JSA Sanctions leaflet

Interesting case here - http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/most-jobseeker-agreements-ruled-unlawful-and-the-dwp-doesnt-care/

This draft Template refers to “Actively Seeking Work” Ta to Mary for this

another request for Carol to send a copy of the sanctions busting leaflet.
euan(dot)henderson(at)sw(dot)glasgow(dot)gov(dot)uk

Thanks

In respect of information used to contribute to a leaflet on Sanctions (and Hardship claims)

The Sanction advice given at Refuted.org is incorrect and may misdirect claimants into believing a late submission of a hardship statement will not be accepted, and payment disallowed on that ground.

Extensive Tips on JSA and ESA sanction appeals and claiming Hardship Payments:
http://refuted.org.uk/2014/01/14/sanctionsappeal/

at:
6) Hardship payments

“Even if you are sanctioned, you may still be entitled to ‘hardship payments’. (http://refuted.org.uk/2013/11/20/severesuffering/) Make sure you get the information on these from the Jobcentre immediately and get your claim in on time, because there is no backdating. You will only get hardship payments if you continue to sign on for JSA or ESA. “

“get your claim in on time, because there is no backdating”  The JSA 10 can be received after the period of the sanction.

There is no legal time limit set for submission of the hardship statement (JSA 10)  It cannot be used as a indicator of the date of the start of hardship, the decision maker has to use different rules to define this and it can be received after the sanction end date. see DMG 35400-35401

There has been a misconception as to how these rules are applied in Leeds jobcentres resulting in claimants being denied Hardship payments.  People are told they are out of time. This is incorrect.  I think this may have affected many people. I wonder if the same misconception is in place in other parts of the country.  The advice stated above shows that even advisers have been working with that misconception.

I am very interested to hear of people who have been denied hardship payments due to this, and those who have been awarded a restricted number of days hardship payment based on the date of receipt of the JSA 10 as a start date for payments and the last day of the sanction used as an end date for payment.

This is extremely important because if the law is incorrectly applied many people may be denied hardship payments.

see also my post at:23rd Jan 2014
Dates of payment of JSA Hardship limited by guidance?

Edit added 4th Nov:
In March there were significant discussions with JCP staff in Leeds around this matter.  It was agreed that guidance did indeed allow for a late submission of a JSA 10 “Hardship Statement” and that payment should be made using the standard rules around vulnerability and finding circumstance that is identified as Hardship. So the late submission of a JSA 10 is in itself not used to limit a Hardship decision in any way so long as Hardship is, or will be the case.

In recent research concerning Hardship Payments and the DMG Chapter 35 I note that 35400 has had an additional note added (in the June update) clarifying the way a late submission of a Hardship Statement is to be treated. Copied below:

DMG35400:
Note 2: Unless 3. applies, the application is merely a form that provides information needed to decide entitlement to hardship payments. It is the evidence the claimant is relying upon to show he is a person in hardship. Entitlement to hardship is from either the 15th day (non vulnerable groups) or the date the DM decides the claimant is a person in hardship and unless 3. applies entitlement is not from the date of the statement of circumstances (see DMG 35401).

Good news, lets hope JCP staff, both back room and frontline, are trained to read their own guidance

May I also request a copy of the Sanction Busting leaflet?
Thank you.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

For an incorrect sanction I was thinking that a Cl might be able to take a DWP Civil Servant to the Small Claims. Having read a little bit my thoughts on doing so are below. Can anybody add to this

1. You would need to identify a cause of action in tort.

2. One candidate might be breach of statutory duty.  Defendant would be Sec of State for Work and Pensions.  But would be very difficult to establish that the relevant social security legislation intended to confer a right of individuals to bring claims for damages in the factual circumstances .  This would be fatal to establishing an actionable breach of statutory duty.

3. Another candidate would be negligence.  Defendant would be Sec of State for Work and Pensions as the person vicariously liable for the negligence of the individual who processed the claim.  But even assuming that the individual owed the claimant a duty of care, it may be difficult to prove breach, ie negligence, on the facts.

4. It might be possible to bring a claim in the Admin Court / QB seeking human rights damages, but the court would probably entertain this only if the claimant had suffered substantial harm or loss.

I’ve read that link in Billy Durrant’s post, interesting stuff, but the information in it relates to jobseekers agreements only. For claimant commitments, the job centre staff have almost limitless discretion as to what they require to go in the commitment.

I had to read the regs before devising my sanctions busting leaflet, and it is this limitless discretion that makes it possible for job centre staff to set people up for sanctions. There are some limits on the maximum number of hours of work, and time spent job searching, that can be required of claimants who are responsible for children or disabled adults, or who have health problems. But for at least one client who came to my organisation, her job centre adviser had ignored these limits in drawing up the claimant commitment. The client is from abroad, with no experience of looking for work or dealing with the DWP, so it didn’t occur to her for a while that the claimant commitment was impossible to meet.

