Sanctions and Jamieson Wilson -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Does anyone have thoughts on this?

It’s the part of the recent High Court case that was successful, see: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/news/story/whether-government-back-to-work-schemes-involved-violation-of-claimants-hum/

I’m advising someone with an appeal against sanctions and I wondered if this case will have implications. My client has had a 26 week sanction imposed on him, and there are several problems with the decision making process that I won’t go into.

He’s just received a letter which sets out the requirements needed and the risks/sanctions if he doesn’t comply. This seems almost an admission that he hasn’t been sent this or properly informed in the past. Would this alone be enough to make the sanction decision unlawful?

Thanks

Hiya,

I have done an article on what to look for in a JSA sanction case for work programme stuff (Reilly and Wilson came out after I had done the first draft so I have incorporated the relevance of that case).

Might be of use although not clear from your post whether it is this type of sanction.

The article tries to go through each step the DWP are required to take to impose a sanction and points out potential issues with whether they have in fact done the required things.

It is here:

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/sanction-busting-appealing-work-programme-sanctions

Martin

Thanks for the link to your article Martin. I’ve only skim read it, but it seems clear that the sanction decision on my client can’t have been lawful.

His payments of JSA were stopped on 13 June and he didn’t receive a written notification of the decision until late July (dated 19/7/12). When I tried to find out more about why his money had been stopped (in early July) all JC+ could tell me was that he ‘failed to take advantage of a place on an employment programme’. No dates, no hint that he had been written to. The suggestion was made that the request to sanction probably came from A4e as that would explain why they knew so little about it.

Disgraceful behaviour. no information or explanation but benefit stopped for 26 weeks