I've explained this to Andy previously in this thread, and gave damning evidence as to the abuse of sanctioning. He's thanked me for my reply, seemingly looked at at least one case...the soldier Clapson..but continues to make the comment that 'sanctions are a good thing surely.'
Not for those who have lost their lives in the worst cases, those who have ended up destitute through no fault of their own..and the countless many who have found themselves unable to even afford to eat (increase in food bank usage) or apply for jobs because sanctioned and unable to travel.
Sanctions *WOULD* be good Andy if applied with a stringent policy of enforcing on those who blatantly ignored the criteria set down for them, after fair warning(s) given, to comply with, made no effort to inform JCP if in difficulty - in order to make arrangements to avoid sanctioning and not used on this never ending ad-hoc basis where case after case is implemented at short notice with no supporting evidence or explanation to people for inexplicable reasons - that they then have no immediate recourse or financial ability to enquire about..calls cost, travel costs and eating/paying bills costs.
I've explained this to Andy previously in this thread, and gave damning evidence as to the abuse of sanctioning. He's thanked me for my reply, seemingly looked at at least one case...the soldier Clapson..but continues to make the comment that 'sanctions are a good thing surely.'
Not for those who have lost their lives in the worst cases, those who have ended up destitute through no fault of their own..and the countless many who have found themselves unable to even afford to eat (increase in food bank usage) or apply for jobs because sanctioned and unable to travel.
Sanctions *WOULD* be good Andy if applied with a stringent policy of enforcing on those who blatantly ignored the criteria set down for them, after fair warning(s) given, to comply with, made no effort to inform JCP if in difficulty - in order to make arrangements to avoid sanctioning and not used on this never ending ad-hoc basis where case after case is implemented at short notice with no supporting evidence or explanation to people for inexplicable reasons - that they then have no immediate recourse or financial ability to enquire about..calls cost, travel costs and eating/paying bills costs.
Hi Seamus, as i said, i read the examples you provided but i'm assuming there is another side to the stories? I'm guessing the DWP can't publish names etc so we'll never hear their side.
Don't get me wrong, i agree with everything you have said above. The fair warnings - i would have thought warnings are given - when you first go on benefits.
Hi Seamus, as i said, i read the examples you provided but i'm assuming there is another side to the stories? I'm guessing the DWP can't publish names etc so we'll never hear their side.
Don't get me wrong, i agree with everything you have said above. The fair warnings - i would have thought warnings are given - when you first go on benefits.
Chances no, warnings yes.
There are many DWP staff (past and present), all levels who post on established forums like benefits and work, DPAC, Black Triangle etc..even a few here..who consistently affirm that the DWP has gone rogue, and will try to instruct staff to use unfair methods to coerce claimants in a variety of non-approved means (like trying to require people in Support Group to attend interviews they are unable to attend often due to health issues - as they did with me) - blatantly against their own guidelines - and impose sanctions without following through on the policies they should be adhering to when doing so.
NOT occasional erroneous actions..but now commonplace, and with less and less effort being made to even mask the fact that they are flagrantly ignoring their own guidelines.
There are many DWP staff (past and present), all levels who post on established forums like benefits and work, DPAC, Black Triangle etc..even a few here..who consistently affirm that the DWP has gone rogue, and will try to instruct staff to use unfair methods to coerce claimants in a variety of non-approved means (like trying to require people in Support Group to attend interviews they are unable to attend often due to health issues - as they did with me) - blatantly against their own guidelines - and impose sanctions without following through on the policies they should be adhering to when doing so.
NOT occasional erroneous actions..but now commonplace, and with less and less effort being made to even mask the fact that they are flagrantly ignoring their own guidelines.
Interesting stuff Seamus, but unless those people go public and report these cases they are just posts on a forum - they damn well should go public!
Don't forget - DWP - public sector - Labour voters.
Also, posts on a forum, anonymous stories about "how benefits sanctions took my sex life away and killed my cat" - heart wrenching indeed, but possibly not true.
