9th June 2014
This is the letter i sent to the Tribunals service with regard secondary disallowances.
This resulted in the periods mentioned within being "overturned".
I will attach the letters stating as such, shortly. EV 4
However there is more to this than meets the eye, which i shall further elaborate on shortly.
Here is the appeal that i sent. Along with attached evidence.
I sent this letter about 7 weeks ago, for time frame reference (19/04/14)
Appeal With regards to disallowance from 28/01/14 - 10/02/14 and further sanction from 11/02/14 - 28/04/14.
Included with this correspondence is a copy of the jobsearch that i
performed during the above period in question. EV 6 It is clearly labelled as
such, but should not be confused with the 3 pages of evidence, that
include an old jobsearch as evidence of error/corruption. I have not
managed to procure the ASE form that is used internally, so do not know
what steps the DWP have alleged i have taken. I have once again
however, I believe, fulfilled the 3 steps that are desired according to
the law.
This longer sanction (11/02/14 - 28/04/14) is also
directly related to the original pending case, (SC049/14/00137) and has
been handed out, regardless of the fact that an outcome has not been
reached on the original case. I would like to raise the point, that i
consider this extremely unjust.
I have not received any JSA for
nearly 2 months now. The last "full" payment was received on 30th jan
2014. I received a reduced payment of £81.95 on 27th Feb, and have
received nothing since then. I have been entitled to JSA constantly, and
have continued to "sign" throughout the disputed periods, where i have
received no payments, both in the pending case, and this new case.
This has been a massive hindrance on my ability to seek out
employment, as i have not had basic funds, to meet basic job-seeking
criteria such as mobile phone credit, nevermind the ability to maintain a
healthy/non-starvation diet. This combined with the massive amount of
time and effort i have spent trying to repeal these seemingly unlawful
sanctions, leads to extremely handicapped/detrimental conditions for
anyone actively seeking employment.
Nonetheless i have adhered
by what is desired in law, to take a minimum of 3 steps per week towards
employment, including recently attending a 2 hour interview/selection
process at a local warehouse.
As aforementioned these "doubts" i
believe to be unwarranted and hope that they will be allayed if not by
this letter, then by my tribunal appearance.
With regards to the
"jobseekers agreement". (This point is highly relevant to both the
current pending case (SC049/14/00137) and this second appeal.
It is true that i have signed one, dated 16/01/12.
However if you would please look at page 20 of the evidence of the
aforementioned case. You will see that it states very clearly under
"General Statement"...
"I understand that this is general information and not a full statement of the law".
This would reasonably lead one to conclude that anything that is signed
with regards to the jobseeker agreement, is not legally binding, if it
was, then a statement/disclaimer such as "This is a legally binding
document" should in my opinion be included, as otherwise this is
extremely misleading.
Aside from this reasonable and logical
argument, please note that on page 20 in the box under "My
Responsibilities" RE: I know i must: that there is in fact no number
filled in on the proceeding box. The DWP copy has the number "4"
assigned to this box. This has been filled in as far as i am aware and
can recall in good conscience, AFTER i have signed it. This is part of
the departmental corruption i spoke of. I will attach more proof of such
corruption, as it appears to of been subtly requested, and you may
admit it as evidence.
Let us then assume that the jobseeker has
been deceived by the extremely misleading general statement, and that
the jobseekers agreement is in fact a legally binding document. Then in
my specific case, this sentence actually says that "i must actively seek
work by doing at least NULL things a week. This creates a logical
paradox, assuming for a moment that the jobseekers agreement is indeed a
legal instrument, where it apparently states that it is not under
"General Statement".
Under these paradoxical/conflicting terms i suspect that the law defaults back to the original 3 steps per week suggestion.
It would seem that these particulars in the jobseekers agreement are
being used in an effort to give a constant reason/excuse to sanction
jobseekers. I have heard stories of people having to meet over 30 steps
per week, which is i believe completely unreasonable. These steps are
then being used in order to constantly have an excuse to sanction the
jobseeker. This is wrong. Which leads me onto my next point.
I
currently have a permanent sanction decision against me for "refusal to
sign a proposed variation" of my jobseekers agreement. The wording of
this allegation in itself, suggests that i already have a viable
jobseekers agreement. Thus remain entitled to jobseekers allowance.
I refused to sign it for the aforementioned reasoning in my current
pending case. The DWP went away to "reconsider it" They came back and
the agreement was virtually unchanged (i.e the main points, signing up
to universal jobmatch remained intact). I refused to sign it once more
and was then told i had 21 days to sign this, or i would face a
permanent sanction on my JSA claim. I will attach a copy of the Reasons
why i refuse to sign up to universal jobmatch, and this may be included
as evidence.
There was no further mediation or attempts to
"make" a jobseekers agreement, by the DWP. I was then informed that a
permanent sanction was put in place. This also had the effect of
removing my entitlement to any hardship provisions.
Why would i
sign a jobseekers agreement that has completely unreasonable terms, that
non-compliance with, will result in putting me in a severely
detrimental situation? Given the fact that i have had a permanent
sanction assigned against me, for refusing to sign a variation, suggests
that this agreement is not an agreement at all, but a forced mandation,
the signing of which is UNWILLFUL and UNLAWFUL, by reason of being
obtained under duress. If an agreement is reached under duress/threat, i
suggest that it is not legally binding. I would argue that having ones
only living allowance removed is substantial duress. However citizens of
this country are as far as I am aware, legally entitled to social
assistance.
With regards to the current mandatory reconsideration notice.
Another prime example of either departmental incompetence/error and/or corruption is incidentally as follows.
On page 2 of the included mandatory reconsideration notice the author
(again unnamed, so i do not know who is making this claim against me)
has made a claim that :-
"On your jobseekers Agreement you have
agreed to contact employers by phone once a week, visit employers once a
week, check newspapers online daily, check indeed e.t.c to conduct
online searches, on a daily basis and to check Universal Jobmatch on a
daily basis to look for vacancies."
At no point have i agreed
such things. This was the PROPOSED VARIATION, that remains UNSIGNED by
me, and that i refused to sign, resulting in the aforementioned
permanent sanction decision, that was i believe unfairly brought against
me.
From this paragraph on the author refers to a jobseekers
agreement that i have not signed. Thus the basis for this entire
sanction(s) is/are rendered upon false grounds. And i stand by my
assertion that i have fulfilled my responsibilities with regard to the
law.
Edited for spelling 22/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10152205626991089
No comments:
Post a Comment