Official Response to Decision to once again Disallow my JSA payment.
In the interest of transparency i will post the details i will be attaching to my "Application for Revision of an outcome decision" and handing in on Monday...Hopefully common sense will prevail.
Is the job-seeker satisfied with the outcome decision? If no, please say which part of the decision you disagree with.
No.
All of it.
Reasons why the job-seeker disagrees with the outcome of the decision.
Steps that i have taken to look for work have once again been omitted from the Actively Seeking Employment form.
There are 3 steps that have been omitted including one job that i have applied for.
I believe the jobcentre staff dealing with this dispute have already taken a photocopy of my job-search, so this discrepancy will be on record, although i will attach a further photocopy of evidence(s) with this letter.
I believe i have in good conscience adhered to my responsibilities with regard to taking the 2 steps required by law to look for work each week.
Please see attached evidence form 1 and the relevant numberings.
With respect to the job that i applied for with regard to Pieroth according to a jobcentre staff...
(1) "I have check (sic) UJM for the vacancy in Stafford for Pieroth (where Mr Jackson said he got it from), 2118002 & the vacancy states needs own car".
Having checked that job listing again 2118002, it seems someone has since highlighted in Bold in the job description, "Needs own car". This i admit i overlooked before it was changed, if it was indeed genuinely there all along, otherwise i obviously would not of applied for the job, as i have no car.
With regard to the cyber-security challenge point...
(2) I was asked about the "cyber-security" challenge by 2 members of the jobcentre staff. I said that it was a competition and that the winner would possibly be awarded a job in the security sector. I also stated how i tried to download the necessary file, but that the download link had failed. I was completely honest about this. I did not say "i have to wait & see if i had won the competition, before a job would be offered".
I talked to two separate jobcentre staff about this, so it is possible one of them has become confused and misunderstood. I am not aware of who is making these claims against me, as i do not appear to see their name anywhere on this referral for sanction form.
(3) With regard to "Mr Jackson did not want to write a statement saying why he thought he had done enough to look for work" I stated to Liz from Stafford Jobcentre,(I asked for her full name and position in order of accountability, she refused stating "You can remember my face"), that until i knew what i was alleged to of done/not done, then how can i write a statement of defence?
I said i would write a statement with regards to this after i had seen the jobs that i could allegedly of applied for.
I was told quote "I am still looking for jobs now" by Liz. This meaning that the decision to send my claim to be referred to a decision makers, was based on evidence that Liz had not yet found/fabricated. And that i could not refute at the time. I asked to wait until she had found these supposed jobs and stated i would then dispute them in the written statement. I was told that i could not, because <<quote Liz>> "its not
the way it works".
Thus it has taken until now, with me having to undergo this appeal process, and the decision to "disallow" my claim being carried out, before i could make/mount any sort of defence. I personally find this sequence of due order, to be wrong, and
contradictory to our legal system.
In a court of law a decision/judgement is made only after the defence has had the chance to defend themselves. It could be argued that no such reasonable defence is even allowed in this circumstance. If i am not allowed to appeal
until after a decision is made, and i am not allowed to make a written statement of defence before the "referral decision" is sent to be adjudicated on. How then is this just,fair or reasonable?
(4) I was told by Liz that a benefit week runs from Tuesday to Monday I said that i did not accept this. I asked 'what happens after i leave the jobcentre now? If i apply for jobs after i leave here ((my signing date is a Monday)), then your telling me that they do not count towards my steps towards looking for employment?'.
This is ridiculous. So your supposed to limit your job-search and not apply for jobs on Monday after signing for benefits? More jobs could easily be added to both the UJM website, and also on various websites after having signed for benefits.
As far as i am concerned, a benefit week runs from Monday when you leave the jobcentre, until Monday the next week.
To say otherwise would be limiting my job-seeking unnecessarily, something i have pledged not to do, in my job-seekers agreement (jsag).
And finally...With regard to the list of jobs i could allegedly of applied for...
1841125 - does not exist.
2046327 - Requires 5+ years experience. I do not have 5+ years experience in cleaning.
2101311 - Is working for an agency. I have had extremely bad experiences with virtually every agency i have ever worked for.
Combined with my logical reasoning for not working for an agency with regard to contributing towards a lack of stability
of our nations economy. <<I will give my reasoning behind this, upon further request.>>
403124 - Requires exceptional customer service skills. I do not possess these, Combined with the fact the job is in Cannock, and that some shifts will require a later than 11pm finish, meaning most likely all trains and buses will have ceased service.
