10) Round 2...

June 3rd 2013

Round 2:- Dan vs Corporate sponsored government.

As an extra special birthday present *Twinkly eyes* (Thank you so much you sweet jobcentre workers.)

I have once again been sanctioned and my only living allowance "suspended", because apparently i have not taken "Strong enough Steps" in searching for a job.

Never mind the fact i have applied for two jobs, attended a back to work session and attended a work fair in the last 2 weeks.

Putting aside the moral argument for a moment, that if you disallow someone the right/ability to survive, then why should they continue to be a "law" abiding citizen, when it is detrimental to their well-being......

Such undefined ambiguity as "Not strong enough steps" is basically an excuse for the government to go around sanctioning people wherever they want/can, and then hide behind the clause "the jobseekers steps were not strong enough".

If we are going to assume not everyone will turn to crime upon having their only living allowance/shelter removed from them, then i would at the very least, like some clarity with regards to the terminology that is used in the jobseekers agreement.

There is no set definition in place for "strong enough steps" or for "steps to be taken to find a job" that i have been informed of in any way shape or form.

As far as i am concerned and in good conscience i have abided by the law that requires 2 steps be taken towards finding a job per week.

So upon being referred to a decision maker because dear old Liz (Would not give her full-name, or position but based at Stafford Jobcentre, (accountability issues?) felt my "steps were not strong enough" is a complete farce in the first place.

Another point that is completely wrong and needs addressing about this system is this.

Good old Liz, can say she suspects my job-seeking "steps" are not satisfactory and send for a decision to be made by a decision "maker".

However the second i asked for a written explanation by Liz, explaining the legality of what she was doing and writing her reasons for sending the claim to a "decision maker" in the first place. I.e what she was accusing me of doing/not doing. She refused.

I asked if i could first see a list of the alleged jobs i could apparently of applied for (The reason for the suspension of my claim), and said that after seeing that i would write a statement of defence so to speak.

Having experienced completely fictitious jobs being alleged that i could of applied for in the recent past, and having appealed and successfully overturned this decision, i would say this is a completely reasonable request towards any sane person.

But no, apparently protocol is this....

You are allowed to make a written statement at the time you are having a "refer for sanction" decision made against you.

However you are not allowed to see the reasons behind why you are being sanctioned, until after its been sent to a much fabled "decision makers".

So basically you are not allowed to make a credible defence, against any accusations against you, until after a decision is made.

This is wrong.

After hiding behind some government speak about not having to answer questions, and to read the "official form".

I was told the "decision making" would be by an independent body.

I asked if this meant a third party corporation getting involved...i was told no, its another branch of government.

I asked if its another branch of government how then is it an independent review?

I asked You are a government worker are you not? So how is a review carried out by the same entity that sanctioned me in the first place going to be unbiased?

I was given some spiel about different departments or something, and that, that apparently made it unbiased.

I will find out if the fun and games are set to continue on Thursday, when the "decision" is made.

In the mean-time i don't know if the housing benefit i am receiving will stop, or if i will have any money to survive in the short-term, but apparently according to dear liz and her supervisor, its all my fault, because i didn't apply for jobs, that I'm not allowed to know about, that more than likely don't exist, and didn't take "large enough steps towards".....

I will be documenting what happens, maybe it can help someone else....

MF likes this

AF :- Two jobs a week I have to apply for 14 I am sacking the job centre off the seventy quid a week is not worth the hassle and stress they create
4 June at 15:08 via mobile · Like
   
Dan Kinobi 2 steps a week is what is required of you according to the law as far as i am aware. I am aware of this because i have in writing a specifically requested letter from the benefits office stating as such.

Where they are now trying to induce a "mist/fog" is in their definition of what a "step" is.

However this has not been pre-defined or made available to the jobseeker as i feel it should be, upon signing a jobseekers declaration. Therefore the entire "You have not taken strong enough steps in looking for work" claim that they have made, is completely ambiguous and open to interpretation. By who? The decision makers...who conveniently are also a branch of the government.
4 June at 15:22 · Like
   
AF :- I have to do 14 steps a week
4 June at 15:29 via mobile · Like
   
Dan Kinobi That sucks dude. Have you asked them on what legal grounds you are required to do that? And asked for the statement in writing, signed by the supervisor who is interviewing you at the time?

Edited for spelling & names redacted 8/10/15

Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151500195816089