problem being in that you would actually need a change of appointment in writing.

 

The possibility is that if you had arrived for the appointment on the 17th, your advisor may of stated that he had changed the appointment, but with you not going, it as been placed as a failure to attend.

 

Whether it is worth trying to explain this to a4e in the hope that they might request a lenient take on this matter.

It is not up to the WP as to if you are sanctioned, or as to what sanction is possibly placed. They simply have to report any "doubt" of participation.

 

The letter is all over the place and not as neatly set out as above. Hand scribbled dates (can't even make out the name of the person I was supposed to see), two at the top of the letter two at the bottom not in date order, another appointment cancelled and scribbled out.

The letter then may not be in correct format. Each task must be in a specific letter. (such as "Attend at [time/date] perform job search etc). I do not think they [the WP] placing multiple times/dates on a scribbled letter would conform to requirements (Work Provider guidelines).

 

Have a look through the work provider guidelines:- Chapter 3a Mandation. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/work-programme-provider.shtml

Edited August 18, 2012 by down'n'out

[snoid01]

They will most likely say why didn't you phone to confirm. Tbh you need a rock solid reason for the sanction to be lifted.

[flumps1976]

All you can do is give you reasons and enclose a copy of the badly worded and poor layout of a letter with the reasons.

Ulitimately you are aware that the WP refer everything to DMA regardless of the reasons given.

I work for JCP and receive the paperwork back from DMA when the decisions come back following the holding period in the event of a reconsideration request or appeal.

The referrals from the WP are poor to say the least and they refer everything even if there is proof to give a cast iron reason for not attending, (e.g hospital apppointment, fit note letter offering job interviews and the list could go on considerably). DMA don't take to kindly to the poor quality referrals and there are frequently notes at the end of the decision sheet printed to advise JCP to notify the customer that a domestic emergency, period of sickess has been accepted and that we shoud have done something before WP made the referral! (Impossible given that we not based in the same offices and that the referrals are sent directly from WP and do not go to the JCP to check the referrals first which I have taken forward as I had 1 too many telephone calls to moan about the referrals).

 

Fingers crossed the information you provide will be treated favourably good luck

[SWLABR9]

It sounds like it's wildly disorganised. Deliberate or incompetence, do you think?

[flumps1976]

WP in my own humble opinion is deliberately incompetent, the problem is that the companies that bid for the contracts believed it would be easy to meet the conditions to receive their bonus payments but in reality the current situation the country finds itself in means it is far from acheivable. The companies didn't think everything through fuully and in all honesty have no idea or inclination to learn about the DMA process.

 

All companies have their flaws, unfortunately the flaws are not public knowledge or fully acknowledged by the correct departments and the people who suffer are the general public who happen to be long term un-employed, those that know how to work the system even know how to get around the WP so the wromg people are being targeted.

I am know sure if the advisers have targets (group or individual) to reach a certain number of DMA referrals but I believe that they do target some customers more than other especially if they appear more vunerable due to learning difficulties or health conditions for example.

I have no proof only a gut feeling and as a "FLUMP" my gut is big and round!

[snoid01]

WP in my own humble opinion is deliberately incompetent, the problem is that the companies that bid for the contracts believed it would be easy to meet the conditions to receive their bonus payments but in reality the current situation the country finds itself in means it is far from acheivable. The companies didn't think everything through fuully and in all honesty have no idea or inclination to learn about the DMA process.

 

All companies have their flaws, unfortunately the flaws are not public knowledge or fully acknowledged by the correct departments and the people who suffer are the general public who happen to be long term un-employed, those that know how to work the system even know how to get around the WP so the wromg people are being targeted.

I am know sure if the advisers have targets (group or individual) to reach a certain number of DMA referrals but I believe that they do target some customers more than other especially if they appear more vunerable due to learning difficulties or health conditions for example.

I have no proof only a gut feeling and as a "FLUMP" my gut is big and round!

 

Interesting, DMA= Decision Making and Appeals?

 

So your saying that they have targets to get people sanctioned and that they target the vulnerable, why would they do that?

[antone]

Interesting, DMA= Decision Making and Appeals?

 

So your saying that they have targets to get people sanctioned and that they target the vulnerable, why would they do that?

 

Flumps will, of course, have to clarify, but yeah, I can see the issue here. DMA is indeed Decision Making and Appeals, and you'll sometimes here references to LM DMA - Labour Market DMA.

 

I'd be surprised if LM DMA had sanctioning targets, but not at all surprised if the WP providers gave their advisers referral targets. I'm no "they're all out to get us!" conspiracy type, and I'm a former DWP staffer. But I'd be quite prepared to believe providers behave in an unscrupulous manner. As Flumps said, they must have thought their targets and bonuses would be easy - just hassle the lazy scroungers enough and they'll get jobs.

 

Now they're realising it's not quite the way they imagined, and they don't know what to do. So they're pushing for sanctions, because when it comes to actually getting people into work, they are lost. They are out of their depth. In an economy where jobs are hard to find, berating the unemployed and ill is a poor strategy to help people into work. But they hadn't actually given this matter any thought.

