Recently on the 1st April 2011 (in the afternoon) John Domokos of The Guardian exposed a scam that Unlawful Sanctions has been aware of some time, that is advisers at Jobcentre Plus offices all over the country being assigned targets of how many sanctions to do per week. What we didn’t know, other than unfounded assumptions of educated guesses was benefit claimants with disabilities were deliberately targeted to reach these targets of about 3 sanction doubts per week per staff member: with kudos for exceeding this.
The bottom line is all benefit sanctions are unlawful (for reasons stated on this blog) and Jobcentre Plus are still denying this. The difference is, if benefit sanctions were lawful, which is the Government’s stance, then benefit claimants who were spitefully tricked into receiving them is unlawful.
Benefit Sanctions
The fact that there are targets don’t suggest any illicit activity; after all targets are a benchmark for performance.
One could argue that as Jobseeker’s Directions (JSD) are an instrumental part of Jobcentre Plus procedures from referrals to welfare to work schemes and jobs to be applied for; that there need be no targets to ensure Decision Makers have work to do.
How can Employment Officers improve their sanction doubt reporting statistics?
Surely this is mere chance for an Employment Officer’s case load in one week to contain enough claimants who for whatever reason aren’t following the rules enough to meet targets?
How can someone ensure the likelihood of meeting or exceeding targets is done in a “fair” way?
Some examples of possible routes to take:
- Assign each claimant with as many Jobseeker’s Directions of jobs to apply for as possible hoping that due to the number of such would mean the claimant wouldn’t apply for all jobs
- Coincidently select the wrong drop down option on the system saying a job has not been applied for when it has
- When doing a job search with a claimant submit him or her to N+1 jobs bringing back only N JSD print outs
- Raise a lateness sanction doubt when the claimant wasn’t actually late
A sanction defence?
Some of you may be thinking “is this a defence out of a sanction?”
This could be. If you have failed or refused such an instruction because you have (or consider yourself to have) “good cause” then this isn’t the approach to take. It can be a defence not an excuse. Please notice the difference.
A person wanting to rely on the testimony of a whistleblower for a defence doesn’t have “good cause” for the refusal or failure to do something hence why this person is sure bet of a successful sanction. You would have to argue that such sanction was given unlawfully (or the sanction doubt is malicious), not that you think you have good cause.
Am I an easy target?
They are in authority with direct power to restrict your payment (end your claim, sanction or delay) so all jobseekers are a relatively easy target if they choose to target you.
As specified in the article, they typically pick on disabled people. Ask yourself:- Have I got a disability notified at Jobcentre Plus? Have I got this sanction (or a sanction doubt with possible sanction) because of it?
Saving the “public purse”
This is all an exercise to cut the welfare bill. Is the Welfare Bill inclusive of sanctions or is sanction money spent elsewhere? It shouldn’t be like this – job creation is more likely to solve this. Eventually, if the Training Wage Bill goes through Parliament exempting people from the National Minimum Wage, this will force people into low pay and in some cases no pay. There will be no alternative on the dole.
We advise anyone who is caught up unfairly in this to get professional advice.
Sanction Defence
Unlawful Sanctions suggest this approach:-
- Specify how/why the sanction was unlawful
- The disability/what makes you the easy target
- Enclose The Guardian article with the appeal and make reference to it
- Enclose a sweetener
- Enclose good will
Why the sanction was unlawful
Depending on what the sanction relates to, you need to quote the law where it has been violated.
Make reference to you having a disability (etc.)
Make the Decision Maker aware you have a disability – and direct him or her to your Jobseeker Agreement (JASg), enclosing a copy if you have it.
Enclose a copy of the article (reference it in your appeal)
Try not to be argumentative etc. You can make reference to Case Law and all that is relevant to your appeal (ok, you can put whatever you want but it wont help matters); you can include a national newspaper article if you feel that it will help.
We suggest you hint about a bigger problem but do not make bold accusations of a corrupt DWP (we know its true but you will get their backs up).
For example, “There is suggestion published by The Guardian that certain Jobcentre Plus offices have sanction targets. A whistleblower has cited an example where someone with a disability was unfairly tricked into a sanction. I have enclosed it with the appeal as Appendix B. This activity isn’t compatible with the law as specified above.”
Sweetener
If the sanction is regarding about failing to apply for a job allegedly given to you as a Jobseeker’s Direction, it is admirable to include as an example, a job log for that Benefit Week (including any letters received/copy of email) showing them that you are a jobseeker who is looking for work.
