Benefit Fraud & Abusive Claimants: Sanctions

Both benefit fraud and physical violence are already crimes. Why would Jobcentre Plus implement an increased sanction regime to financially punish those involved in these two acts? For these sort of crimes there are typically 4 outcomes:

a) a Caution

b) Community Service

c) a Fine

d) Prison

Is it right that Jobcentre Plus can impose a sanction (fine) outside of a court?

Obviously not. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a courtroom – in this case, some administrative persons working for the Crown are playing Justice without any understanding of it at all – for example the last DWP Survey revealed most workers didn’t know what qualifications they have.

Benefit Fraud

We do not endorse Benefit Fraud – fraud is a criminal offence dealt with in court NOT by benefit sanctions! Lose the thoughts in your head about Jobseekers and Fraud.

It would be silly for the DWP not to prosecute benefit fraudsters!

The DWP isn’t anytime soon going to stop prosecuting benefit fraudsters.. so why benefit sanctions for benefit fraud?

If the DWP doesn’t have a case the CPS would take on to prosecute someone for an alleged benefit fraud, due to lack of evidence and the low chance of a successful prosecution (perhaps due to innocence) they will choose to sanction that person for “benefit fraud”.

Not reporting Changes of Circumstances is a benefit fraud offence. This isn’t clean cut: there is no real difference to them between someone who is working while claiming, someone who wasn’t aware of reporting a change of circumstances, or someone who only recently found out that they required to report a change of circumstances (but didn’t at the time) and contacted Jobcentre Plus to notify them of such a change.

There is no published guide specifying the extent to what is a “Change of Circumstances” – only a few examples are included.

Physical Violence

Physical violence is covered under numerous different crimes depending on the severity. It is within the remit of the police to intervene, arrest, investigate and prepare a case to the CPS. This should NOT be a benefit sanctionable offence.

If the police cannot be involved (i.e. not called) and the suspect isn’t sent to court – it is clear that either the act of physical violence didnt occur or the “physical violence” wasn’t severe enough (i.e. kicking a chair without causing any damage).

How is it right for Jobcentre Plus to decide that physical violence occured when the police were never called and that the person accused of such hasn’t been found guilty in court? Then to sanction them their lifeline.

However you wish to look at it, regardless of the bolt on legislation, Jobseekers are not legally obligated to undertake any greater degree of behaviour than any other person written down in the law books. Regardless of their behaviour (in this sentence scenario where the allegation isn’t malicious) if the other conditions are met they are still entitled to Social Security like any other person.

It would be down to the police and the courts to sort out any dangerous and harmful behaviour – not Jobcentre Plus security and their staff.

Verbal Abuse

Everyone has the right to Freedom of Expression. Jobcentre Plus doesn’t specify specifically what “verbal abuse” means. We all assume it means speaking threats and/or swearing offensive language. It actually (in examples) extends to basically any unwanted discussion and the discretion is left to Jobcentre Plus staff. Sarcasm can be verbal abuse to them. Refusing to answer a question can also be verbal abuse. Content in written correspondence including letters also fall under the definition of “verbal abuse”.

You have a right to be rude, unfriendly or otherwise undesirable… everyone dealing with customers will have experienced this from time to time. I do not agree that this is right but if you meet the conditions of Jobseekers Allowance, your attitude or content of what you say is irrelevant. It is wrong for benefit sanctions to be imposed for this reason. It is just an example of reducing the Social Security bill by other means and methods.

IF1: Report an incident procedure

Any non-customer may raise an “incident” through the DWP’s IF1 form (titled “Incident Assault Form”) whether you are a DWP employee (Jobcentre Plus etc.), G4s security or the Appeal Service (funny enough I thought they were independent under direction of the Ministry of Justice NOT Work & Pensions so why would they use a DWP form?)

Section 3 of the IF1 Incident Assault Form allows the assumption of the “assailant” to be grouped to any other person who could be deemed affiliated to that person (be it married, family, friend or someone who is supporting such person in a passive way etc.) although apparently everyone in the UK has the Freedom of Association etc. (which in addition to having the right to become involved includes the right not to be assumed, grouped or linked with people you do not have an association with) so innocent bystanders can be brought into an incident unfairly for intimidation.

The incident is grouped into two categories… 1) verbal 2) physical. It is merely an spiteful act of vengeance or attempt to intimidate and bully jobseekers off benefits. New Deal Scandal published a good article on it (below are some snippets):

Sadly, this will always become a tickbox exercise…

* Someone talks in an argument and accidently some (minute amount) saliva travels through the air and hits the staff member. This is disgusting but wasn’t deliberate and shouldnt be categorised as spitting.
* Someone gets upset and throws a pen down, which bounces off the table and touches the staff members arm. Customer apologises, there was no intent of harming anyone by doing so, but gets reported as throwing a small item.
* Someone gets told they have been given a 6 month sanction but didnt receive acknowledgement in the post, goes to sign on and gets told a sanction exists. The customer kicks the chair with frustration. Causes no damage just causes some attention. is reported for “physical abuse”.

and

As there is no definition [for verbal abuse], they could be counting every moaning or rude customer as “verbal abuse” which isn’t right, my personal definition is threatening, swearing or otherwise saying something which brings fears to personal safety or of someone you know, causes distress or intimidates.

If people intimidate them they shouldn’t have a job in a customer facing role. Written correspondence also falls under “verbal abuse” (Although its not verbal) – anything in the physical sense falls under “Physical Abuse” including attacks on objects not staff, all spoken and written instructions by “customer” falls under “Verbal Abuse”.

Just like the inefficiencies of the benefit administration that is grouped as “Fraud & Error” and subsequently shortened to read just “fraud” (although error accounts for more wastage of taxpayer money than suspected fraud); the word “Physical Abuse” is used interchangeably with “Assault” and “Verbal Abuse” typically shortened as “abuse”.

Therefore, statistics wrongly show that significant number of “assaults” occur each year when they are referring to the majority being incidents of non-contact where police aren’t called and where vandalism occurs or frustration is being took out on the furniture. Even with the figures of “physical abuse” consisting solely of assaults (which its not) it is very small considering the degrading treatment and abuse jobseekers have to experience whilst at the Jobcentre.