Interesting stuff Seamus, but unless those people go public and report these cases they are just posts on a forum - they damn well should go public!
Don't forget - DWP - public sector - Labour voters.
Also, posts on a forum, anonymous stories about "how benefits sanctions took my sex life away and killed my cat" - heart wrenching indeed, but possibly not true.
Go public..lose their jobs if still working, face potential legal action regardless..and more considerations - none of which end well for them.
The silly comment about the sex life and dead cat..is well just that..a bit silly. These are not just forums, but advisory groups where specialists work constantly using the latest information, that is uniformly consistent and of benefit to countless thousands in the UK who seek their expert advice and support - from filling in forms correctly, reviews, particular benefits, sanctions - the whole gammet.
I hope you remain in the dark, and never have to end up in a situation where no matter how anti-benefits you appear to sound - you find yourself in the same boat. You'll be treated instantly in the same way as the rest of us, find it daunting and be thankful of all and any of the still quite hard to find groups initially that could make a difference when you really need them.
You are a lucky person it seems...Just pray life never causes you slip to the bottom of the ladder - even if no fault of your own...it's a populated place, and getting help to step back on can be one of the most difficult things you'll take on.
I know. I was reasonably well of, good career and had no idea what lay beneath me - until I abruptly had a change in fortune. Your belief system will change should ever you arrive at this end of the spectrum - and not for the better, as reality finally comes to pay a visit to you.
Stay lucky if within your ability to decide such things
Interesting stuff Seamus, but unless those people go public and report these cases they are just posts on a forum - they damn well should go public!
Don't forget - DWP - public sector - Labour voters.
Also, posts on a forum, anonymous stories about "how benefits sanctions took my sex life away and killed my cat" - heart wrenching indeed, but possibly not true.
These things are reported, people getting a sanction because they were late at the job centre, why were they late because they were having a job interview. Benefit stopped 4 weeks, because that is not classed as a good enough reason for being late. The high number of people who appeal and win, shows the system does not work as its meant to, but for these people who appeal and win, have already been punished. So have been punished wrongly
The senior management at the DWP have laid down a stipulation that any and every incident where a sanction could be applied has to be referred by the "Work Coach" for a decision by the Decision Maker on whether a sanction should apply. This is why so many people are being sanctioned. Esther McVey has said that the benefit system has always had sanctions. This is true going back to when Unemployment Benefit was first introduced in 1911 but the big difference now is that any discretion appears to have been removed. Being one minute late for signing on can lead to a 4 week benefit sanction, It's ridiculous.
I used to work for what was the DHSS, the DSS and the Benefits Agency. At the time decisions on sanctions were usually made by the Unemployment Benefit Office which was run by a different Government department. But we could also sanction people who were unemployed and were claiming the means tested equivalent of Unemployment Benefit (Supplementary benefit then from April 1988 Income Support then from October 1996 Jobseeker's Allowance. I tended to only recommend a sanction for someone who was so obviously not looking for work though we did stop benefits if someone failed to attend an interview when requested to do so. Strangely the second their benefits were suspended they would turn up.
We also used to be able to stop benefits if someone was single and aged under 45. We used to give the person a "six weeks notice" which basically said that they could only have benefits for a further six weeks because in our opinion they were failing to avail themselves of the opportunity of short term or seasonal work. This sanction was very popular in tourist areas and in offices where there was a lot of farm work on the go. Once benefit was stopped they weren't usually able to claim anything for up to 26 weeks. Strangely, every single person I issued the notice to soon found a job. Though to be fair I only issued the notice to about half a dozen people. I don't think this rule exists any longer and hasn't done since JSA was introduced in October 1996.
These things are reported, people getting a sanction because they were late at the job centre, why were they late because they were having a job interview. Benefit stopped 4 weeks, because that is not classed as a good enough reason for being late. The high number of people who appeal and win, shows the system does not work as its meant to, but for these people who appeal and win, have already been punished. So have been punished wrongly
How many people are claiming benefits?
