Job centres tricking claimants out of benefits

Scroll to see replies

Don't post like that. It makes it impossible to quote posts correctly.

Just lol. Generalisation? I can smell the hypocrisy from here. And xenophobia.

OMG sorry I forgot we are in the pc generation when anything can be taken as xenophobia!!! Lol wot

Go on then, what town, so I can prove you wrong. Unless you live out in the sticks, and even then you will be expected to commute to work. Just like everyone else.

Sorry but you have to prove yourself right and you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

My home town had a population of 25 thousand so wasnt a small town, and the nearest city had an unemployment problem too, and who said there wasnt an expectation to commute or are you just making stuff up and making assumptions about people on benefits again?

You're at least be expected to read and understand the job applications the job centre gives you. It is possible to read them before you leave. If you don't, how is that the jobcentre's fault? If you can't, how do you expect to be able to do a job if you can't apply for it?

But I did, but how is it my fault the jobcentre closed before I finished filling in the forms? I mean why is it so bad that I filled in loads of forms and far more than the jobseekers agreement has as a minimum a bad thing? in fact wouldnt rushing them be worse?

Again, you have to apply for the jobs they give you and therefore agree you are going to apply for. Even if there is no chance of you getting it, you still send in your CV or the application. It's not rocket science really.

When did I say I never applied for the job? I said that the issue was I didnt realise the applications closed that day, I never said I didnt hand form in did I(in fact I handed it in anyway just in case)

And you explained this at the appeals tribunal, presumably?

Sorry, this isn't about DLA, its about JSA. If you are too ill to work, you get DLA or IB or whatever. If you are fit for work, then its JSA. They are by definition and necessity, mutually exclusive.

Sure but the system is pretty similar and done by the same people (DWP) so they share things.

Ex policeman on benefits? Some reason he's not getting the generous ex service pension that they are famous for?

Sure, he was a policeman for years until he became ill, he wasnt always a policeman either but worked till he was in his late 30's and has done charity work ever since(and won awards for it)

All that with only one full stop? I'm sure I'm not the only one having trouble with this.

Oh dear, you find something hard to read so I must have upset you, I am soooo sorry I didnt make things easy for you.

Sorry, but when you miss a sign on appointment, they write to you. So that's three letters you never got?

So that brief period you were on benefits means you know everything about it? that the jobcentre doesnt make mistakes?

You just seem to want to complain about certain people which is quite pathetic really.

Reply 61

drbluebox

Original post by fire2burn

Yes because £51.85 a week is almost the same as £237.20 a week that someone could earn working 40 hours a week even on the minimum wage :rolleyes:

£207.40 a month versus £948.80 I know which figure I'd prefer if in that situation.

Not looking to cause an arugment but you havent factored housing benefit into that, plus lower council tax, so its hard to make an exact quote as its down to how much rent you pay and how much the local council pays in LHA.

Reply 62

marcusfox

Original post by drbluebox

And 'certain people' who aren't complying with their Job Seekers requirements shouldn't be complained about?

Original post by drbluebox

OMG sorry I forgot we are in the pc generation when anything can be taken as xenophobia!!! Lol wot

Slagging off and generalising Polish foreigners as slackers is a pretty good definition of xenophobia, yes, particularly when the only examples you provided were your housemates, a neighbour and some cleaners where you worked.

Original post by drbluebox

Sorry but you have to prove yourself right and you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

My home town had a population of 25 thousand so wasnt a small town, and the nearest city had an unemployment problem too, and who said there wasnt an expectation to commute or are you just making stuff up and making assumptions about people on benefits again?

I would, but you seem evasive. Perhaps you are worried that I will in fact find jobs available in your town, like I have done with Martyn. Perhaps that will be the only thing that stops your moaning excuses - and they are moaning excuses - just like they did his.

Just for you, post details of this mythical place where there are no jobs. If you don't want to reveal where you live, then fair enough, but then stop going on about the fact that there are no jobs within a commutable distance.

