any experience of tribunals’ attitudes to JSA sanction appeals?

I just read the thread just below about sanctions etc.

I am just doing a submission for a client who was sanctioned for 2 weeks. I don’t usually do these, because not many of my clients are on JSA and the other usual reasons mentioned by Tony in the other thread.

I am worried that tribunal judge will consider the appeal hearing as a waste of their time and take this out on the client. But the sanction decision seemed over the top to me, and I think if no one appeals this type decision, JC+ will get away with more and more. And there is the new sanctions stuff coming in, and more and more of clients will be on JSA instead of IS/ESA.

This particular client was on JSA for just under 1 month at time of sanction, after being kicked off ESA; prior to his ESA claim he was an asylum seeker; his English is still very poor, even JC+ thought he could not complete ES4 himself & put on his Jobseekers Agreement that he needs to get someone else to help him complete it; he actually did do 3 steps to look for work by visiting 2 agencies and a prospective employer, which IMO is quite suitable for someone who cannot make any sensible contact by phone or in writing.

Do you think it is a good idea to send him off to the tribunal?

Hi Andrea,

From what you say, this claimant has lost 2 weeks entitlement due to fact he was not regarded as actively seeking work during that period.

Until 22/10/2012, this was not something for which a claimant received a sanction. Rather it was a failure to meet a basic condition of entitlement (like having over £16k in a bank account for 2 weeks). After this date then there are sanctions for failing to meet those conditions- that is the new system.

In terms of whether he has met the actively seeking work test then it seems to me that he has done all that can reasonably be expected of him given his circumstances at the time. I would go for it.

I agree about the importance of appealing such decisions.

Thanks Martin, for pointing out that this is not actually a sanction, I will amend the wording in my submission.
Maybe I should change the title of the post?

Just to say - client only needs to take more than 1 step weekly (i.e at least 2) which he can reasonably take to have the best propsects of securing work. Have a look at Reg. 7(1) JSA Act 1995 and Reg 18(1) JSA Regs 1996. Also under Reg18(3) regard has to be given to various factors, eg skills, qualifications and abilities.

It does not matter what is in the Jobseekers Agreement with regard to the above, as the issue appears to be whether your client met the basic cinditions i.e available for and actively seeking employment.

You will need to see what was put on the client’s jobsearch record for the relevant period, but in my experience these are often taken by the JCP advisor who recommended the sanction and you would have to ask for a copy.

It’s at least 2 now. Most PAs think that a claimant should be doing everything in their JSAg every week, which is legally wrong and usually if not impossible pretty pointless.

I dealt with one case of an Asian woman who had joined her husband in the UK and then he died leaving her with children. As they were too old for her to go on IS she had to claim IBJSA. She had always lived in her community, spoke little English and could not read it at all (she could only read Bengali a bit, I think). She was attending English classes which was clearly the best thing she could do to make herself employable. She had been round all the local shops where there were Bengali speakers, but couldn’t keep going back every week as they all knew she was looking. She couldn’t read English newspapers or even use th Jobpoints without assistance.

And she had benefit stopped for not meeting the labour market condition, when anyone with half a brain could see she was doing everything it was reasonable for her to do. So she won.

Just to be clear on what actively seeking work means:

1. “steps” on an ordinary meaning means at least 2. However, that is not its meaning- rather it is legally defined as more than 2 (ie at least 3)- see Reg 18(1) JSA Regs unless taking 1 or 2 is all that it is reasonable for that claimant to do in that week.

2. The test however is not met by simply taking 3 steps. The person must take such steps as are reasonable for them to take in order to give them the best prospects of securing employment. For some people that might be far more than 3 steps (for example there are more than 3 jobs on rightsjobs at the moment which a good welfare rights adviser could go for. Assume 1 application takes 4 hours and you have no other responsibilities in a given week. How many jobs is it reasonable for you to apply for?).