How many get sanctioned, appeal, and win?
You see, when we're talking millions there will be mistakes, hence why they put in an appeal process. The appeal process is working.
These things are reported, people getting a sanction because they were late at the job centre, why were they late because they were having a job interview. Benefit stopped 4 weeks, because that is not classed as a good enough reason for being late. The high number of people who appeal and win, shows the system does not work as its meant to, but for these people who appeal and win, have already been punished. So have been punished wrongly
I was redundant a year ago. Luckily I found work within months but did have a person at job centre who actually said I could get in trouble for being unable to attend their next meeting... because I was going to an interview and that maybe I should rearrange! They also said I should use their system for documenting my job search even though I could demonstrate it by showing applications, meetings and interviews in my phones and many jobs appear late on their register.
You see, when we're talking millions there will be mistakes, hence why they put in an appeal process. The appeal process is working..
Most people won't bother to appeal especially those who are on benefits temporarily and some of course will be unable to negotiate against a system which is supposed to be there to help them.
Most people won't bother to appeal especially those who are on benefits temporarily and some of course will be unable to negotiate against a system which is supposed to be there to help them.
Hmmm true.
The one time i "registered" at the job centre was when i left the army - i went down there, registered and received a book - can't remember what it was but then went on a full time training course so rang them up a few days later - obviously it just wasn't worth the hassle of claiming any money from them.
The rules are stringent, but we're talking millions of people and £billions of pounds.
To loosen the rules could cost us all dear - it did for many years and only now has it come under control.
The one time i "registered" at the job centre was when i left the army - i went down there, registered and received a book - can't remember what it was but then went on a full time training course so rang them up a few days later - obviously it just wasn't worth the hassle of claiming any money from them.
The rules are stringent, but we're talking millions of people and £billions of pounds.
To loosen the rules could cost us all dear - it did for many years and only now has it come under control.
Why is there no mass civil disobedience and mass demonstrations over these barbaric, cruel and inhuman benefit sanctions? The sanctions seem to be getting worse by the day, with more suicides, ill health and people driven to crime and it just seems to be getting worse. The people of this country need to grow a pair. Venting anger and disgust about this on the Internet via blogs, YouTube and forums isn't going to change anything.
Meanwhile, our MPs will continue to enjoy the fruits of our labours in the form of generous salaries, expenses and various other benefits.
The one time i "registered" at the job centre was when i left the army - i went down there, registered and received a book - can't remember what it was but then went on a full time training course so rang them up a few days later - obviously it just wasn't worth the hassle of claiming any money from them.
The rules are stringent, but we're talking millions of people and £billions of pounds.
To loosen the rules could cost us all dear - it did for many years and only now has it come under control.
More money is spent on people in work such as tax credits and housing benefit, unemployment benefit isn't top of the list. You seem to me to have bit of a grudge against people on benefits. You should realise that anyone could fall ill or lose their job, that's why there is a safety net called welfare. I believe sanctioning should only be used if the person is really taking the piss. Being one minute late is not a good enough reason to take money of people for a month.
I've unfortunately just recently became unemployed. And have started to sign on. Though I hope I can get working again within a couple of months. As it can be stressful and hassly both trying to get a job and the Job Centre on your back saying "you need to apply for a certain amount of jobs per week", etc, etc. And threats of sanctions.
When I was last signing on about 18 months or so ago, I got a new advisor and she was a bit of a bitch. Saying "Have you had any interviews in the past 2 weeks?". I said "Unfortunately not. No.". She then said "You haven't had any job interviews in the past 2 weeks???" and looking at me like a bit of dirt because I didn't have any job interviews in the past 2 weeks!!!! Job interviews are not exactly easy to get! Firstly you're in competition with many other(sometimes over 100+) people applying for the same jobs. Then employers/recruitment agencies are nowadays VERY fussy about who they consider for employment. If there are too many gaps or any long gaps between jobs on your CV that seems to put them off for some reason. Anyway, luckily I didn't have to put up with that women for more than a couple of signings, as I then found a job.
