Number of people sanctioned for missing just one JSA appointment.

Waiting for an internal review by Department for Work and Pensions of their handling of this request.

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
Number of people sanctioned for failing to attend just a single Jobcentre Plus appointment.
In the press release of 20 February 2014: Benefits sanctions figures

It states that from October 2012 to February 2014 JSA payments to claimants have been suspended (sanctioned) 818,000 times because claimants haven’t stuck to the rules.
The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is quoted in the above press release as stating:
‘However, sanctions are used as a LAST resort’.
In the same press release the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is quoted as saying claimants have been sanctioned for failing to attend Jobcentre Plus appointments.

(1) How many of those 818,000 sanctions of ‘last resort’ were for a claimant missing just a single adviser interview?
(2) If DWP don’t have this number, then how can Iain Duncan Smith possibly know, or be believed, that JSA benefit sanctions for failure to attend an adviser interview were only applied as a last resort?
If the sanctions regime is to be seen as fair then people must have the confidence that sanctions, which often leave people destitute and reliant on food banks, are only EVER applied as a LAST resort, and not a FIRST resort.

Yours faithfully,

M Boyce

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

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

DWP IGS FOI, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear M Boyce,
 
Please see the attached file regarding your Freedom of Information
request.
 
Thank you
 
Statistical Services Freedom of Information Team
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Work and Pensions's handling of my FOI request 'Number of people sanctioned for missing just one JSA appointment.'.

Thank you for your reply.
I would now like to request an internal review of this FOI reply.
Your reply misses the point and does not make sense.
Firstly, let’s get one thing straight right from the start: I agree that sanctions (disentitlement) should be imposed if claimants repeatedly break the rules, like repeatedly fail to attend jobcentre interviews, or repeatedly fail to apply for suitable jobs. I hope that is crystal clear. But my request was not about REPEAT failures to attend interviews (sanctions as a last resort), it was about claimants being sanctioned for missing just one appointment (sanctions as a first resort).
You say that you DO hold some information relevant to my request, but that it would cost more than £600 to provide it to me. I wish I could get paid £600 for three and a half days work, or nearly £50,000 pounds per year. Why not try and employ people on the minimum wage (£6.50 ) to find and extract this information, then there would be no unemployment, and then we wouldn’t need all these benefit sanctions in order to provide the money to pay workers at the DWP the eye-watering sum of £ 50,000 per year to look at a computer to find out about these benefit sanctions!
You then suggest that I narrow my request by say asking for sanction numbers by reason for sanction decision. This is what I mean by your reply not making any sense. You are suggesting that I do something that I had ALREADY done! My request was: how many sanctions from October 2012 to February 2014 were because a claimant missed a single jobcentre interview. That is asking for sanction numbers by reason of sanction decision ( missing a single jobcentre interview). You then provide a link that does not provide any data? What is this about?
I would now like you to please provide the information I asked for. If the time span proves to be too expensive, then just narrow it down to numbers for say October 2013 - February 2014, as I really wouldn’t want those ‘lowly paid’ staff at the DWP to have their fingers overworked.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...

Yours faithfully,

M Boyce

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

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

Dear DWP freedom-of-information-requests,

Having just gone through your reply again, it seems that you have provided some statistical information, which was not clear at first. Apologies for not noticing this, but your reply was deeply muddled. There were 357, 655 low level sanctions for people missing a jobcentre interview - 'without good reason'. There is no breakdown for sanctions for missing just a single interview - without good reason. Given the fact that I have sent you a follow-up request about the number of people being disentitled to benefit, then you do not now need to provide an internal review to this request. The point about the follow-up request is that benefit disentitlement is applied automatically and without a Decision Maker - people are not given an opportunity to give good reason for their missing a jobcentre interview before their benefit is stopped. If someone misses an interview because they failed to receive the appointment letter and they do not get in touch with the jobcentre within 5 days, simply because they didn't know about the appointment, then their benefit is unfairly stopped. If benefit sanctions are only applied as a 'last resort' and applied fairly, then why is benefit disentitlement applied as a first resort and not applied fairly?

