Skip to main content

A Word In Our Shells, Like

Just been out for a couple of hours walking in a vain attempt to pretend I'm fit. Getting back I notice a suspiciously brown envelope a-waiting for me on the doormat. I turn it over and, sure enough, there's a return address for the DWP on the back. Now what can this be about. I get that bad boy open and sure enough there's a Jobcentre Plus letter that mentions sanctions, but...

It appears to be a generic letter sent care of 'Manager' (the guy hasn't even signed the thing) from our Beloved Lord and Master, the Secretary of State (that no one elected). This letter seems to be in response to the recent court judgement where the DWP got their knuckles rapped for not properly informing people of the consequences of actions they couldn't decide were mandatory. It reads:

Dear (CUSTOMER)

Work Programme
You are currently participating in the Work Programme. When we first referred you to the WP, we gave/sent you a letter in which we told you about your requirement to participate, set out what you must do as part of the requirement and provided information about the consequences of any failure to take part. I am now writing to you and other participants in the WP to provide more detail of those consequences. All other requirements remain as set out in your initial notification letter.

In your initial notification letter we said that your JSA could stop for up to 26 weeks if you fail, without a good reason, to take part in the WP. This would include failing to complete any activity that your Provider has required you to do.

If you do fail to take part and we decide that your JSA should be sanctioned, your benefit will be stopped and you will lose NI credits for:
Two weeks, for a first failure;
Four weeks, if we have previously decided that your JSA should be sanctioned because you failed without good reason to take part in the WP or any other scheme set up under the JSA (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011, and that sanction started within the last 12 months; or
26 weeks, if we decided on two ore more previous occasions that your JSA should be sanctioned because you failed without good reason to take p[art in the WP or any other scheme set up under those Regulations, and the most recent sanction started within the last 12 months.

If your benefit is stopped for 26 weeks, you may have the sanction lifted (after a minimum of 4 weeks) if you:
Fully re-engage with the sanctioned requirement at any time; or
Fully engage with a different requirement notified to you.

This letter is for your information only and you do not need to take any action. If you have any queries please ask at your next appointment at the Jobcentre.

Yours sincerely,

Manager (on behalf of the Secretary of State)

I'm not familiar with the JSA Regulations of 2011, perhaps someone else can explain what schemes fall under those regulations. I seem to recall some dispute as to whether even the WP fell under those regulations. Of course this is deliberately vague in places: "you may have the sanction lifted...", which implies that decision is at least discretionary. But they do seem clear about what constitutes a sanctionable offence (bearing in mind what I've just said about legitimate schemes) and the hierarchy of sanctions. It says quite clearly, if this is your first 'offence', then you get no help for 2 weeks. 

God knows how much it's cost to print all this out. It doesn't specifically mention workfare nor does it address the crux of the problem the judge highlighted in that the mandation process was at fault for not making the consequences clear. This letter just tells you what the sanction regime is; it doesn't say whether or not workfare falls under the aforementioned regs, but one must assume it does. 

I expect many of us will be receiving this letter over the coming days. Good times!

Comments

  1. http://www.consent.me.uk/sanctionsrebates/ more info there

    Just your standard letter in reply to the recent court case ruling.
    Great use of postage money as well, why not just have a claimant pick one up at the next signing ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The DWP won't be paying anyone's benefits back, and who will have the money to legally challenge them?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

I Hate James Bartholomew

Know the Tory mindset: according to these creatures welfare breeds dependency. Meanwhile they do not want to set a minimum wage, they do not want to create legislation to protect the un - and under - employed from the predations of the system they benefit from. That word is chosen deliberately, because they like benefits for themselves - the ability to sack whom they like, when they like and how they like. In this UKIP are the same. This is the febrile heart of the right wing.
Yesterday on 5 Live's laughable morning phone in - bigots drink for free - another right wing excuse for a human, James Bartholomew, revealed another aspect of their nasty prejudice and staggering ignorance. Not surprisingly this vile creature was once a banker. He writes (if one can call it that) for the Telegraph and though I don't know the content of his ballot paper, I dare say I can guess. He props up every tory myth about the unemployed and welfare with dull witted aplomb.
He believes people have …

Still Going

I started this blog thinking I could do something useful, provide some decent citizen journalism, or at the very least offer something credible for, at the risk of stroking my own ego, posterity. But in truth I have found it very difficult to keep up with my own standards. This is true of all the writing I engage in. It isn't that I don't enjoy it, or that I don't know how (YMMV), but that I just struggle to maintain the concentration. This is part of the problem, mental health-wise, that I have tried to address in recent years; all to no avail. Unfortunately it is simply perceived as an excuse by our society. In response to that, I offer none. I am what I am, and if that means I'm lazy then lazy I must be.

I was due to have a WCA on the 7th; instead I rang and said I couldn't go through with it and that they could pursue whatever consequences they saw fit. Curiously they offered me the opportunity to postpone the interview, which I did, though I'm not sure why…