Sanctions and claim closure

Can you attach this as a PDF?

My PC doesnt recognise the format

Thanks

UPDATE : Sussed it. Thanks!

Leaving aside their complete inappropriate use of the language of “closing claims”, in my view this is highly problematic.  The JSA provisions are fairly complex and give decision makers wide powers.  Loss of entitlement through termination can happen where, for instance a person fails to sign on or is not available for or actively seeking work.  However, where a person is sanctioned for a s19 or s19A offence the statutory language is one of a reduction in JSA not loss of entitlement.  Thus, it can be argued that an underlying entitlement remains during the sanction period.  So, no fresh claim should be required.  If entitlement is terminated in these cases those decisions should be appealed, separately from any appeal against the sanction itself.  And, you’re right, termination decisions must be made by a properly appointed decision maker.

This, although distinguished, is the kind of mess that the Department gets itself into when it decides to “close a claim”.

Here are some letters which have produced excellent results at the JCP/DWP

They are as follows

1 Complaint: Unlawful issue of Jobseeker Direction (JSD)

2 Jobseeker’s Agreement is unfit for purpose

3 Jobseeker Agreement and Universal Jobmatch

4 Complaint: Unlawful issue of Jobseeker Direction (JSD)

5 Complaint: Failure to follow proper procedures

6 Complaint:

(i) Alleged Adviser bullying and harassment
(ii) Alleged breaches of DWP policy and legislation

Hope they help

I’ve just come across this phenomenon too. I had thought that a sanction did not end a claim and left an ‘underlying entitlement’. 

I’ve been looking at S19 JS Act and the JSA Regs and I too see ‘reduction’ as the key word, not closure of the claim.

And yet DWP appeal docs I’ve just seen refer to ‘if a person has lost his entitlement…because he was not actively seeking employment and then makes another claim the new award is to be reduced..(etc)’

S19B(1) and (2) JSA Act do make reference to where a claimant ‘ceased to be entitled [to an allowance] by failing to comply with the condition in [JSA Act] S 1(2)(a) or (c) (availability for employment and actively seeking employment)’  - where there is a new claim the sanction will attach to it. 

What I can’t see (confused now, been looking at it too long) is does this mean that complete entitlement to benefit rather than just payment itself is lost and a new claim is needed in each case? The procedure paper from AndyP4 would indicate that this is so.

The claimant in a sanctions appeal a few days ago denied even making a new claim, though that’s what it said in the appeal papers. If she recalled correctly, then it was done not just without her consent but without her knowledge! Plus her appeal against one decision was taken as an appeal against two, they were not treated separately.

I’m totally puzzled now.

This must be initially approached on a case by case basis.  In a case where the claimant has been sanctioned for a s19 offence but maintains that he has fulfilled the s1 requirements, then any decision to “close a claim” should be appealed for the reasons I have already stated.  A new claim should be made to protect the position and a strong complaint should be made.  All the other stuff is the DWP tying itself and claimants in knots.  Organizations who are or who have scope to be, involved in social policy work, or who have a lot of these cases coming through their door, might wish to escalate this to regional or national level.

The problem is that when we speak to JC+ about these closures of claims they want it both ways, and dodge and weave to avoid the issue.

The closing of a claim is a “Decision” made by Jobcentre Plus, and as we know all decisions must be informed in writing to the claimant, so that it can be challenged.

Jobcentre Plus seem to just ignore this, saying that they dont write to claimants to tell them the claim is closed as “we dont have to”

They simply refuse to acknowledge their legal obligations regarding this.