Because we know that there are plenty in Edinburgh and Glasgow that you can apply for. Doesn't matter if you are a total unemployable bum, it's the applying for jobs that counts, and the only real requirement of claiming job seekers allowance

Original post by drbluebox

But I did, but how is it my fault the jobcentre closed before I finished filling in the forms? I mean why is it so bad that I filled in loads of forms and far more than the jobseekers agreement has as a minimum a bad thing? in fact wouldnt rushing them be worse?

Sorry, but are you expecting us to believe that you were expected to fill in all the applications within your signing window at the jobcentre? That is hilarious.

Just for future reference - you read the job specification at the job centre before you accept it. You take the forms away and complete them in your own time.

Original post by drbluebox

When did I say I never applied for the job? I said that the issue was I didnt realise the applications closed that day, I never said I didnt hand form in did I(in fact I handed it in anyway just in case)

Sorry, you misunderstood me. The implication of me saying "Even if there is no chance of you getting it, you still send in your CV or the application" is that you do it before the job expires/closing date.

Original post by drbluebox

Sure but the system is pretty similar and done by the same people (DWP) so they share things.

The thread is talking about people being kicked off JSA because they didn't comply with the requirements. Someone being being kicked off DLA because they or someone else didn't comply with the requirements is to be expected, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Original post by drbluebox

Sure, he was a policeman for years until he became ill, he wasnt always a policeman either but worked till he was in his late 30's and has done charity work ever since(and won awards for it)

Worked til he was in his late 30s? If he then became ill, he would still have been pensioned off. In any case, if you can't work, you get DLA or IB. There is no point in introducting your father to this discussion unless he was kicked off JSA because he failed to comply with the rules in some way, since he wasn't even eligible for JSA.

Nevertheless, to answer your point, I don't see it as unreasonable that claimants who are themselves unable to meet the necessarily stringent requirements for getting what is effectively free money find themselves without it.

Original post by drbluebox

Oh dear, you find something hard to read so I must have upset you, I am soooo sorry I didnt make things easy for you.

Nope, you didn't upset me. But if you want to be taken seriously and have a debate without conclusions being drawn as to the possible reasons for your current state of employment, or unemployment, you should state your points as clearly and lucidly as possible.

Reply 63

Dekota-XS

I treat the jobcentre like a job in itself, always meeting my requirements, targets and reporting back to them in detail every application I have made to jobs, the outcome, the time spent per week jobhunting, number of interviews. I've never had problems personally.

Reply 64

Llamageddon

I remember back in 2009 being on the dole for 3 weeks. By the second week I had a job and I was told that because, having found a job, I stopped looking for one, I would lose a week. I actually lost 3 weeks because I didn't receive anything.

I don't know how people can do it. I think I'd actually starve first. I'm probably more stubborn than other people though.

Reply 65

nulli tertius

Original post by Llamageddon

You are expected to seek and take any casual work in the meantime.

Reply 66

WelshBluebird

Original post by marcusfox

Sorry, but you fill find that the reorganisation of benefits by the government is entirely fair.

Really?
Kicking severally disabled people off their benefit and declaring them fit to work is fair?

Reply 67

WelshBluebird

Original post by marcusfox

There ARE jobs.

There are many many more unemployed people than there are vacancies.

Original post by marcusfox

That no one wants to do. Just as it says.

It means that no one wants to scrub toilets for minimum wage.

Boring, soul destroying menial labour jobs, that sort of thing. If you want to count McDonalds jobs in there, sure.

However, if such are available, then yes, people on JSA should be MADE to apply for them or lose their benefit.

JSA shouldn't be a lifestyle choice. It should be a safety net to provide a mimimum standard of living when people find themselves out of work. However, the whole point is that people need to show they are trying to get a job.

Even if that job is, as you put it, a McDonalds job.

The problem is that those jobs are not available for a lot of "educated" people. You are "overqualified" or whatever BS they want to come out with.

Also, commuting is also a huge issue.
I went to the job centre back home a couple of times during sixth form to see if there was anything. The problem I had is that they kept on throwing up restuarant and bar vacancies in the next valley. Now, if you drive then that is fine. But if you have to rely on public transport, then it would be impossible to get to and from.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 68

Llamageddon

Original post by nulli tertius

You are expected to seek and take any casual work in the meantime.

when you have an offer that starts the next week then searching is a complete waste of time.

