This is the letter i sent to the Tribunals service with regard secondary disallowances. This resulted in the periods mentioned within being overturned. I will attach the letters stating as such, shortly. However there is more to this than meets the eye, which i shall further elaborate on shortly. Here is the appeal that i sent. Along with attached evidence. I sent this letter about 7 weeks ago, for time frame reference (19/04/14) Appeal With regards to disallowance from 28/01/14 - 10/02/14 and further sanction from 11/02/14 - 28/04/14. Included with this correspondence is a copy of the jobsearch that i performed during the above period in question. It is clearly labelled as such, but should not be confused with the 3 pages of evidence, that include an old jobsearch as evidence of error/corruption. I have not managed to procure the ASE form that is used internally, so do not know what steps the DWP have alledged i have taken. I have once again however, I believe, fulfilled the 3 steps that are desired according to the law. This longer sanction (11/02/14 - 28/04/14) is also directly related to the original pending case, (SC049/14/00137) and has been handed out, regardless of the fact that an outcome has not been reached on the original case. I would like to raise the point, that i consider this extremely unjust. I have not received any JSA for nearly 2 months now. The last full payment was received on 30th jan 2014. I received a reduced payment of £81.95 on 27th Feb, and have received nothing since then. I have been entitled to JSA constantly, and have continued to sign throughout the disputed periods, where i have received no payments, both in the pending case, and this new case. This has been a massive hinderance on my ability to seek out employment, as i have not had basic funds, to meet basic job-seeking criteria such as mobile phone credit, nevermind the ability to maintain a healthy/non-starvation diet. This combined with the massive amount of time and effort i have spent trying to repeal these seemingly unlawful sanctions, leads to extremely handicapped/detrimental conditions for anyone actively seeking employment. Nonetheless i have adhered by what is desired in law, to take a minimum of 3 steps per week towards employment, including recently attending a 2 hour interview/selection process at a local warehouse. As aforementioned these doubts i believe to be unwarranted and hope that they will be allayed if not by this letter, then by my tribunal appearance. With regards to the jobseekers agreement. (This point is highly relevant to both the current pending case (SC049/14/00137) and this second appeal. It is true that i have signed one, dated 16/01/12. However if you would please look at page 20 of the evidence of the aforementioned case. You will see that it states very clearly under General Statement... I understand that this is general information and not a full statement of the law. This would reasonably lead one to conclude that anything that is signed with regards to the jobseeker agreement, is not legally binding, if it was, then a statement/disclaimer such as This is a legally binding document should in my opinion be included, as otherwise this is extremely misleading. Aside from this reasonable and logical argument, please note that on page 20 in the box under My Responsibilities RE: I know i must: that there is in fact no number filled in on the proceeding box. The DWP copy has the number 4 assigned to this box. This has been filled in as far as i am aware and can recall in good conscience, AFTER i have signed it. This is part of the departmental corruption i spoke of. I will attach more proof of such corruption, as it appears to of been subtly requested, and you may admit it as evidence. Let us then assume that the jobseeker has been deceived by the extremely misleading general statement, and that the jobseekers agreement is in fact a legally binding document. Then in my specific case, this sentence actually says that i must actively seek work by doing at least NULL things a week. This creates a logical paradox, assuming for a moment that the jobseekers agreement is indeed a legal instrument, where it apparently states that it is not under General Statement. Under these paradoxical/conflicting terms i suspect that the law defaults back to the original 3 steps per week suggestion. It would seem that these particulars in the jobseekers agreement are being used in an effort to give a constant reason/excuse to sanction jobseekers. I have heard stories of people having to meet over 30 steps per week, which is i believe completely unreasonable. These steps are then being used in order to constantly have an excuse to sanction the jobseeker. This is wrong. Which leads me onto my next point. I currently have a permanent sanction decision against me for refusal to sign a proposed variation of my jobseekers agreement. The wording of this allegation in itself, suggests that i already have a viable jobseekers agreement. Thus remain entitled to jobseekers allowance. I refused to sign it for the aforementioned reasoning in my current pending case. The DWP went away to reconsider it They came back and the agreement was virtually unchanged (i.e the main points, signing up to universal jobmatch remained intact). I refused to sign it once more and was then told i had 21 days to sign this, or i would face a permanent sanction on my JSA claim. I will attach a copy of the Reasons why i refuse to sign up to universal jobmatch, and this may be included as evidence. There was no further mediation or attempts to make a jobseekers agreement, by the DWP. I was then informed that a permanent sanction was put in place. This also had the effect of removing my entitlement to any hardship provisions. Why would i sign a jobseekers agreement that has completely unreasonable terms, that non-compliance with, will result in putting me in a severely detrimental situation? Given the fact that i have had a permanent sanction assigned against me, for refusing to sign a variation, suggests that this agreement is not an agreement at all, but a forced mandation, the signing of which is UNWILLFUL and UNLAWFUL, by reason of being obtained under duress. If an agreement is reached under duress/threat, i suggest that it is not legally binding. I would argue that having ones only living allowance removed is substantial duress. However citizens of this country are as far as I am aware, legally entitled to social assistance. With regards to the current mandatory reconsideration notice. Another prime example of either departmental incompetance/error and/or corruption is incidentally as follows. On page 2 of the included mandatory reconsideration notice the author (again unnamed, so i do not know who is making this claim against me) has made a claim that :- On your jobseekers Agreement you have agreed to contact employers by phone once a week, visit employers once a week, check newspapers online daily, check indeed e.t.c to conduct online searches, on a daily basis and to check Universal Jobmatch on a daily basis to look for vacancies. At no point have i agreed such things. This was the PROPOSED VARIATION, that remains UNSIGNED by me, and that i refused to sign, resulting in the aforementioned permanent sanction decision, that was i believe unfairly brought against me. From this paragraph on the author refers to a jobseekers agreement that i have not signed. Thus the basis for this entire sanction(s) is/are rendered upon false grounds. And i stand by my assertion that i have fulfilled my responsibilities with regard to the law.
Posted on: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:21:58 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015