Sanction Appeal Advice

[Piano Cube]

Hi all, hope someone can help with this.

 

I’m on Universal Credit and have been “signing” every two weeks where I don’t actually sign but Jobcentre staff review what I’ve been doing. I’ve kept my own spreadsheets and have presented a printout with each meeting, I’ve got the member of staff to initial and date each time so that they are happy with it.

 

They’ve mentioned about documenting time spent and applying for positions outside my “perfect job” I’ve been doing this and spending way over the supposed 29 hours (I do voluntary work too)

 

Today I’ve been given a UC71 form and a doubt about not applying for any job I am capable of doing. I apply for an average of nine jobs a week and take enough time about it so that it’s a well thought out application. I’m a bit confused to how they could think I’m not doing enough. Also why didn’t it come up at the time so I could have avoided this.

 

I’ve been asked to come up with six weeks worth of additional information about other positions I’ve applied for.

 

I’ve got seven days to reply so would greatly appreciate any advice about how to deal with it properly.

 

Cheers pc.

[Mr.P]

If your Claimant Commitment is a generic template then you are expected to apply for any/all vacancies within 90 minutes travel. This would include NMW jobs flipping burgers half way across the county or office cleaning in the middle of the night. Whilst I can't offer any advice about the UC71, I would suggest the following:

 

• Record everything in your job search diary.
  
• Visit company web sites and check the "work for us link" - Record it as "contacting employer" and make a note of 'nothing found', 'not qualified', or 'too far away'.
  
• Any vacancy found on UJM, note the reference number and any reason for not applying.
  
• Fill the diary with nauseating detail and make a point of putting something down every day.
  

If your CC is vague and generic, renegotiate it at the earliest opportunity so that it accurately reflects what you can do rather than what they want. If you are reliant on public transport, make sure the available hours give you a good two hours at either end of the day to catch a bus/train.

[Piano Cube]

Hi Mr.P, thanks for the reply.

 

I was strict on my CC and all I have is daily email monitoring, looking daily for suitable vacancies. Weekly IT recruitment agency contact and weekly contacting IT companies.

[SabreSheep]

If A sanction is applied, do return here to get advice on how to appeal it

[Piano Cube]

Sure thing, hopefully it wont come to that but I'll update the thread if it happens.

 

Cheers for the advice, pc.

[jasta11]

I was strict on my CC and all I have is daily email monitoring, looking daily for suitable vacancies. Weekly IT recruitment agency contact and weekly contacting IT companies.

 

That bit about 'looking daily for suitable vacancies' might be better if there was a specific number of vacancies mentioned, to avoid any insinuation by the JC that you didn't look at every vacancy (however many that may be). No matter what we do the the adviser can still try and say that it wasn't enough but at least with a specified minimum number as long as you do that they can't complain.

 

As has already been said, do a few things every day - including Bank Holidays, etc. The guidance states that we don't have to look for jobs every single day but it's always best to account for each day in some way - always give them more than they ask for.

[Piano Cube]

Yeah I think it's unfounded, I can produce more evidence for them but just wanted to check. Can't help worrying about it, I have this hanging over my head for the next four to five weeks so we'll see what happens

[Piano Cube]

Quick update, I've heard nothing back about the original sanction doubt but have had a letter regarding a doubt for a different time period.

 

I've sent the necessary info back, recorded delivery naturally but I had no doubt raised at the time of the signing.

 

What's to stop the DWP randomly writing for evidence? What is the proper procedure and does it have to be done at the time of the meeting?

 

Cheers for any advice, pc.

[Chester6]

Sounds like a sanction doubt in the hope you do t fight it

[Piano Cube]

I think they'll assume I haven't kept my own records going back a few months Chester.

 

Thankfully I have everything relating to the claim, I've only just started audio recordings though.

[Piano Cube]

Just an update and further questions, the last two sanction doubts were satisfied and dropped although the DWP themselves didn’t bother to let me know.

 

At the fortnightly meetings, I’ve produced email confirmations of job applications and a diary of how I’ve been dealing with my time. I’ve actually worked hard at getting employment and have a position starting mid-September.

 

I had a meeting earlier this week where I quibbled some details on a form with a manager and today I’ve received another doubt. Today it was from an advisor that has seen the same printouts and was previously impressed. At that meeting she showed it to her colleague who was also impressed with what I had produced to show my steps.

 

I wouldn’t ordinarily comment because I know that sanction doubts are to be expected, but in this case the advisor had the paperwork ready before looking at the evidence. Additionally, on the letter itself the name and address is correct but the “Dear Mr Piano Cube” is changed to a derogatory surname.

 

I’d appreciate any advice before I proceed, I have a week to return the form to the decision makers.

[Piano Cube]

Finally got a sanction, despite my best effort to jump through the hoops.