Yours sincerely,

M Boyce

Gavin Shaw left an annotation ()

Just the very post I was debating whether or not it was worth pointing this very same fact out as I have had the exact same problem occur with my benefits. I was not issued a letter via post, was told that "I had failed to provide declaration" on the day I attended JCP to sign on as usual, and toi also hand over further evidence in relation to an existing sanction which was still ongoing. There was 1 attempt to contact me, this was a 3 second "ringer" alarm, nothing more, ringing back the number immediately connects you to a 24 hour automated response message saying that the DWP tried to contact myself earlier, and could not get hold of me, no mention as to a call would be made within 3 hours of making the first call, and seeing how no messages were left for my voice mail to be worthy of a call notifying someone that they will be receiving a sanction is totally unacceptable working practice (that is of course if the DWP are prepared to take the flack for JCP acting illegally as someone they are obviously not, otherwise there is simply no reason or excuse to contact me, just as I was told this very sane thing, and lost 1 months benefits for it.`

Having been put in the same boar as yourself, where I was told that I would ve required to attend an appointment to sign up for UJJM, and if not, I would again be sanctioned. Well, I did not get sanctioned for failing to attend the appointment with my JCP Work coach, because I had already stated that I was not going attend ab appointment where treats of further sanctions would occur if I had failed to comply without being mandated to do so. So this time they have decided to close my claim without warning 2 weeks after the day I had attended JCP but amazingly somewhere along the line, I forgot to sign the card which would allow me to live for the next 1 month., I was not called about a sanction, as one never occurred, benefits were stopped, I had no reason to contact them, I hat attended on the days I was asked, to be told after spending my last £5 in bus fares that I was not getting paid anyway!! So yeah, DWP if you could provide this answer, then it will at least be one less problem on your hands when when Financial Redress for Maladministration will begin to take place once my SAR is provided to me within the next 14 days, followed by a visit o the Parliamentary Health Ombudsman, and get them to deal with my problems seeing as to how the DWP are just as bad as the DWP when it comes to putting "Trust" in anyone at all when it comes to claiming benefits. And even then, they ignore requests at responding as to where the Ground Rent & Ground Maintenance payments which I have been forced to find each month meaning that out of £72.40 a week benefits, I would end up being left with £35 to cover everything else, and on time, not late 3 times in as many years, and left to go on my Credit Report no realizing what has happened.

2 years worth of evidence in calls, letters, Work Progranme Provider allowed to lie on an Exit Report II neither signed or never actually gad a copy of it, and was sanctioned for the following 6 months until the point came in which JCP finally find their copy of the Work Programme Report, which was the fist time II saw it, and needless to say I was not at all happy, to the extent in which I receive 2/3 letters of unacceptable behavior marks against my mane, yet still no signatures of those "Acting on behalf of a JCP Manager just goes to show that JCP know what will be coming next.

I advise to deal directly with JCP they way I see it is that JCP Staff get paid shed loads of money each month , so if they want to go around bullying people and taking rights off claimants by denying them of a payment the have a legal right and legal entitlement to receive by law, then why are staff refusing to take the same kind of action as I am now going to do against those individual people directly involved with or causing harm to my self when it comes to the sanction of benefits. If JCP Managers wont sack them, then I'll simply demand they are , unless dealing with Fraud by Misrepresentation is a Serious Offense According to the Fraud Act 2006, and will be more then happy to deal with the issue in court if the outcome of my complaint is not given the consideration it seriously deserves. I'll demand they be sacked!!

