What is a 35 Hours Jobsearch?

Non Deficere wrote:This is the guideline DWP use:

https://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/35-hours-jobsearch-we-publish-the-mad-dwp-guidelines/

Another FOI may be helpful to find out if it is still current.

The only way the wc can determine that the work search is insufficient, is having some guideline for every occupation!!

To stay safe, I would suggest a work search plan which includes time spent on applying, preparing, researching, planning etc. for vacancies and job interviews.

DWP say
https://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/35-hours-jobsearch-we-publish-the-mad-dwp-guidelines/
a "local" product, which I understand to mean it was created for use within one Jobcentre.

FOI: 'UC: 35 hour a week work search tool and commitments form'.
21/5/19
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uc_35_hour_a_week_work_search_to#incoming-1369331

Interestingly, a couple of years ago a UC claimant was sanctioned when a DM determined (using the tool) that the person had not completed the expected number of hours!  Information obtained from a CA adviser.

I am assuming it was locally prepared tool that was shared internally but not on a DWP website.

I got this email from the roach this week. Therefore I am still no clearer about this 35 hrs of job search. So they (The JCP) still see this 35 hrs as the gospel.  

"The Jobseekers Act 1994 at the bottom of this e-mail which is up to date as of May 19. We are currently in the process of re-educating our Heritage customers regarding their job search to better prepare them for the pending migration to Universal Credit which requires digital proof of 35 hours per week job search activity."...

So the wagon rolls on unless I can show them otherwise?

Pintel wrote:I got this email from the roach this week. Therefore I am still no clearer about this 35 hrs of job search. So they (The JCP) still see this 35 hrs as the gospel.  

"The Jobseekers Act 1994 at the bottom of this e-mail which is up to date as of May 19. We are currently in the process of re-educating our Heritage customers regarding their job search to better prepare them for the pending migration to Universal Credit which requires digital proof of 35 hours per week job search activity."...

So the wagon rolls on unless I can show them otherwise?

Well, DWP must be getting desperate to move claimants to UC.  Is the Jobseeker Act 1994 a typo?  It should read 1995. There is no mention of 35 hours per week job search in the Act.

Oneman exceeded the steps in their Jobseeker Agreement by 500%, but a disallowance was still applied, with no access to Hardship etc.

Are you going to pursue a complaint?

WCs getting ahead of themselves. When I was still claiming JSA I kept being told about UC conditionality. My response was always the same one; that will only apply if I ever claim UC and not before it. No WC had an answer for that.

It looks like JCP is getting confused with old and new style JSA requirements.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/18/contents

Section 6 is relevant to new style JSA claimants.  Section 7 - 11 applies to old style JSA.

There is no mention of time within the legislation for old syle/Heritage (lol) claimants.
Heritage Benefits????
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/14383/

The Decision Makers' Guide has not  been revised with UC type requirements.
DMG 21571
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721764/dmgch21.pdf

Pintel, has your JSA/CC been revised to include time & how to show your job search?

Dear

Complaint

On [ date ] I was told to provide my job search via email and to show 35hours of activity.  

My understanding is, there's no requirement within the JSA regulations to show my job search in any particular format or provide evidence of 35 hours activity.  I think Jobcentreplus is referring to legislation in regards to new style Contribution Based JSA  (see email att.).

Please contact your Operational Excellence Division for further advice.

Freedom of Information Request

I look forward to receiving a reply in line with your Customer Charter including copies of the relevant legislation/regulations and policies you have used to support your requests.

Yours



CC.  Name of MP

Please feel free to add to the letter.

Thanks #Non_Def , would a SAR's be worth while adding to see what the Roach typed on the computer records?

Non Deficere wrote:


Oneman exceeded the steps in their Jobseeker Agreement by 500%, but a disallowance was still applied, with no access to Hardship etc.

Isn't that against #Onemans human rights. And do you know why it wasn't a sanction instead of a disallownace?

Pintel wrote:

Non Deficere wrote:


Oneman exceeded the steps in their Jobseeker Agreement by 500%, but a disallowance was still applied, with no access to Hardship etc.

Isn't that against #Onemans human rights. And do you know why it wasn't a sanction instead of a disallownace?

O initially refused to claim UC while the appeal was in progess, so no sanction could be applied. The appeal was won, but the circumstnances that prevailed meant a UC claim was inevitable.