2078328 - The details for this job are not available without signing up for a universal jobmatch account. I refused to do this because i felt it would waive my rights with regard to the Data protection act 1998, and do not want my data to be sold and/or distributed to third party providers. I believe this is not unreasonable. (5)
I asked for a written assurance that my data would not be distributed to third party vendors. I was given no such assurance, and was instead told my next review with regard to jsag would be sometime in 2014, due for some reason, to being with a
work programme vendor.
However as you will see, when i post all relevant photocopies of the evidence, which i will, this was still appended to the actively seeking employment doubt, as a reasoning behind the sanction.
If part of the argument against me, is that i have not taken "strong enough steps", then i do not accept such ambiguous terminology.
Nowhere is a definition of a "strong enough step" put forward for the job-seeker to comprehend, so to use this point to try and discredit or disallow a job-seeker, is i believe wrong. I believe searching a website, applying for jobs i could reasonably do, and attending a job fair amongst other steps, to be reasonable steps.
On a final note, in good faith i can say i believe i have adhered to my responsibilities with regard to actively seeking employment. This is the second time in about as many months now that i have had a "decision be sent to a decision makers",
which has put me into unreasonable financial difficulties.
If i had done something wrong i might understand this sanction. However i have not, and would much rather be spending my time searching for jobs, than writing these letters, basically having to fight for the ability to exist.
Please could you send me a signed/dated letter of what is required of a job-seeker, with regard to the law. I believe you have my details/address on record.
Thank you for your time,
Warm Regards,
Dan J
RS and ET like this.
ET:- You tell them Danny!! Hopefully those assholes will stop giving you a hard time after this, its a good thing you know your rights! Xx
14 June at 17:19 · Like
KT :- Well said! xx
14 June at 17:23 via mobile · Like
Dan Kinobi :- Cheers. I'm just about to attach a copy of the final piece of evidence, my jsag. Just need to edit out my NI number first....
14 June at 17:26 · Like · 2
Dan Kinobi The reason i know its 2 steps is because i got sent a letter that i asked for when the last decision was reversed, that states as much. However i've misplaced it, so i'm requesting another one.
I'm posting my jsag although i know its a general statement and not one necessarily backed up by law... (As it actually states on the jsag).
14 June at 17:28 · Like · 2
Dan Kinobi :- Still heard nothing on this, handed it in a week ago.(17/06/13) Got a phoned receipt call last wednesday, (19/06/13) to say it had arrived. Nothing since then.
24 June at 15:12 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- **Update** Decision was overturned 21/06/13 according to received letter and back dated amount paid on 25/06/13.
Housing benefit was also automatically stopped, for the 4-week period, so this still needs to restart and be back-dated.
If it wasn't for a short-term loan, this could/would of put me into serious difficulties.
If this is a common policy then i suggest the council/government reconsider this strategy as it will put many people into severe difficulties, and in many cases may justify crime.
If people are being sanctioned when they are doing what is required of them, and their only living allowance/stopped/suspended, this is extremely unhealthy for our society i believe.
If anyone knows of anyone experiencing any difficulties with the jobcentre please send them to this thread....maybe it can be of some use to them...cheers....
Dan Kinobi:-
Copy of steps taken to look for work...bottom 5 steps on this photocopy, and more on the next page....Notice how the total number of steps documented by me in this log exceeds, the number that the employee stated on "other side of ASE" form.
I.e steps i took to look for work, were omitted, in order to present a more easily sanctionable "Decision making process".
This same occurrence happened with the last "Decision Making" process i went through. (Which was repealed on appeal).
The staff member at the time said they took a photocopy of the log as evidence, as they did this time. Therefore why were the other steps omitted, surely that will show they have proven to of omitted evidence from the consideration?
Notice the signature after the jobsearch, this is evidence that they did indeed receive/check the job log fully.
Edited for spelling & Names Redacted:- 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151517502271089
Copy of steps taken to look for work...bottom 5 steps on this photocopy, and more on the next page....Notice how the total number of steps documented by me in this log exceeds, the number that the employee stated on "otherside of ASE" form.
(EV1, EV2, EV3)
I.e steps i took to look for work, were omitted, in order to present a more easily sanctionable "Decision making process".
This same occurrence happened with the last "Decision Making" process i went through. (Which was repealed on appeal).
The staff member at the time said they took a photocopy of the log as evidence, as they did this time. Therefore why were the other steps omitted, surely that will show they have proven to of omitted evidence from the consideration?
Notice the signature after the jobsearch, this is evidence that they did indeed receive/check the job log fully.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151517523401089
No comments:
Post a Comment