[osdset]

I have a theory, unemployment is on the up, and looks to be increasing for the foreseeable future, an unwelcome addition to the figures will be those on ESA who are on the receiving end of mandatory review before appeal due to come into force next year.

 

At present, referral to the Work Programme happens automatically after one year on JSA, this is unsustainable, I would expect that time scale to be reduced to 26, then 13 weeks which would mean most if not all ESA claimants getting a referral before their appeal is heard, add those to the existing JSA claimants and we have an unemployment figure far in excess of 2.5 million.

 

With regard to WP referrals for sanction, it's obvious that the most vulnerable will get culled first, anyone with the slightest bit of 'savvy' can run rings around the average WP 'advisor', so the pimps naturally will target the apathetic, vulnerable, or just plain stupid claimants, but why apply so many seemingly petty sanctions? They keep the overall benefits bill down, I think the government have factored in a rolling percentage of sanctions across the board as a means of balancing the books.

[snoid01]

I have a theory, unemployment is on the up, and looks to be increasing for the foreseeable future, an unwelcome addition to the figures will be those on ESA who are on the receiving end of mandatory review before appeal due to come into force next year.

 

At present, referral to the Work Programme happens automatically after one year on JSA, this is unsustainable, I would expect that time scale to be reduced to 26, then 13 weeks which would mean most if not all ESA claimants getting a referral before their appeal is heard, add those to the existing JSA claimants and we have an unemployment figure far in excess of 2.5 million.

 

With regard to WP referrals for sanction, it's obvious that the most vulnerable will get culled first, anyone with the slightest bit of 'savvy' can run rings around the average WP 'advisor', so the pimps naturally will target the apathetic, vulnerable, or just plain stupid claimants, but why apply so many seemingly petty sanctions? They keep the overall benefits bill down, I think the government have factored in a rolling percentage of sanctions across the board as a means of balancing the books.

 

Sad days, must say, i wonder if that's why i have 2 sanctions.

[flumps1976]

As antone said, I don't think that DMA have targets for making the decisions, they are required to be impartial and make the decisions as per their guidance.

I apologise if it wasn't clear but I meant that I would believe that the providers have the targets in place for placements into work and also sanctions imposed due to not attending, partcipating, entitlement doubts etc.

 

In any contact I have with the providers (when they phone the JCP to confirm correct contact details etc) confirms that they know nothing about the referral process and they admitted that they have no choice but refer everything!

 

DMA don't actually discuss cases with the providers or JCP as they have to remain impartial to ensure the decision they make is not biased.

I do speak to DMA for advice if I need to make a referral for example and I know that the WP referrals are increasing their workload considerably and the quality of the referrals is so bad, if DMA do require additional information they write out to customers or the originating referral office to ensure that ervery effort is take to receive all information needed, and the decisions received in JCP for filing a few weeks after the decision usually have the referrals and most have additional info requests included!

 

Don't forget the sanctions periods are going to change with far longer periods of up to 3 years and also the intorduction of ESA sanctions too.

[worried33]

WP in my own humble opinion is deliberately incompetent, the problem is that the companies that bid for the contracts believed it would be easy to meet the conditions to receive their bonus payments but in reality the current situation the country finds itself in means it is far from acheivable. The companies didn't think everything through fuully and in all honesty have no idea or inclination to learn about the DMA process.

 

All companies have their flaws, unfortunately the flaws are not public knowledge or fully acknowledged by the correct departments and the people who suffer are the general public who happen to be long term un-employed, those that know how to work the system even know how to get around the WP so the wromg people are being targeted.

I am know sure if the advisers have targets (group or individual) to reach a certain number of DMA referrals but I believe that they do target some customers more than other especially if they appear more vunerable due to learning difficulties or health conditions for example.

I have no proof only a gut feeling and as a "FLUMP" my gut is big and round!

 

your posts are valuable as far as I am concerned and thanks for your honesty.

 

Your posts back up my feeling that mixing welfare and profit especially bonus driven profit is not a good combination.

[sillygirl1]

My Work Programme person has now decided that I needed an assessment and has put down stuff I totally disagree with, I am now making stuff to sell and have already set up a company for this, so therefore for me to seek employment in a field that no longer wants me is lunacy.

 

The only 'support' I need is a bit of financial support to the tune of £500, £77 of which will be to renew my passport which is my primary means of identification as I don't drive nor hold a firearms certificate! However the DWP said they would fund a 'Citizens Card' for me which will not be sufficient for my needs and will not help in any way, shape or form as I am now 54 and this card is designed for under 25s.

 

The Work Programme office is moving nearer me so I could totally screw up their system and visit it daily to hand in information and ask for it to be recorded on my file - in fact that seems like a very very good idea - they want a tick box culture so they have come up with somebody who knows how the tick box culture works and can 'trip' it to show it is a complete farce!

 

I'm just wondering if 'over use' of the WP offices would bring on a sanction!

[Nystagmite]

However the DWP said they would fund a 'Citizens Card' for me which will not be sufficient for my needs and will not help in any way, shape or form as I am now 54 and this card is designed for under 25s.