Today, I have heard from a colleague that one of her clients, who has mental health issues and is signing on while he gets his ESA reinstated (long story: his mental health issues make it difficult for him to cope with the requirements of claiming benefits) had his JSA sanctioned the first day he signed on. It seems the job centre staff took exception to him putting in his job search record that he is looking for work within his church; they quizzed him at length about it. It is not the only field in which he is looking for work. They also seemed not to like the fact that he had a friend from his church go with him to the job centre. There is no suggestion that the friend was in anyway discourteous to the staff.

I am not going to go into how many levels of wrongness there are about this decision.

I have also today read the press release from Heather “Away With The Fairies” McVey - you know the one, about how unemployed people will no longer be able to just sign on - and I am still trying not to throw up on the office carpet.

All the people who have asked for the sanctions busting leaflet, will get it emailed later today.

Carol Laidlaw - 07 April 2014 07:01 PM

I’ve read that link in Billy Durrant’s post, interesting stuff, but the information in it relates to jobseekers agreements only. For claimant commitments, the job centre staff have almost limitless discretion as to what they require to go in the commitment.

I had to read the regs before devising my sanctions busting leaflet, and it is this limitless discretion that makes it possible for job centre staff to set people up for sanctions. There are some limits on the maximum number of hours of work, and time spent job searching, that can be required of claimants who are responsible for children or disabled adults, or who have health problems. But for at least one client who came to my organisation, her job centre adviser had ignored these limits in drawing up the claimant commitment. The client is from abroad, with no experience of looking for work or dealing with the DWP, so it didn’t occur to her for a while that the claimant commitment was impossible to meet.

Today, I have heard from a colleague that one of her clients, who has mental health issues and is signing on while he gets his ESA reinstated (long story: his mental health issues make it difficult for him to cope with the requirements of claiming benefits) had his JSA sanctioned the first day he signed on. It seems the job centre staff took exception to him putting in his job search record that he is looking for work within his church; they quizzed him at length about it. It is not the only field in which he is looking for work. They also seemed not to like the fact that he had a friend from his church go with him to the job centre. There is no suggestion that the friend was in anyway discourteous to the staff.

I am not going to go into how many levels of wrongness there are about this decision.

I have also today read the press release from Heather “Away With The Fairies” McVey - you know the one, about how unemployed people will no longer be able to just sign on - and I am still trying not to throw up on the office carpet.

All the people who have asked for the sanctions busting leaflet, will get it emailed later today.

That should be “Esther McVey” (employment minister; previously minister for the disabled).

Bryan R - 26 March 2014 11:48 AM

For an incorrect sanction I was thinking that a Cl might be able to take a DWP Civil Servant to the Small Claims. Having read a little bit my thoughts on doing so are below. Can anybody add to this

1. You would need to identify a cause of action in tort.

2. One candidate might be breach of statutory duty.  Defendant would be Sec of State for Work and Pensions.  But would be very difficult to establish that the relevant social security legislation intended to confer a right of individuals to bring claims for damages in the factual circumstances .  This would be fatal to establishing an actionable breach of statutory duty.

3. Another candidate would be negligence.  Defendant would be Sec of State for Work and Pensions as the person vicariously liable for the negligence of the individual who processed the claim.  But even assuming that the individual owed the claimant a duty of care, it may be difficult to prove breach, ie negligence, on the facts.

4. It might be possible to bring a claim in the Admin Court / QB seeking human rights damages, but the court would probably entertain this only if the claimant had suffered substantial harm or loss.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/5377/

Particularly this:

In Jones the court of appeal said that “it is a general principle that if a government department or officer, charged with the making of decisions whether certain payments should be made, is subject to a statutory right of appeal against his decisions, he owes no duty of care in private law”.

Carol

Is the legislation not the same for the Claimant Commitment as it is for the Jobseeker’s Agreement?

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/5264/

I would also be interested in a copy of your sanctions leaflet - .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Thanks

I have seen a copy of a claimant commitment form,and a copy of a jobseekers agreement form, and they are different . The claimant commitment asks for more information and demands more “steps” from the claimant.There are seven boxes that the claimant has to fill, saying what they are going to do to look for work. Though that doesn’t limit them to 7 steps. One box could say “I am going to look at the universal jobmatch website twice a day, 7 days a week”. That’s 14 steps. (And I have seen something similar to this on a person’s claimant commitment.)

The jobseekers agreement form is shorter and only asks the jobseeker to write down three steps per week they will do to look for work.

I think the claimant commitment might have been devised under the UC regulations, not the JSA regulations. Can’t remember as I did the research on this a few months ago, and my head is more full of bedroom tax law recently. However, I have put some references to the regulations in my leaflet. Check the regs yourself and see if you find there is a difference between the two. Information goes out of date quickly where benefits are concerned, plus I can’t claim my research is absolutely perfect; no-one’s is!

I believe that the claimant commitment is not legislated for in JSA regs. but forms an integral part of the UC regs.

Thank you for the leaflet

Hi Carol. Could you send me a copy of the leaflet too please?

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Thanks

AidanG - 08 April 2014 02:00 PM

I believe that the claimant commitment is not legislated for in JSA regs. but forms an integral part of the UC regs.

Thank you for the leaflet

You can find it at reg’ 7 of the Job Seeker’s Allowance Regulations 2013