No matter what I take as evidence it is approved and accepted by one member of staff at the meeting, then disputed by someone else at the next one. This is a 28 day sanction and the details from the decision maker is as follows:

 

The Decision Maker than determined whether you met your work search requirement in the week in question by comparing

 

1. What you in fact did to search for work in that week and

2. What the law required you to do.

 

You are to be treated as not having complied with a work search requirement to take all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work in any week unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that you have taken all reasonable action for the purpose of obtaining paid work despite the number of hours that you spend taking such action being lower than the expected number of hours per week and that action gives you the best prospects of obtaining work.

 

You had provided details of 26 jobs you applied for during this period. Each of which you applied for online.

 

The Decision Maker accepted that you had undertaken some jobsearch, you had not shown evidence of spending 29 hours each week jobsearching as is agreed on your claimant commitment. The Decision Maker also noted that you had limited yourself to admin or IT jobs when there were 200+ vacancies on Universal Jobmatch you could have applied for. Had you spent the requisite 29 hours each week looking for work you may have found some of said vacancies.

 

The crazy thing is that my actions have led to me a job so that I can finally sign off, but only in a few weeks time. Any advice would be appreciated.

[jasta11]

I have never heard anything as stupid as that!!! You applied for 26 jobs which is certainly more than 'reasonable efforts'; I see people who've only applied for 3 a week get their jobsearch evidence passed without any problem.

 

All this 'you will search for 35 hours' rubbish is just DWP policy - it's not enforceable. The key issue is 'has the person taken reasonable steps?'. When you reply to the DM's letter you can quote the Claimant Commitment Guidance which is available to anyone under the Freedom Of Information act - I've posted it all up here in another thread. This guidance clearly says that quality of jobsearch is what counts, NOT quantity and that if a claimant has done all that can be reasonably expected of them in a lesser time than 35 hours then this is acceptable. They can't have it both ways.

 

The fact you actually have '29 hours jobsearch' on your CC is the thing they've caught you out on - it would have been better if you'd not had any time limits put on it when you had your first meeting to create your CC. I made sure no jobsearching time was mentioned on mine so they can't catch me on that.

 

I'd definitely appeal this decision and keep at it - though, as you're soon to start work and will soon be done with the whole sorry bunch of them I'd also be tempted to tell them where they can stick their sanction. Good luck and congratulations on getting a job !

[obiter dictum]

This is what is so wrong with this sanction routine

 

They can stop your money at the drop of a hat and put you in financial hardship, yet takes 6 months to go to a Tribunal for redress

 

The majority of these sanction decisions are overturned so i cannot understand why the Tribunal service are not getting peeved off with this draconian attitude by the DWP

[jasta11]

There should be no 'instant stopping' of benefits- it never used to be like that, your money was only stopped after everything had been looked at and you'd had the chance to state your side of things, plus they would write to you and give you a few weeks notice so that you could try and save some money for the sanction period ahead. Now you're just presumed guilty and the job is to prove you're not..while having no money.

 

My solution would be to tell advisers that if they raise a sanction doubt and it's overturned then they suffer the penalty for wasting everyone's time. 4 weeks loss of wages for a first incorrect sanction, rising for subsequent incorrect sanctions. If we can be penalised for breaking rules then so should they be. Will never happen of course but it's a nice thought.

 

In my view, the Tribunals are not as impartial as they'd have us believe, even if they do turn down a lot of sanctions.

[Piano Cube]

A fairer system would be innocent until proven guilty, it’s like the DWP send you to prison while you have to prove them wrong. If I didn’t have something starting next month I don’t know what I’d do over the winter months. Here’s hoping that the figures released on Thursday provokes a national outcry on the sanction culture.

Thanks for the advice anyway, I’ve been doing some research on some other threads and I’m coming up with a reply for them.

 

My CC is quite vague as far as daily/weekly actions are concerned. I avoided any reference to amounts besides the 29 hour thing. I never expected to have to pull them up on it and figured that since I was working hard to get employment, I’d be okay.

 

This is what I plan to use unless anyone has any better references, are these still relevant considering I am on Universal Credit?

 

Claimant Commitment (JSA Regime): Page 18

Before deciding on whether or not to take DMA action

you need to establish whether the claimant has done

everything that can reasonably be expected of them to

find work. It is not about totalling up activities or hours

spent.

If the claimant has completed all the activities set, they

have met their requirements regardless of how long this

took them. If they haven't completed all the activities set,

a judgement must be made as to whether they did all

they reasonably could and whether the Claimant

Commitment needs to be amended.

 

FOI Request VTR 5312

As there is no legal requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants to

undertake 35 hours of Work Search Activity each week, no legislation or

national guidance stating otherwise exists.

 

CJSA 1814 2007

Regarding “Reasonable” action

[SabreSheep]

SO get in the mandatory reconsideration now and get ready to use that for the appeal

 

And once again, thank you DWP for wasting more of my tax money that will be spent on a pointless appeal that should not have had to have happened in the first place

[obiter dictum]

But it gets people off the unemployment figures when sanctioned

 

IDS must think we were all born yesterday

[trebormoinet]

In regard to time spent job searching it is set by the number of hours we are prepared to work as per the claimant commitment, so if you state you are prepared to work 40 hours then 40 hours is what you need to spend looking for work else a doubt can be raised and upheld.