Get them to think “maybe this sanction doubt was raised in error“.
Good Will
This isn’t a dispute of whether you should carry out such Jobseeker Direction or not due to you not being aware of it etc.
This appeal is about defending yourself from a sanction. You wont win after all, you get to keep your benefit, likely to occur additional costs in the appeal process and you will have a lot of stress and worry regarding it.
It is a good idea as a “good will” gesture, to specify that you are willing to undertake such Jobseeker’s Direction but only when you can understand it… for example… “I do not have any issues regarding complying with any Jobseeker’s Direction. I have received them in the past and complied without any problem. In this scenario, I feel I was targeted due to my disability and given instructions which were too small for me to read and understand. If this Jobseeker’s Direction was sent in large print I would be able to comply. I am happy to carry out this Jobseeker’s Direction if I was given a reasonable chance. “.
Now
My benefit has been sanctioned for failure to attend a new deal advisor interview. The meeting at which the appointment was made was overloaded with confusion. 18th Jan was offered and withdrawn because that was not my usual signing day.17th Jan was offered which was my signing day and withdrawn because there were no free appointments that day, 10th Jan was eventually booked but I was not issued with a letter confirming the appointment or offered my fares re-embursed because it was not my usual signing day. Although new deal interview was mentioned it was not clear as weather it was a jobsearch review or an initial new deal interview and the appointment was made on my jobsearch review meeting card. The DWP say that forgetting to attend this meeting is not good cause. I did not go to the jobcentre again until 17th, which would have been my usual day to sign I have been reading the guidelines to DWPO staff on re-engaging with customers that have been sanctioned as they are more likely to be un-coperative because they have had their benefit sanctioned. That sounds to me very much like psychologists are involved in the advice provided to DWP.
Psychologists understand that overload is likely to cause a customer to forget ie thier appointment time and I suspect that one of the reasons letters must be issued is that they include the threat that failure to attend will result in loss of benefit.
I have printed out information relating to overload or failure to encode for my appeal because it is most unfair to say that forgetting to attend under these circumstances is not good cause.
It is not simply a sanction in benefit, it is like saying for the next two weeks we are going to remove your right to food, light, hot water,heat, baliffs may be at your door for non payment of council tax incurred during the sanction etc. You are currently inreceipt of a subsistence level exsistance and we have the right to remove even that. Completely unacceptable
I think it is time to beat them with thier own stick. It is a contravention of human rights and needs to be addressed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
They must sent a written instruction for you to be required to attend. The only exception is signing on appointments however this is advised to you implied by your JS40 signing on book. That is you are to attend every 2 week further than the two examples shown. All other appointments must be specified in writing 48 hours in advance (whether they post a letter or print a document confirming this by handing to you in person).
I can see you are confused about this and the whole “sanction targets” scandal just goes to show how easily jobseekers can be tricked. You are genuinely stating that you forgot to attend when in fact they failed to notify you to attend. There is a major difference. Even if verbally you have been requested to attend and forgetting the date and time of such, its them who have failed to put it in writing whereas in regards to sanctions they cannot (under the rules but they do what they please) sanction you without the initial written notice (JSD) so you recalling a discussion or them claiming you were advised with you going along with their claims trusting them, is neither here or there.
You wouldn’t get your fares reimbursed until you attend the appointment.
You mention about a “jobsearch review meeting card” (which I assume is the New Deal interview cards) which would have given you written notice (although not in letter as it should be). They must be basing their sanction doubt reasoning on such card. Have you stated, confirmed and/or shown them the existence of such card? If the answer is no to all three – then they cannot rely on the NDPA as having given you written notice by such card instead of letter as they do not have the evidence to enforce this.
Have you made an Appeal?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Yes, my appeal will be heard on Tuesday.Thank you for your reply.
I received a letter on the day I was informed that my benefit may be sanctioned. The letter states that a doubt has arisen on my claim because I failed to attend a New Deal Advisor Interview or a Jobsearch Review Meeting?
What I find unacceptable is that if a person says that they forgot about the meeting and it was a meeting that was scheduled for a time and day that is not a normal signing day the DWP state that this is not a good enough reason.
Yet according to pyschologists it is a perfect reason and can happen to anyone. Atypical forgetfullness such as forgetting where you left your car keys is very common, whereas forgetting how to drive is uncommon. So forgetting that you were expected to attend a meeting for which a letter was not issued is acceptable whereas forgetting that you need to sign once a fortnight on a Monday whilst on JSA when you have been doing so for some time is not typical.
