Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Go down

Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by ABC on Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:43 pm

I think this was posted by Mary but I don't have a reference to the actual tribunal from which it was taken. Does anyone have a tribunal reference number?

27. Unfortunatety the respondent has not provided the guidance in relation to the non registration
on universal job match or the policy which is adopted in those limited circumstances. I can
however glean one important matter from the wording adopted by the DWP in the letter; there is
no set criteria and no exhaustive criteria for allowing a claimant not to register. lf there were
exhaustive criteria then no doubt the Secretary of State would have brought these to my
attention and relred upon them, or at least relied upon the appellant not being within the
exhaustive criteria.
28. The appellant indicated she was willing to use the job search computer to identify vacancies
and thereafter apply for said vacancies direct to the company or through other means. She
indicated that she had no difficulty with any other part of the claimant commitment. Her only
difficulty was registration.
29. Has the respondent satisfied the 'necessary' test? The sole purpose of the claimant
commitment and the requirements made by the Secretary of State in the claimant commitment
are to assist a claimant to achieve employment. That, in my view, must be the global mission
statement. lf the claimant can however seek employment to a comparable level as the claimant
commitment elsewhere and one can use the system to search for employment without
registering then that naturally begs the question as to whether the requirement is necessary. Or
put another way, is the interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights necessary.
30. I am compelled to find that the interference is not necessary and accordingly the requirement for
the appellant to register and be subjected to having her communications and actions monitored
is not necessary. I would be compelled to the contrary conclusion if one cold not perform job
searches or seek employment on the computer without registering but that is not the case here.
31. The interference with the appellant's private life cannot in my view be justified as necessary for
the economic well being of the country for the following reasons; one can seek and search for
'employment without registering, the respondent has nol provided any data or quantitative
evidence to show that the likelihood or obtaining employment is increased with registration as
opposed to locating jobs and applying externally to the system nor has the respondent provided
any information as to the purpose behind the monitoring and who would perform the same.
32. lt must naturally follow therefore that the appeal is allowed. The appellant has not unreasonably
refused to comply with the claimant commitment as I flnd that the requirement for her to register
on the Universal job match system, as opposed to merely using it to locate jobs, breaches her
Article B rights and is not a necessary intrusion into her private life.
avatar
ABC

Posts : 151
Points : 213
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2017-05-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Non Deficere on Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:52 pm

Yes I do. I did not keep a copy of the decision, nor did the folks over on rightsnet:

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10597/

avatar
Non Deficere

Posts : 331
Points : 702
Reputation : 97
Join date : 2017-12-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by ABC on Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:21 pm

Non Deficere wrote:Yes I do.  I did not keep a copy of the decision, nor did the folks over on rightsnet:

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10597/


Yes I saw that thread. Apparently waybackmachine which archived the original thread from the now defunct Unemploymentmovement is down at the moment. Perhaps it'll appear there in due course. So you don't have the tribunal reference number?
avatar
ABC

Posts : 151
Points : 213
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2017-05-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Rebel-1 on Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:09 pm

Latest from "Wayback Machine"

Sorry for the delay in responding to this post. We are working on some background changes to the Wayback Machine and the Archive in general. The updates have been put on hold for the Wayback Machine until these are done. We are hoping to have the updates starting next month or so, but that is not a firm timeline. I'm sorry for the delay. We are not defunct, and the Wayback Machine is still being worked on, but these changes are important to do now. Please be patient with us while we work these out. Also,you are welcome to email us with more questions.

Paul Forrest Hickman
Office Manager

http://archive.org/post/66895/is-archive-now-defunct


Last edited by Rebel-1 on Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Add Link)
avatar
Rebel-1

Posts : 52
Points : 68
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2017-04-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Non Deficere on Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:50 am

ABC wrote:
Non Deficere wrote:Yes I do.  I did not keep a copy of the decision, nor did the folks over on rightsnet:

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10597/


Yes I saw that thread. Apparently waybackmachine which archived the original thread from the now defunct Unemploymentmovement is down at the moment. Perhaps it'll appear there in due course. So you don't have the tribunal reference number?