With this "having to apply for at least 3 jobs per week" rule can be a bit of hassle at times though. As some weeks there aren't allways 3 or more suitable jobs for me to apply for. It can vary from week to week. On a good week there could be about 7 jobs for me to apply for. But on a bad week there might only be 1 or 2. And if you don't apply for more than 3 jobs per week there is the threat of sanctions, which one can't be doing with. So I find the way to get round that if there is a shortfall on the number of suitable jobs to apply for that week, is to make it up by applying for any jobs that you're not interested in/not suitable, or jobs that are out of date(i.e. closing date 17th April). I expect a number of other people do the same. Any some employers will be annoyed at getting all these applications from people who are unsuitable/unqualified for the roles they're advertising. But this is what happens, when the Job Centre has these rules and threatening to sanctions people's benefits and leaving them with no money atall to pay for rent, food, living costs for 4 weeks, 13 weeks, 26 weeks or even as long as 3 YEARS!!!!!
Why is there no mass civil disobedience and mass demonstrations over these barbaric, cruel and inhuman benefit sanctions? The sanctions seem to be getting worse by the day, with more suicides, ill health and people driven to crime and it just seems to be getting worse. The people of this country need to grow a pair. Venting anger and disgust about this on the Internet via blogs, YouTube and forums isn't going to change anything.
Meanwhile, our MPs will continue to enjoy the fruits of our labours in the form of generous salaries, expenses and various other benefits.
There are marches and/or protests on a regular basis, you just don't hear about them in the mainstream media.
You see, when we're talking millions there will be mistakes, hence why they put in an appeal process. The appeal process is working.
The figures are tiny.
Absolute rubbish, as usual.
According to Matthew Oakley's independent report, between 43% and 53% of benefit sanctions were overturned on appeal. That is not explainable as 'mistakes', nor are the figures involved 'tiny'. They are indicative of a culture that follows the rule of 'sanction first, worry later', and there is NO justification whatsoever for such behaviour.
According to Matthew Oakley's independent report, between 43% and 53% of benefit sanctions were overturned on appeal. That is not explainable as 'mistakes', nor are the figures involved 'tiny'. They are indicative of a culture that follows the rule of 'sanction first, worry later', and there is NO justification whatsoever for such behaviour.
Indeed, and around 40% of ESA appeals are successful at tribunal. The system is geared to punish first and hope they don't appeal.
According to Matthew Oakley's independent report, between 43% and 53% of benefit sanctions were overturned on appeal. That is not explainable as 'mistakes', nor are the figures involved 'tiny'. They are indicative of a culture that follows the rule of 'sanction first, worry later', and there is NO justification whatsoever for such behaviour.
The vast majority of sanctions that are covered by the remit of this Review are at the lowest level of sanctions.
...
This means that while a large number of sanction referrals are made, a relatively small number of claimants are actually sanctioned.
BigAndy9 repeats what he said earlier - a tiny amount.
There has also been TV programmes that have had Jobcentre workers confirm that they have been given sanction targets to meet and yet the DWP still claim they don't.
Also 35 hour a week job searching is just ridiculous as it's impossible to do that week after week without visiting the same places you did a week or two ago. They know that and the whole point is to sanction you when you fail.
I was made redundant a couple of years ago and having worked for a few years I knew nothing about unemployment. Anyway I was sanctioned twice in my few months of claiming unemployment. The first time was after the first visit, the adviser had printed off a job which in my ignorance I had decided was unsuitable for me. This resulted in my first six week sanction as despite applying for about twenty others jobs apparently you had to apply for those printed off for you as well, The second time was entirely my own fault, I didn't apply for a job that I said I had, so yeah I can't fault them for that.
Most adviser were OK, the odd one was rude or disinterested but I found the whole system a bit odd TBH. Somehow it didn't seem geared to help people find jobs it was more about benefits, and I wanted a job. It's not eh place to find one though really. Anyway, I soon learnt the game I applied for around twenty five plus jobs per week and kept record so I couldn't get caught out again. I felt that they weren't really interested in job seekers like me, they kept asking about disabilities and other problems and if you didn't qualify then frankly you weren't interesting enough for them to bother with.
The vast majority of sanctions that are covered by the remit of this Review are at the lowest level of sanctions.
...
This means that while a large number of sanction referrals are made, a relatively small number of claimants are actually sanctioned.
BigAndy9 repeats what he said earlier - a tiny amount.
That's not what it means at all, and referring to yourself in the third person doesn't give you intellectual gravitas, it simply makes you look like a prat. What it actually means is that the majority of sanctions applied for were for the basic four-week period, as of course would be expected on an incremental scale of punishment.
Of those decisions to apply a sanction, a significant proportion are subsequently reviewed at the claimant’s request. The proportion varies by programme. For the Work Programme in 2013, 33% of initially adverse decisions were reviewed. Of those decisions that are reviewed, depending on the programme, between 43% and 53% have the decision to apply a sanction overturned.
Approximately one half of sanctionees who felt they had been treated incorrectly were proven right.
This means that while a large number of sanction referrals are made, a relatively small number of claimants are actually sanctioned. In 2013, for the Work Programme, once reviews and appeals have been accounted for, just 28.7% of sanction referrals ultimately resulted in a decision to apply a sanction.
Rather important, that BIB. You are put into immediate hardship once the sanction is imposed, even though there is only a 50% chance of it being correctly applied. IDS, McVey and their cronies simply do not care that people are literally dying thanks to their wretched, half-witted policies.
Given the costs associated with running the system of decision making, reconsideration, appeals and hardship the disparity between those being referred for a sanction and those who are actually sanctioned results in a significant cost to the State.
Supposed to save the country money, actually ends up costing instead. The trademark of IDS and the whole corrupt, self serving yet utterly incompetent Tory ilk.
Prepare for it to get worst still now that the bloody Tories are in power again for another 5 years. Another 5 years of Iain Duncan Smith. More benefits cuts. Which will mean the DWP getting more strict and fussy on "Jobseekers". Faceless "decision makers" sanctioning people's benefits for weeks, months, and even up to 3 years for silly reasons, with no care atall how these people will pay for rent, food, and living costs! >:(
Prepare for it to get worst still now that the bloody Tories are in power again for another 5 years. Another 5 years of Iain Duncan Smith. More benefits cuts. Which will mean the DWP getting more strict and fussy on "Jobseekers". Faceless "decision makers" sanctioning people's benefits for weeks, months, and even up to 3 years for silly reasons, with no care atall how these people will pay for rent, food, and living costs! >:(
It may happen we will have to see, they might be kept in check by the small majority. If not I suppose we could see a return of this.
Comments
Hi Seamus, as i said, i read the examples you provided but i'm assuming there is another side to the stories? I'm guessing the DWP can't publish names etc so we'll never hear their side.
Don't get me wrong, i agree with everything you have said above. The fair warnings - i would have thought warnings are given - when you first go on benefits.
Chances no, warnings yes.
There are many DWP staff (past and present), all levels who post on established forums like benefits and work, DPAC, Black Triangle etc..even a few here..who consistently affirm that the DWP has gone rogue, and will try to instruct staff to use unfair methods to coerce claimants in a variety of non-approved means (like trying to require people in Support Group to attend interviews they are unable to attend often due to health issues - as they did with me) - blatantly against their own guidelines - and impose sanctions without following through on the policies they should be adhering to when doing so.
NOT occasional erroneous actions..but now commonplace, and with less and less effort being made to even mask the fact that they are flagrantly ignoring their own guidelines.
Interesting stuff Seamus, but unless those people go public and report these cases they are just posts on a forum - they damn well should go public!
Don't forget - DWP - public sector - Labour voters.
Also, posts on a forum, anonymous stories about "how benefits sanctions took my sex life away and killed my cat" - heart wrenching indeed, but possibly not true.
Go public..lose their jobs if still working, face potential legal action regardless..and more considerations - none of which end well for them.
The silly comment about the sex life and dead cat..is well just that..a bit silly. These are not just forums, but advisory groups where specialists work constantly using the latest information, that is uniformly consistent and of benefit to countless thousands in the UK who seek their expert advice and support - from filling in forms correctly, reviews, particular benefits, sanctions - the whole gammet.
I hope you remain in the dark, and never have to end up in a situation where no matter how anti-benefits you appear to sound - you find yourself in the same boat. You'll be treated instantly in the same way as the rest of us, find it daunting and be thankful of all and any of the still quite hard to find groups initially that could make a difference when you really need them.
You are a lucky person it seems...Just pray life never causes you slip to the bottom of the ladder - even if no fault of your own...it's a populated place, and getting help to step back on can be one of the most difficult things you'll take on.
I know. I was reasonably well of, good career and had no idea what lay beneath me - until I abruptly had a change in fortune. Your belief system will change should ever you arrive at this end of the spectrum - and not for the better, as reality finally comes to pay a visit to you.
Stay lucky if within your ability to decide such things
These things are reported, people getting a sanction because they were late at the job centre, why were they late because they were having a job interview. Benefit stopped 4 weeks, because that is not classed as a good enough reason for being late. The high number of people who appeal and win, shows the system does not work as its meant to, but for these people who appeal and win, have already been punished. So have been punished wrongly
I used to work for what was the DHSS, the DSS and the Benefits Agency. At the time decisions on sanctions were usually made by the Unemployment Benefit Office which was run by a different Government department. But we could also sanction people who were unemployed and were claiming the means tested equivalent of Unemployment Benefit (Supplementary benefit then from April 1988 Income Support then from October 1996 Jobseeker's Allowance. I tended to only recommend a sanction for someone who was so obviously not looking for work though we did stop benefits if someone failed to attend an interview when requested to do so. Strangely the second their benefits were suspended they would turn up.
We also used to be able to stop benefits if someone was single and aged under 45. We used to give the person a "six weeks notice" which basically said that they could only have benefits for a further six weeks because in our opinion they were failing to avail themselves of the opportunity of short term or seasonal work. This sanction was very popular in tourist areas and in offices where there was a lot of farm work on the go. Once benefit was stopped they weren't usually able to claim anything for up to 26 weeks. Strangely, every single person I issued the notice to soon found a job. Though to be fair I only issued the notice to about half a dozen people. I don't think this rule exists any longer and hasn't done since JSA was introduced in October 1996.
How many people are claiming benefits?
How many get sanctioned, appeal, and win?
You see, when we're talking millions there will be mistakes, hence why they put in an appeal process. The appeal process is working.
The figures are tiny.
The systems daft.
Most people won't bother to appeal especially those who are on benefits temporarily and some of course will be unable to negotiate against a system which is supposed to be there to help them.
Hmmm true.
The one time i "registered" at the job centre was when i left the army - i went down there, registered and received a book - can't remember what it was but then went on a full time training course so rang them up a few days later - obviously it just wasn't worth the hassle of claiming any money from them.
The rules are stringent, but we're talking millions of people and £billions of pounds.
To loosen the rules could cost us all dear - it did for many years and only now has it come under control.
Its not under control, the system is no longer there to help people find work, the system is now to get people off benefits or in there terms off flow, they are not botherd if you find work, they are only now botherd to get people off benefits. And thousands of sick disabled people are being sanctioned because the system is failing them. Like this case http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/disability-in-the-news/no-dwp-apology-for-work-programme-discrimination-and-punishment And 100 people a day with mental health problems are being given a sanction http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibtimes.co.uk%2Fconservative-welfare-cuts-will-push-britains-mental-health-services-towards-crisis-1494815&ei=s8RFVZT9B4XhaKf5gfgL&usg=AFQjCNFm6GPosRDQu6QhtSNWYrDhVXldNQ&bvm=bv.92291466,d.d2s&cad=rja
Meanwhile, our MPs will continue to enjoy the fruits of our labours in the form of generous salaries, expenses and various other benefits.