 

Most places don't accept this anyway. For jobs, they usually ask for a passport or driving licence.

[sillygirl1]

Exactly my point! They are actively preventing me from achieving my objectives - something I love to continue to point out to them. The Citizens Card costs £15 or £30 if you want the 'pre paid debit card and discount' part. Since I don't go to the type of places the discounts are for it would be wasted.

 

I am sure some people will need all the help they can give in getting work but in my case it is a waste of their time. The only reason I am 'playing ball' with them is because it doesn't cost me anything to get to their offices and the adviser is quite nice - but now I have an 'Ace' ready to serve and it will be game over (I am NOT nice to play tennis against as I am better than average, despite my short stature and weight).

[flumps1976]

So the Work Prog are refusing to help fund your renewal passport which is an obstacle in to you getting back to work?

I would put in an offical complaint and include a copy of the complaint to the JCP, I know that the funds available have been cut at JCP so funding passport renewals is a no, but the providers were paid a referral fee to help them fund request such as this to enable people back to work.

I know what they would say about the type of employment they are asking you to seek is that you are supposed to be looking for anything that you are qualified and capable of doing, but as you say you are playing ball so as long as you are seeking that type of employment there won't be anything they can do.

As for daily attendance well I suppose if it was within walking distance and a nice day they why not but would you really want to go every day?

[sillygirl1]

Their new office is directly opposite my local watering hole, so a daily visit wouldn't take me out of my way. Their old office is at the 'dark' end of town and not somewhere my usual 'footfall pattern' would take me.

[down'n'out]

Don't forget the sanctions periods are going to change with far longer periods of up to 3 years and also the intorduction of ESA sanctions too.

 

There as always been the possibility of a sanction against those on ESA(WRAG) since it was first introduced, albeit, the sanction is against the payment of the WRAG component.

 

The official figures show:-

 

There were 11,790 conditionality sanctions applied to ESA claimants in the WRAG between 1st December 2009 and 30th November 2010

There were 10,130 conditionality sanctions applied to ESA claimants in the WRAG between 1st December 2010 and 30th November 2011

 

Average sanction duration = 6 weeks

[SWLABR9]

On the subject of funding cuts, we should all be aware that while the deficit might be larger than any before in terms of pound notes, in terms of percentage of GDP it's lower than many we've had before without getting all excited about them. Plus the government has just got caught hiding £31 billion in a little backwater of the Bank of England called the Asset Purchasing Facility. So, we aren't skint and we aren't in some big economic crisis which jutifies cutting expenditure in any way. The whole thing's a fraud and it's demonstrable too. The Toffs are very close to having a revolution on their hands and deservedly so.

[snoid01]

On the subject of funding cuts, we should all be aware that while the deficit might be larger than any before in terms of pound notes, in terms of percentage of GDP it's lower than many we've had before without getting all excited about them. Plus the government has just got caught hiding £31 billion in a little backwater of the Bank of England called the Asset Purchasing Facility. So, we aren't skint and we aren't in some big economic crisis which jutifies cutting expenditure in any way. The whole thing's a fraud and it's demonstrable too. The Toffs are very close to having a revolution on their hands and deservedly so.

 

 

Do you have a link for the £31B "backwater". Can you also enlighten us anymore as to why we are not actually as poor as it's made out we are?

[SWLABR9]

http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2012/08/the-uk-governments-rainy-day-fund.html but the deficit, well, I've read a couple of breakdowns recently with references and what have you but can't remember where they are. They'll pop up again and I'll post them. I'm annoyed with myself now for not keeping them in evernote!

[antone]

Do you have a link for the £31B "backwater". Can you also enlighten us anymore as to why we are not actually as poor as it's made out we are?

 

Hadn't heard of the £31bn, but there is some shenanigans going on in terms of what the government are saying about the deficit. Mainly, what they're saying is that because we have large debts, we are "poor" and must make paying them back a priority. To persuade us, they point out that families with large debts are in trouble, and may be spending beyond their means.

 

This is often true, but this is a country, not a family. My debt is your income, and vice versa. Obviously, in an ideal world, we'd have a lower deficit, but this is not an ideal world, far from it. By prioritising deficit reduction, the government is removing money from the economy, and indirectly reducing demand for goods and services. Demand goes down, companies sell less and so lay off or don't hire workers, further depressing demand. A vicious circle. Of course, in situations like this the richer you are, the better you are able to weather the storm.

 

Current policy is based around discredited "supply side" theory - the idea that if taxes on corporations and the wealthy are lowered, they will hire more staff. We've got Ronnie Reagan to thank for this particular piece of ideological nonsense. Companies don't hire because they have pots of cash sitting around and nothing better to do with it. They hire in response to increased demand for their goods and services. Ah, but see above - the government is acting in a way that reduces demand.

 

Are we poor? It's the wrong question to be asking at this time. The correct question is "How do we increase demand?" And the answer is not "Cut spending, lay off public sector workers, and throw the sick and unemployed under a bus."