I don't have it I am afraid, but if you had the judgment number the decision is not in the public domain unless the appellant shares it.

The FtT decision is not binding on DWP.  However, rightsnet members have made several suggestions.

An UtT decison in regards to UJ:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59e5b9dfed915d6aaafc2eb4/CJSA_3521_2016-00.pdf
avatar
Non Deficere

Posts : 331
Points : 702
Reputation : 97
Join date : 2017-12-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Admin on Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:34 am

avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1550
Points : 3259
Reputation : 156
Join date : 2017-04-13

View user profile http://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Admin on Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:19 pm

avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1550
Points : 3259
Reputation : 156
Join date : 2017-04-13

View user profile http://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Admin on Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:01 pm

This  appeal  is  about variations  to  a  “jobseeker’s  agreement”  (now restyled  as  a  “claimant  commitment”)  and  the  approach  to  deciding “whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to comply with the agreement as  proposed  to  be  varied”  under section  10(5)(b)  of  the  Jobseeker’s  Act 1995.    It  also  touches  on  the  number  of  steps  a  claimant  may  be required to undertake under a jobseeker’s agreement  .

the claimants entitlement was closed due to no jobseeker’s agreement failed  to  comply  with  that  direction  by  refusing to enter into that new agreement

The focus of this appeal is on the terms of section 10(5) of the Act.
The particular  focus of  the  appeal  below was on  whether  it  was  reasonable to  expect  the
appellant  to  have  to  comply  with  the  proposed  new jobseeker’s agreement.

in  the proposed jobseeker’s  agreement  of  5  January  2016 to  “Search Universal Jobmatch via Gov.UK to identify and apply for jobs you can do – 5 times  per  week  minimum”  required  the  appellant  to  apply  for  jobs  via Universal Jobmatch.  

the  appellant would have needed to  take  out  an  account  with Universal Jobmatch by registering with that site and that that step may not  have  been  one  it  was  reasonable  to   require  the  appellant  to
undertake given his security concerns about that site.

many of us on here dont agree that we need or want to create an account on ujm

to have it inserted by an advisor onto the jobseeker agreement document as quoted below

It  is  worth  noting  in  terms  of  context  that the Universal  Jobmatch requirement was  sandwiched  between  two  other requirementsin the proposed jobseeker’s agreement, though there were other requirements as  well.  
The  first  other requirement required  the  appellant  to “Use websites including Total Jobs and Indeed and employers’ own websites to find and  apply  for  jobs  you  can  do –  5  times  a  week  minimum”.  

or forced usage by using directions by an advisor to use the site when its plagued with fraud.

everything else can be done except the registration and usage of ujm not everyone uses ujm to search for jobs


In directly addressing
this  issue  the  submission  said that  there  was  no express reference  in the proposed new  jobseeker’s  agreement  which  directed  the  appellant to  register  with  the  Universal  Jobmatch  website.  

The  Secretary  of State’s  decision  maker  had  “directed  [the  appellant]  should  “search”  for work on Universal Jobmatch site – but [I] can find no reference to him being directed  to  register  on  that  site”.

ive found many an advisor giving jobs only on ujm to force the registration of a claimant onto ujm against a claimants wishes to use the site
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1550
Points : 3259
Reputation : 156
Join date : 2017-04-13

View user profile http://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Admin on Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:13 pm

as worded often in the jsa document

“Like most job websites a person can undertake a search for vacancies without actually logging in. It is only if they find a vacancy that they wish to apply for and that vacancy does not take/direct them to another specific website, that the person would have to create a [Universal Jobmatch] account and then apply via the [Universal Jobmatch] website.....[The appellant] does not need to log in to [Universal Jobmatch] in order to search.”

however

It would appear, moreover, that the Secretary of State accepted in this submission that due to the appellant’s security concerns it would have been reasonable for him not to have registered on the Universal Jobmatch site if he needed to apply for jobs via that site.

to me this is good news as at last jsa claimants cannot be forced to use ujm however anyone that attempts to refuse to do so will have there claim closed by the adviser at jcp office
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1550
Points : 3259
Reputation : 156
Join date : 2017-04-13

View user profile http://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum