How PROVE 35 hours of job search

The request was partially successful.

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

How TO PROVE 35 hours of job search?

35 hours of job search?

This makes no sense to me? I can sit in the house or library for 50 hours a week. THEN SAY I SPENT ALL THAT TIME JOB SEARCHING.

1.) HOW DO YOU PROVE YOU WAS LOOKING FOR WORK FOR 35 hours
2.) how do you disprove any body did 35 hours job search?
3.) universal credit is under pinned by job seekers allowance regulations. so how is this legal?

is it up to 35 hours or 35 hours and where is this in any regulations?

Yours faithfully,

DAVID JAMES

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been received by the DWP FOI mailbox.
 
If your email is a valid Freedom of Information request, as per Section 8
of the FOI Act 2000, you can normally expect a response within 20 working
days.
 
Please note that email FOI responses will be issued from
[1][email address]
 
We recommend that you add this address to your email contacts otherwise
the response may be treated as Spam or Junk mail.  
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request please
contact us.
 
Information on the Department for Work and Pensions can be accessed on
gov.uk here - [2]http://www.gov.uk/dwp
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.gov.uk/dwp

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been received by the DWP FOI mailbox.
 
If your email is a valid Freedom of Information request, as per Section 8
of the FOI Act 2000, you can normally expect a response within 20 working
days.
 
Please note that email FOI responses will be issued from
[1][email address]
 
We recommend that you add this address to your email contacts otherwise
the response may be treated as Spam or Junk mail.  
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request please
contact us.
 
Information on the Department for Work and Pensions can be accessed on
gov.uk here - [2]http://www.gov.uk/dwp
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.gov.uk/dwp

J Roberts left an annotation ()

You may be interested in this:

'32. ...As explained above, regulation 95 provides that, typically, a claimant who does not spend 35 hours per week on work search activities that gives the best prospects of obtaining work has not taken all reasonable action. If a claimant spends less than 35 hours, or the quality of the work search is disputed, he will need to rely on section 27(2) if he seeks to avoid a sanction. I note that the ‘all reasonable action’ requirement is also met where the Secretary of State is satisfied that all reasonable action has been taken despite the 35 hour threshold not being met (regulation 95(1)(a)(ii)). Where an appellant seeks to rely on regulation 95(1)(a)(ii), there may be no need in practice to consider whether the ‘for no good reason’ condition is met... '

S v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2017] UKUT 477 (AAC)

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC...

DAVID JAMES left an annotation ()

But how do you prove 35 hours?.....what counts as proof.

no one can prove 35 hour work search and nor can you disprove it?

example: some one works a 9 to 5 every day. prove you did 35 hours worth of work?

J Roberts left an annotation ()

The following information refers to 'showing' (not 'proving'):

'For claimants who meet the criteria, the work coach should discuss remote or digital management with the claimant for the purpose of providing their work search evidence and showing that  they are fulfilling the terms of their Claimant Commitment.

A claimant's work search evidence is to be obtained using digital or telephone channels. This must be agreed at the initial Claimant  Commitment interview or at the point at which any change of circumstances leading to remote management was actioned.' 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/6...

Information on the Claimant commitment:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...

Something else on the 'show' v 'prove' point (para. 43):

'Notably, Judge Wikeley uses the word ‘show’ rather than ‘prove’, probably with Kerr v Department for Social Development [2004] UKHL 23 in mind, though it was unnecessary for him to refer to that decision in the appeal before him.'

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC...

J Roberts left an annotation ()

This is a very informative Upper Tribunal decision concerning a claimant who won her UC appeal. She was sanctioned for two weeks because she was deemed not to have spent 35 hours each week looking for work:

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC...

Judge Wikeley writes:

'As the present case may provide useful guidance for other cases, I am therefore giving full reasons for my decision.'

The Appellant's Claimant Commitment included this statement:

'I’ll do everything I can to get paid work, and will receive Universal Credit payments to support me in this. I’ll do all the things my Work Programme provider tells me I must do, as well as the things set out in this Claimant Commitment.'

A requirement referred to by the Judge as 'positively Stakhanovite'.

The First-tier Tribunal's reason for upholding the sanction:

‘In this case [the Appellant’s] own evidence indicates firstly that she did not carry out work search activity in accordance with her claimant commitment and secondly that she has failed to provide evidence of what activity she did undertake other than reference to the Jobmatch account. Subsequently she has failed to give any good reason why her work search commitment for the relevant periods fells below that agreed in her claimant commitment.’

This was found to be flawed. The Secretary of State must take into account the circumstances when a work search requirement must not be imposed on a claimant:

'the appeal succeeds because of the First-tier Tribunal’s failure to apply regulation 95 and to make sufficient findings of fact about the reasons for the Appellant not engaging in her usual level of jobsearch activity.'

On a wider issue of note, Judge Wikeley writes:

'especially with the increased severity of the UC sanctions regime, as compared with the previous arrangements, tribunals need to scrutinise sanctions decisions with considerable care.'

DAVID JAMES left an annotation ()

Thanks for your time , I have looked at the information and makes for an interesting reading. even through she did a her job searches she still got sanctioned because of a malicious adviser as all job center plus or UC advisers have the same bad attitude, the UC system its designed, really for you to fail, you will just end up doing crime if you have no money. its designed just to sanction people regardless if they follow the rules.

this is ridiculous the whole system is designed for you to lose either way.

how ever it still does not show or prove 35 hours of work activity its like me saying to someone prove 35 hours of work at your work. if you don't ill cut your earnings for 3 years. that's ridiculous.

surly if they accuse you of not working hard for 35 hours it should be up to them to prove it? they don't, because you can not prove your hours of work even through you was there for 35 hours. the whole UC system is set up for you to fail.

its like me saying to you robert prove your 12 hour of a fun day? even if you show me still don't dhow it was 12 hours?

there should be clear guidance on what is acceptable evidence. for 35 hours. other wise a malicious work coach can do anything and lie about you.

DWP Central FOI Team,

1 Attachment

Dear David James,

I am writing in response to your request for information, received 15th
November.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Some information available on WDTK:

sanctions:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...

'DWP has been clear that there is no specific information or legal requirements that compels all Universal Credit claimants, in every case, to use the journal. However some claimants can have a requirement set, to provide information and evidence as part of their work-related requirement for claiming Universal Credit. This requirement can be set by a Work coach under Section 23 of the Welfare Reforms Act 012, Chapter 2 but it does not compel this evidence to be supplied in a particular way, only that it must be supplied if and when requested.'

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...

Would it be enough to show a sheet (or screen of an electronic device) with a list of activities amounting to 35 hours a week?

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Something else you might be interested in:

'Alert: Very Big Rise in Universal Credit Benefit Sanctions'

Dr David Webster

17/11/21

https://mrfrankzola.wordpress.com/2021/1...