A reasonable person can be expected not to attend the jobcentre on a day and at a time they would not normally be at the jobcentre if they had forgotten that they had an appointment to attend. And it would be uncommon if they were to attend when they did not believe that they had an appointment. So ” I FORGOT” according to psychologists is an excellent reason.
And as it is clear from DMG and all the other literature DWP consume in order to deal with customers, psychologists and enforcement are heavily involved in the advice and training they are given.
Therefore it is completely unacceptable to say that according to thier guidelines “I FORGOT” is not an excellent reason for failure to attend when they know or ought to know that it is.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Well my personal view (hence this website) is people who constantly take the piss by not attending interviews should receive a penalty of
a) being signed off and
b) when continuously missing appointments be “sanctioned” for the downtime (i.e. the 40 minutes time slot that someone else could have had and the staff member being unproductive) for like £5 for the time with an increasing fine plus multiplier (i.e. £20, £40, capped to £50)
* This should be reasonable to the persons circumstances – anyone with a disability and poor memory should be excluded. Anyone who is late on an odd occasion should be accepted as human nature without penalty.
* Anyone who misses an appointment should be free of penalty (and sanction!) until the third occurrence.
* Being late to sign on (considering no one is seen at their time – they have made it a 30 minute period now but its still the same, Employment Officers pick ES40 from a pool of jobseekers and not by time) isn’t a sign of someone “working while receiving benefits” and in all honesty it shouldn’t make a difference when a person signs on (the whole time system is surely to prevent overcrowding to manage people better) as long as they sign on the same day. A penalty of £20 (not 2 week sanction) should be for those who always turn up at the wrong time (5+ times) so people don’t ignore their time slot.
* Missing your sign on day… a one off occurrence should mean you just receive your money a day (or so) later when you attend the next available day. Repeat offences should be resulted in persons signed off if its expected that a person could be working at said time.
Of course, the above penalty I talk of isn’t required as no one (the vast majority) will really keep missing appointments… but they live up to the “If you can’t make an appointment, and arrive on time, how could you ever be employable?” theory. (Ironically, I have personally been kicked out of my Jobcentre Plus office due to arriving too early. More than 5 minutes to spare you are ejected from the grounds.)
It is only an exercise to reduce the “unemployment count” (people signing off that isn’t for education is treated as people moving into work) and the welfare bill. The Guardian highlighted about sanction targets and staff objectives of “saving the public purse”…
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Just to notify everyone that DWP have acknowledged and confirmed such practice in part and made a statement after initially denying it.
http://www.workprogramme.org.uk/201104091206/jobcentre-plus-unlawful-sanctions-scandal.html
They also claim it is no longer a problem. They justified it as being a “misunderstanding” in a few JCP offices.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
My comments were made in relation to my first post.That is I was offered several appointments and both next signing appointment and new deal advisor meeting appointment were discussed. It is under these circumstances that I missed my appointment because no new deal advisor meeting letter was issued.
I do disagree that sanctions should be imposed on anyones £64pw. And I disaagree that those that regulary forget appointments are “taking the piss” as you put it.
Many women in their forties and fifties that are going through menopause report forgetfullness as one of thier symptoms. So ladies, I think that if you do forget an appointment and are sanctioned this is a legitmate reason for appeal. Although many women claim that there are so many other demands on their time and if they are on JSA as well it is stressful an could just be overload.
My main concern is that I feel it is possible to target a jobseeker by conducting meetings such as the one I attended for which I was not issued a Nwew Deal Advisor Interview letter although this meeting was mentioned. Whilst arranging my next date to sign for which I was offered several appointments. The first two weeks hence etc.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I agree .Sanctions are wrong .
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Sanctions are bad .Cause bad relations . Doing them on purpose is really bad .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My JSA benefit is being sent to a decision maker. I lost the details of ONE job given to me by the job centre. After searching the Job seekers website for the details again I could not find them and so was unable to apply for the job. When I signed on I was truthful and explained what had happened and what I had done. The lady who signed me on that day was useless! She told me that because I had failed and refused to apply for a job that they would refer my benefit to a decision maker. I told her that I did not refuse I was more than willing to apply for the job but could no longer find the details. Also I was under the impression that these jobs were more of suggestions and although I always applied for them I thought that as long as you were actively searching work it would not matter if you did not apply for these, I was also not (if my memory serves me right) told that I must apply for them or face the consequences, I asked for the details again (if she was able to print them off for me) and I would use the jobcentre phones to apply then and there but was told it was ‘too late’, I am still not sure whether she meant that the job had closed or they were not allowed because my benefit was being taken to a decision maker. I asked how long my benefit may be stopped for ( the minimum and maximum lengths) she was also unable to tell me this.