Reply 69

nulli tertius

Original post by WelshBluebird

Really?
Kicking severally disabled people off their benefit and declaring them fit to work is fair?

Benefits for incapacity have always had an inconsistency at their core. Is it a benefit for not being fit to work or a benefit for having a particular illness or disability?

That inconsistency was preserved when the modern All Work Test (renamed PCAP) was introduced in 1996 and when ESA was introduced 3 years ago.

Despite the fact that there are thousands of people in wheelchairs in the work force, not being able to walk 50 metres without stopping or severe discomfort was an automatic passport to Incapacity Benefit and to ESA.

One had the absurd situation that if a disabled person lost a job they were performing perfectly well for reasons entirely unconnected with their disability, they were put on Incapacity Benefit or ESA and in the case of ESA they were put in the support group so no-one even tried to get them a new job.

From next week that goes.

Reply 70

WelshBluebird

Original post by nulli tertius

Benefits for incapacity have always had an inconsistency at their core. Is it a benefit for not being fit to work or a benefit for having a particular illness or disability?

There are two seperate benefits. No inconcistency at all IMO.
One for those who actually cannot work because of their condition, and one for those who can work, but need a little extra help to live a normal life.

We now have a situation where the government is paying a private company (who are banned from operated in some parts of america) based on how many disabled people they can get off both types of benefit. They don't give a crap about the actual persons condition, as long as they can tick a few boxes then they get their money from the government.

Reply 71

nulli tertius

Original post by Llamageddon

when you have an offer that starts the next week then searching is a complete waste of time.

Was there no event that needed a steward, no crops that needed picking, no packhouse needing labour?

These are jobs that generally start within 24 hours.

It is perfectly fine for you to decide not to bother but the taxpayer should not be supporting you in that period.

Reply 72

nulli tertius

Original post by WelshBluebird

There are two seperate benefits.

Which two benefits are you talking about?

I am talking about Incapacity Benefit and Income Support by reason of incapacity which were replaced in respect of new claims from October 2008 by contribution based Employment Support Allowance and means tested Employment Support Allowance respectively.

I am not talking any other benefits.

Reply 73

WelshBluebird

Original post by nulli tertius

ESA (given to those who cannot work because of their condition) and DLA (given to disabled people no matter if they are in work or not, to help pay for the extra costs that come with having their condition).

Reply 74

morecambebay

Here are some questions..........

If I was an advisor at the job centre and I managed to get all of my clients into full time long term employment would I then make myself unemployed?
If it was my job to help people with their cv's and I got paid every time they came back how hard should I try?
Is it fair to expect unemployed people to work unpaid for the experience whilst private companies are paid massive bonuses in return for finding the placement?
Is it right to give a contract back to a company that has been found guilty of fraud?
Why are profit making companies allowed contracts anyway when there are plenty of charities willing to do it?
Do you think the fact that that a private company has a politician on its board of advisors might be creating a slightly messed up situation?
What about the medical professionals (most not even doctors) who are allowed to completely ignore infomation from psychiatrists?
What about paying those medical professionals bonuses for making the right decisions?
What about the completely unqualified decision makers who's opinion is put above very well qualified professionals?

I could carry on.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 75

nulli tertius

Original post by WelshBluebird

I am not discussing DLA. Read everything that I said in my earlier post by reference to IB/IS and ESA only.

Reply 76

WelshBluebird

Original post by nulli tertius

I am not discussing DLA. Read everything that I said in my earlier post by reference to IB/IS and ESA only.

My post was about both though (which is what you replied to).
However, my points about people who NEED this benefit being forced off it is true. People with severe terminal cancer, people who can only walk 10 metres in severe pain etc etc. ATOS do not care about the person. They care about their money.

Reply 77

gateshipone

Posted this in another thread before seeing this one.

It's an interesting article, though it does seem to be a bit one sided!