[SabreSheep]

However at tribunal it is likely that the claiment will be found to have undertaken excess of the minimum under the regulations to be "activly seeking work" and thus have the JSA reinstated

[Piano Cube]

Thanks for everybody's help, it has gone off via recorded delivery.

[Piano Cube]

Good news is that the first sanction has been overturned, unfortunately there is another one that has been applied. I’ve taken time to try and break it down but it still doesn’t make logical sense. Here are the facts and the decision maker’s comments. I have recordings and scans of everything besides the incoming call from the 9th September. Interesting fact is that throughout this, the actual meeting date of the 31st has been given as the 30th and the 29th on the various letters.

 

The same evidence has been accepted 9 times in the past and once more after the meeting in question, I have these signed and dated by the advisor that saw me, so I don’t understand why this particular time there was any problem.

 

Facts

31st July – Doubt Risen By Advisor At Meeting – Paperwork Given

 

2nd August – Paperwork Sent Signed For - Included Evidence

 

6th August – Letter Signed For and Received by DWP

 

5th September – Letter Received Notifying Sanction (One Month To Explain Decision In Writing)

 

7th September – Called to ask for full Decision Makers reasons on paper to reply to accusations before I apply for Mandatory Reconsideration in writing. Made it clear I would do it in writing.

 

9th September – Call from an unrecognised number asking security questions, naturally did not want to give out personal information to a stranger and he would not tell me what he wanted.

 

12th September – Letter saying Mandatory Consideration has been turned down as apparently I asked for one during the phone call on 7th September but have not provided a statement or additional evidence and that I can go to tribunal stage if unhappy.

 

Decision Makers Comments

The work coach felt that Mr Piano Cube’s work search was insufficient and issued a letter asking him to provide evidence of his work search action for the period at issue

No reply has been received to date.

Mr Piano Cube attended on 30/07/15 with his jobsearch on a printed spreadsheet, this is a format that UC outlet have requested he not use several times. He had visibly purposely greyed out the employer details of jobs he has applied for, usually through Total Jobs. He is refusing to give us access to his UJ account. He informed the UC outlet me that this is how he will continue to record his jobsearch.

Mr Cube has failed to provide sufficient jobsearch to justify 70 hrs, Although he has done some job search, there were 92 opportunities on UJM fitting his jobsearch criteria within a 20 mile radius of their home address in the last 14 days.

 

Reconsideration

On 07/09/15 Mr Piano Cube requested to the Telephone Agent a mandatory reconsideration of the decision of 03/09/15. Mr Piano Cube has not provided a statement for his reasons or provided any additional information to support his claim.

 

I have attempted to speak to Mr Piano Cube regarding the sanction decision of 03/09/15 but he refused to answer the security question and he wished to abandon the call.

 

Any advice would be appreciated, PC

[SabreSheep]

Then you need to go to the first appeal process.

[trebormoinet]

I know this is irrelevant to solving your current issue but my spreadsheet has kept them off my back for 2 years and I have never had any doubt raised regarding my job search activity.

 

I write and phone for most jobs therefore as proof I supply a name and address and or a telephone number, I know they cannot investigate my actions by supplying them with these details so I have no fear of them contacting the companies I mention, this is enough proof to satisfy evidence.

 

Any applications I find on job web sites I record the reference number and or the companies details,web site etc, again this is evidence enough and I know they cannot contact them and interfere with my job search.

 

Speculative visits again just put companies details / address which is evidence enough.

 

Asking family and friends

Practising interview techniques

Getting haircut

Time spent on work program

Researching industries

Improving/ editing CV

Looking at local papers

Online search

Contacting agencies

 

All these takes time and are valid job search action interspersed with applying for lets say 14 vacancies per week will satisfy any work coach and prevent a doubt being raised.

 

I have several spreadsheets pre filled with actions and applications which I recycle and rotate occasionally, I only change the date,they never record or keep a copy.

 

I genuinely job seek but if I was truthful each fortnight I would be sanctioned each fortnight or at least a doubt raised, those that don't lie tend to suffer a sanction.

.

Out of curiosity if you created your own spreadsheet why did you gray out the employees details rather than just omit them, this obviously caused the alarm bells to ring in your work coaches head which raised a doubt.

[Piano Cube]

Cheers for the replies,

 

I got into problems a few months back so started documenting everything to avoid the same problem again.

 

Every visit both before and after the date in question, advisors have been happy with what I supply. One one occasion, they called over a colleague who was impressed with how I presented the evidence. It was a spreadsheet breakdown of the times taken and activities done in that time together with the email confirmations. As I mentioned above, I have used this same system 9 times with no issues, I'm guessing their sanction numbers were down for the month and it was the last day to make up numbers.

 

I redacted the company names as I didn't want the jobcentre contacting the employer and possibly jeopardising the application. It was a screengrab of the email records, not the actual spreadsheet - that would have been pointless haha! They can see the title of the job, dates, times etc just not the company name.