When I was last signing on about 18 months or so ago, I got a new advisor and she was a bit of a bitch. Saying "Have you had any interviews in the past 2 weeks?". I said "Unfortunately not. No.". She then said "You haven't had any job interviews in the past 2 weeks???" and looking at me like a bit of dirt because I didn't have any job interviews in the past 2 weeks!!!! Job interviews are not exactly easy to get! Firstly you're in competition with many other(sometimes over 100+) people applying for the same jobs. Then employers/recruitment agencies are nowadays VERY fussy about who they consider for employment. If there are too many gaps or any long gaps between jobs on your CV that seems to put them off for some reason. Anyway, luckily I didn't have to put up with that women for more than a couple of signings, as I then found a job.
With this "having to apply for at least 3 jobs per week" rule can be a bit of hassle at times though. As some weeks there aren't allways 3 or more suitable jobs for me to apply for. It can vary from week to week. On a good week there could be about 7 jobs for me to apply for. But on a bad week there might only be 1 or 2. And if you don't apply for more than 3 jobs per week there is the threat of sanctions, which one can't be doing with. So I find the way to get round that if there is a shortfall on the number of suitable jobs to apply for that week, is to make it up by applying for any jobs that you're not interested in/not suitable, or jobs that are out of date(i.e. closing date 17th April). I expect a number of other people do the same. Any some employers will be annoyed at getting all these applications from people who are unsuitable/unqualified for the roles they're advertising. But this is what happens, when the Job Centre has these rules and threatening to sanctions people's benefits and leaving them with no money atall to pay for rent, food, living costs for 4 weeks, 13 weeks, 26 weeks or even as long as 3 YEARS!!!!!
http://www.unitetheunion.org/growing-our-union/communitymembership/day-of-action-against-sanctions/
http://www.unitetheunion.org/campaigning/stop-benefit-sanctions/no2sanctions-video/
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11877257.23_000_benefit_sanctions_imposed_across_Hampshire_in_just_two_years/
(23,000 benefit sanctions imposed across Hampshire in 2 years)
Absolute rubbish, as usual.
According to Matthew Oakley's independent report, between 43% and 53% of benefit sanctions were overturned on appeal. That is not explainable as 'mistakes', nor are the figures involved 'tiny'. They are indicative of a culture that follows the rule of 'sanction first, worry later', and there is NO justification whatsoever for such behaviour.
Indeed, and around 40% of ESA appeals are successful at tribunal. The system is geared to punish first and hope they don't appeal.
The vast majority of sanctions that are covered by the remit of this Review are at the lowest level of sanctions.
...
This means that while a large number of sanction referrals are made, a relatively small number of claimants are actually sanctioned.
BigAndy9 repeats what he said earlier - a tiny amount.
Also 35 hour a week job searching is just ridiculous as it's impossible to do that week after week without visiting the same places you did a week or two ago. They know that and the whole point is to sanction you when you fail.
Most adviser were OK, the odd one was rude or disinterested but I found the whole system a bit odd TBH. Somehow it didn't seem geared to help people find jobs it was more about benefits, and I wanted a job. It's not eh place to find one though really. Anyway, I soon learnt the game I applied for around twenty five plus jobs per week and kept record so I couldn't get caught out again. I felt that they weren't really interested in job seekers like me, they kept asking about disabilities and other problems and if you didn't qualify then frankly you weren't interesting enough for them to bother with.
It may happen we will have to see, they might be kept in check by the small majority. If not I suppose we could see a return of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardboard_City_%28London%29