I should point out before I continue, I no longer work for the DWP, so I'm not saying this because I have to.

I think this is a case of office managers taking the new "sanction rules" a bit too far. My manager told us we had to get one sanction a month. That was the aim. I've heard in other offices nearby that they had a target of one a week. It was never forced on us though, if we couldn't find reason to sanction someone, we didn't have to make up a reason or trick them, we simply didn't meet our target due to everyone we signed following the rules.

In the case of that article, 3 a week is an impossible target to be honest. It sounds like a manager being told they have to increase sanctions (which all managers were) but then deciding that 3 a week was the number they needed to do that.

As for sanctioning for being late, that's not entirely accurate either. Yes Jobcentres can sanction you a weeks money for not turning up on the right day without a valid reason (doctors appointment, job interview etc).

The story about the dyslexic customer is ridiculous, there's no requirement for a written job search record. It's acceptable to take a verbal one. The idea of sanctioning someone for not writing down their job search activities is insane and anyone who has been sanctioned for that should ask for a reconsideration.

I also question why the employee in that article is doing it if he doesn't agree with it. I didn't always agree with sanctioning people and often let people who had followed the rules but had missed one job off. I wasn't prepared to stop someone's money because of a technicality, and if the guy in the article really cared so much, he'd ignore the target like I did and only sanction when it was ACTUALLY necessary.

Basically this article is based on one p*ssed off employee and people who have been sanctioned - of course they're going to be angry. What none of them seem to realise is the rules for sanctioning haven't changed, staff are just being asked to enforce them more often. What was happening originally is staff couldn't be bothered to fill out all the paper work involved in it. It was only when sanctions were made a priority that we had to start doing it. Even then it was only one a month, and it's easy to find a real person who's not following the rules in that time.

EDIT

The video interview with the whistleblower is also misleading. He says that refusal of employment is being used when people don't apply...true, except the rules DO actually say that not applying is refusing employment. You're refusing to apply for a suitable job that you could get if you apply.

It should be noted that not actively seeking means they haven't done the bare minimum, which is 3 things a week. If someone can't do 3 things to look for a job in a 7 day period then they're clearly not actively seeking work.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 78

Broderss

Our government is retarded, you should have come to expect things like this.

Reply 79

nulli tertius

Original post by morecambebay

Here are some questions..........

If I was an advisor at the job centre and I managed to get all of my clients into full time long term employment would I then make myself unemployed?

No. Civil servants are virtually never made compulsorily redundant.

If it was my job to help people with their cv's and I got paid every time they came back how hard should I try?

If you are at a jobcentre, you are a civil servant paid a salary. In the case of the companies hired to place people, it will almost certainly depend on the incentives in the contract.

Is it fair to expect unemployed people to work unpaid for the experience whilst private companies are paid massive bonuses in return for finding the placement?

Who are we being fair to? It is fairer to the taxpayer if this reduces public spending on the unemployed.

Is it right to give a contract back to a company that has been found guilty of fraud?

I don't know the specifics. How serious was the fraud? Who committed it? How long ago was it? What other companies are in the market to do this work?

Why are profit making companies allowed contracts anyway when there are plenty of charities willing to do it?

Why should charities be in a privileged position. Should we not let Tesco sell chocolate because Oxfam is willing to do so?

Do you think the fact that that a private company has a politician on its board of advisors might be creating a slightly messed up situation?

I accept that a politician is usually capable of messing up anything but your point is?

What about the medical professionals (most not even doctors) who are allowed to completely ignore infomation from psychiatrists?

Because the disability analysts are trained (that may be an exaggeration-I have seen some of their work) in determining whether people meet the legally prescribed tests. Most psychiatrists wouldn't know what those tests are if you asked them.

What about paying those medical professionals bonuses for making the right decisions?

Given the proportion of wrong decisions they make, this might be a good idea. Why don't you suggest it to to Ian Duncan Smith.

What about the completely unqualified decision makers who's opinion is put above very well qualified professionals?

The independent advisor who reported last year was strongly in favour of this and his conclusion has been welcomed by disability groups.

I could carry on.