Claimant Commitment

An appealable decision is a

Decisions about a proposal to make or vary a claimant commitment
.
1 SS Act 98, para 8; JS Act 95, s 9 & 10

It is the verb “to make” which I see as fallible here. Does it mean that you can appeal a decision to make a CC? It would seem so? If so you do not seem to need a CC, or is it so early my brain pipes are clogged.

Any views?

Decisions on claims for benefits are SSA section 8 decisions.  The making of claimant commitments and Jobseekers agreements are determinations embodied in those decisions and are not in themselves appealable.  They are, however, amenable to review.

If a claimant doesn’t accept a claimant commitment under reg 16 of the UC Regs or refuses to sign the proposed Jobseekers Agreement.  He will be refused benefit.  He then appeals that decision arguing that the Secretary of State has misinterpreted or not applied the relevant legislation, or has applied it unfairly, irrationally or discriminatorily.

That wasn’t quite my reading of the regulations when I last researched this. It seemed to me that a claimant has a right to ask for a claimant commitment to be reviewed by his/her job centre adviser, or by a decision maker if the adviser refuses to vary it. The decision maker has to reply within 14 days. If the DM will not agree to the variation, the claimant can appeal against the refusal. But is then stuck with the claimant commitment they disagree with until they get an appeal hearing.

I agree you can always ask that the proposed commitment/agreement to be referred to a decision maker. But, my reading is that if you refuse to accept a claimant commitment or sign a jobseekers commitment your claim will be disallowed.  Similarly, if you refuse to accept or sign a proposed variation during an award that award will be brought to an end (see s1(2)(b) JSA Act 1995, s3(1)(a) and s 4(1)(e) Welfare Reform Act 2012 – conditions of entitlement) We. It is the decision disallowing benefit that carries appeal rights.  That is also what CPAG seems to be saying (pp1111-1117) although, to be fair, parts of it do seem a little unclear on the matter.

It is an appealable decision about a proposal to make a CC.

Therefore one can appeal their proposal to make a CC thus what would be put in its place? If one did not accept their proposal would JSA/UC be denied as it is only a proposal which is negotiated.

Welfare Reform Act 2012

S.44 ss.9 (Claimant Commitment)

ss.9(1) The key word here is “information”. A claimant commitment then is simply a document containing information, not orders or diktat.

ss.9(2) is just ‘packing’

ss.9(3) All of the criteria in this paragraph hinges on S(1)(2)(a) & S.1(2)(c) of JSA 95. There is also a reference to S.8 and S.17(a) but that is not relevant for our purposes.

ss.9(4) I think this blurb tries to change a negative test into a positive test. Remember, they were criticised by the commissioner for applying a negative test!

ss.9(5) This is interesting,

“The employment officer may, and if asked to do so by the claimant shall forthwith, refer a proposed claimant commitment to the Secretary of State for him to determine—”

This means that a claimant can still challenge the adviser or the decision maker and still go to appeal. This in turn, means that the employment officer can not just put what they like into the claimant committment, it is still a negotiation just as the JSag is a negotiation. Whatever is negotiated with the employment officer (usually the adviser) is simply 2 proposals, mine and theirs.  I wouldn’t say a proposal is not set in stone. I wouldn’t even say that an agreement is set in stone because circumstances can change. The only thing set in stone is that both Cl, and the employment officer must comply with the law.

ss.9(10) Would have us all believe that we must accept the latest proposed claimant commitment and that we have no choice. The opposite is always true unless the ASE test changes, and that ain’t about to happen.

I think the important point for us to remember here is that everything still comes back to the ASE test in JSA 95. That is because the government do not hold a monopoly on the test of reasonableness. They can change whatever law they like, but if the law isn’t reasonable (good law) then it won’t stand.

I must admit that I’ve been scratching my head on this and it seems that I was wrong.  I was thrown by the statutory reference “SS Act 98, para 8” in the original post.  For anyone seeking the statutory route it is s12(1)(b) of the Social Security Act and para’ 8 of schedule 3 of that act (right of appeal against determinations of the Secretary of State under s9(7) and s10(6) of the Jobseekers Act.  So, to the substantive issue, I don’t see it as a right of appeal against the right to make (or whatever interpretative variant of that word you use) a jobseekers agreement but only a right of appeal against one or more of its terms, unless you are relying on s9, subs10 (circumstances where a person is to be treated as having entered into a jobseekers agreement).  My reason for that is because having a jobseekers agreement (or being treated as having one ) is a necessary condition of entitlement to JSA under s1(2).  I haven’t found the corresponding right of appeal for UC, if there is one, but I’ll keep looking.

Section 44 and schedule 7, para’11, of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 amend s1, s9 and s10 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 and schedule 3, para’8 of the Social Security Act 1998 accordingly, substituting claimant commitment for jobseekers agreement (the section actually rewrites s9 and s10 altogether).  But, as far as I’m aware only s44(5) – definition of Employment Officer –has been brought into force as yet.