My problem might be that I still live with my parents. I have to pay my parents ‘keep’ £50 a fortnight to continue living at home or I will get kicked out and become homeless and I also have my own bills to pay for (mobile phone contract etc). I am only 23, have worked since I was 14 (Saturday job) and have been made redundant twice so far (and im 23 remember). I live in Wrexham where jobs are VERY scarce at the moment with my mother also just being made redundant. Leaving my father to bring the money in for the household on his own. I have explained this in my defence (I was sent a letter asking for my ‘reasons’) but I doubt that the job centre will even read it!.
Very long story short, do you think there is anything I might be able to do?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hi Louise
Employment Officers (those who sign you on) aren’t (unless I am mistaken) given discretion of whether someone has good cause or not.
The option on the system are like Employed, Not Employed (selected if you say you applied for job) and Did Not Apply (if you say no – or anything other than yes).
If it was THEIR mistake… when you come clean and say you didn’t apply… they don’t get the opportunity to state whether you didn’t apply within good reason. It is then when instead of the adviser having 30 seconds to decide if its a genuine case or not… its referred to a decision maker which is more expensive and time consuming… which makes absolutely no sense, until you realise how much sanction doubts are guaranteed to be accepted (up until appeal anyway, assuming everyone appeals… of course they don’t, which is why they do this to make overall savings)
Of course, she was being a little Hitler… its only too late if the deadline has been reached – which if its not the case you can still apply for the job with good cause.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I had my decision through yesterday for Job seekers! 6 months sanction! My benefit stopped from 27th July 2011 to 25 January 2012. I am completely shocked that they have taken such a drastic action against someone not applying for 1 Job, if I were repeatedly not applying then I would understand but I think they have gone extremely overboard.
What’s worse is I visited my doctor this morning as I have not been feeling myself for a long time and he has diagnosed me with Atypical Depression a subtype of Major Depression. (I know right, ‘oh no not another ‘depression’ case) but my doctor has told me that I need to rest for a while and try not to worry or stress (which job searching does with the applying and more often than not complete silence and no reply. Or even the rejection from a company). The decision from JSA has really tipped me over the scales and my doctor advised I sign on to ESA as he thinks I am no fit to work (I find mediocre task that were once a breeze to me are now difficult and I get confused easily) but my problem is can I sign onto ESA if I have a sanction with JSA?.
Thanks for your help, you’re a great help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Move on to ESA! JSA sanctions only are applicable to JSA. ESA sanctions exist but they are not transferable as far as I am aware.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
We are planning to restructure this website by splitting it into two websites.
1) Unlawful Sanctions –> general discussion, more advice and guides than at current etc.
2) Benefit Sanctions (new) –> where people can submit details of their sanctions anonymously.
Why the new site? Jobcentre Plus is heavily target based.In a just society, if Person A has “good cause” than Person B and Person C in the same or very similar circumstances, also has “good cause”; but the problem is a) chance, b) prejudice and c) postcode lottery. Conveniently Jobcentre Plus relies on guidance (of laws) and case law (which is big (and very few) cases typically by exceeding the appeal system) and has no system in place to determine whether Decision Makers are making “fair” decisions from day 1. This is deliberate!
* Person A and C have identical cases by merit, Person C is closer to the start or end of the case-load but Person A is in the middle.. by chance of meeting targets there is every possibility that Person C will be discriminated against and not be seen to have good cause due to the need for the employees to meet targets to safeguard their jobs. A lot of this is down to “chance” – justice is a balance, not a gamble!
* Person A and B, have identical cases, are pretty much in the same place in the queue, however, are in different parts of the country and thus guaranteed to be decided by different Decision Makers, whom ironically enough disagree with each other (not that they are in dialogue – but as a comparison) although judging by the same guide!!! This is a postcode lottery.
* Person A and D (yeah added one) have identical cases (merits of the doubt) although subject to the chance and postcode lottery also, Person A has a clean claim without any issues, whilst Person D either has had a previous sanction before (especially if rather recently) or some other mark on their claim; Person D is more likely if the other two variables were equal, to be sanctioned and denied their appeal.
The concept is if people share their cases, along with Jobcentre Plus responses; people can include such in their Appeal. It also is a good way of determining if sanctions are innocent or vexatious.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0