The system is a farce, so much to go as far as saying that if the claimant makes the first move to complain about the way they are treated, where sanctions were made yet no letter of proof exists, let alone a threat verbally communicated to me face to face, is not proof, i will just have to leave my word against the work coaches, where all they want to do is destroy any and all signs that trace back to you actually ever making a claim lol. All this means now is, is that you still get sanctions, but only legitimate ones that came officially by letter, and explaining as to how a sanction would be applicable for failing to follow the information as provided

M Boyce left an annotation ()

I agree Gavin, a lot of people are facing a totally unfair system under this ConDem Government. The Government claim sanctions and just stopping people's benefit is about helping them into work - absolute rubbish. If you want to help people into work you need to make sure that work always pays significantly more than benefits. That doesn't mean cutting benefits, it means ensuring that all working people are paid at least the Living Wage. If the Conservatives win the next election the cuts to welfare seen so far will be tiny compared to what will happen in the next five years. Universal Credit (UC) will see tens of thousands of people on benefits being made homeless as the housing benefit element of UC will also be stopped, not just the JSA element. At the moment we have a million people in the UK using foodbanks and rising. With the full roll-out of Universal Credit and its much more savage sanctions this will see a similar number of people made homeless. Then what do starving and homeless people do? I'd say the Conservatives had better start building a lot more prisons at huge public expense.

Mark Salter left an annotation ()

If the process of calling people at risk of sanction is one of auto dialling but not actually waiting for an answer, then that feels very unfair and also passes the onus (and cost) of calling back to the claimant.

I have made a request on this topic to try and see if DWP are setting out not to actually make calls, but instead to trigger a call back.

I now wonder too if they use non-geographic numbers too!

The link to my request on dailler statistics is :-

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

--
Mark

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Latest UT decision regarding JSA. Claimant's claim was wrongly closed back in 2017 because he failed to attend. He should have received a 4-week sanction instead.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

DC v. SSWP (JSA)[2020] UKUT 257(AAC)

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Thanks for this interesting link J Roberts.

Quite frankly I trust most judges as far as a baby could throw them. I will be appealing my case SC246/19/02252 where Judge N. Moxon disgracefully refuses to address the very legal issue at the heart of my appeal. At paragraph 7 of the Decision Statement of Reasons dated 13 October 2020 he states:

'Whilst I note his contention that he should have been notified of the consequences of withdrawing his claim [losing a whole month of UC money], this is not a matter that I can take into consideration when determining the appeal.'

Why on Earth not?

This is the point of law on which I was appealing. This is a point that will affect many claimants, and yet his lordship has CHOSEN not to look at this legal issue which was the very basis of my appeal.

I will appeal shortly, and predictably the judge at the Upper Tribunal will find in favour of their friend and colleague - as they always do.

Legal justice in this country is only for the rich and powerful.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

"I will appeal shortly, and predictably the judge at the Upper Tribunal will find in favour of their friend and colleague - as they always do."

A glimmer of hope with this decision, perhaps - UT decision set aside in UT decision BF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKUT 420 (AAC)

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

But...FTT administration risking injustice by taking decisions only judges should take:

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

And...Deeply flawed FTT decision ref. SC009/17/00800 - "protective essay":

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

Good luck!

M Boyce left an annotation ()

Thanks J Roberts.

Will update when I hear back from the UTT.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Recent UT decision overturns sanction relating to a failure to participate in a UC telephone interview:

KG-v-SSWP (UC) [2020] UKUT 307(AAC)

The important distinction between a 'Work Focused Interview' and 'connected requirement' is considered:

14. ...For example, it is not apparent from the appeal bundle whether the interview was a ‘Work Focused Interview’ requirement in accordance with section 15 of the Act and regulation 93 of the UC Regulations 2013; i.e. with a view to assessing [the Appellant]’s prospects of obtaining paid work; or to assist him in obtaining paid work; or to identify training or other activities that would assist him in obtaining paid work and so forth, or, whether the appointment was a verification appointment (a ‘connected requirement’) in accordance with section 23 of the Act in order to impose a new work-related requirement on [the Appellant], or to verify his compliance with a work-related requirement, or to assist him to comply with an existing work-related requirement

Proper notification is also considered:

14. ...Further to this, I also submit that it is not clear from the appeal bundle whether [the Appellant] was adequately informed of the consequences of any such failure to comply with the interview.'

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