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t3250-jsa-sanction-information-2-updates

Pintel wrote:Thanks #Non_Def   , would a SAR's be worth while adding to see what the Roach typed on the computer records?

I am sure it would not do any harm.

On 12th April 2019 S M Hall posed the question in a Freedom of Information request to DWP; “What does "35 hours jobsearch" mean?”

While awaiting a DWP response we had a very comprehensive discussion on this thread where the subject was looked at and examined from many angles.

On 29th April 2019 DWP responded:

In the first attachment, after the usual waffle explaining their own procedures and caveats, they get down to the nitty-gritty:

“The information we hold that best explains / answers your questions is in the attached
document and to be helpful you can find more information at the link below:”

The attached document:

There are actually 3 attached documents, in addition to the one I am currently quoting from. Is this a clerical error? or should we take it that only one of them is “The information we hold that best explains/answers your questions……”?

Either way, let us check them out in their turn.

The second attachment says:

Availability for Work
General tailoring, reasonableness and work search

Regardless of the number of hours the claimant is expected to be available for, work search requirements should always be tailored to the individual claimant. The work search activities expected of claimants need to take account of their capability, regardless of whether the claimant is expected to look for full-time work or has restrictions. Not all claimants will be able to undertake the same amount of activity during the same period of time. Work coaches will need to judge what is reasonable to expect of the claimant, based on their knowledge of the claimant and their capability.
 
First of all, I think the work ‘work’ has been omitted from the first sentence, either through a silly grammatical error by a flunky, or intentionally to confuse or cloud the intended legal meaning. Despite this, the overall rational meaning of the entire statement is clear enough, in my opinion.

There is no hard and fast requirement that a claimant must spend a specified number of hours on work-search activity regardless of the number of hours the claimant is expected to be available for work.

 “Work coaches will need to judge what is reasonable to expect of the claimant, based on their knowledge of the claimant and their capability.”

It makes a mockery of that duty on the coach, enshrined in law, if an on-line automaton, or a coach at an initial interview with no prior knowledge of the claimant and their capability, should include such a requirement as a 35 hour job search activity in a Claimant Commitment.

The next attachment:

This is similar to all the other guidance documents for the consumption of coaches. It encourages them, advises them even, to push the same old mantra.

Expected hours

The expected hours of work-related activities that the claimant is required to do each week is used to calculate their Earnings Threshold.

Suffice to say that this attachment refers to work-related activities that is used to calculate Earnings Thresholds. Nothing to do with work-search activities. Not sure how it could be argued that the number of hours of work-search and related activities could be used to calculate Earnings Thresholds.

The final attachment:

Work search activities  

More guidance for coaches. This one uses the term ‘work search activities’ rather than ‘work-related activities’. Wonder why that is if it is supposed to be the same thing?

Also, can anyone explain what “All work search activities must be SMART” means?

So much for the attached documents.

“…….and to be helpful you can find more information at the link below:”
 
In this part of the response DWP refers S M Hall to the Decision Maker’s Guidance, specifically J3053.

This is about “Expected hours of work”. We have already discussed this extensively and there is nothing new in it.

In conclusion, I don’t believe that the DWP have satisfactorily answered S M Hall’s question. They just repeated the response they’ve been giving for years to similar questions referring the questioner to the same old coach and decision maker guidances which is merely the interpretation they have given to the law and which they brainwash their staff with.

However, I believe that the second attachment goes as close as we’re ever likely to get from DWP to my contention that there is no legal requirement in any law or regulation that specifically or categorically allows for the inclusion of any reference to 35 hours of work-search activities in a claimant commitment without the prior consent and acceptance of the claimant.

You have not been paying attention to what was written on the flip-charts.   Not laughing at you C, laughing at the courses DWP send people on.

Committed Claimant wrote:Also, can anyone explain what “All work search activities must be SMART” means?

S = specific
M = measurable
A = achievable
R = realistic
T = timely

Committed Claimant wrote:
Expected hours

The expected hours of work-related activities that the claimant is required to do each week is used to calculate their Earnings Threshold.

Suffice to say that this attachment refers to work-related activities that is used to calculate Earnings Thresholds. Nothing to do with work-search activities. Not sure how it could be argued that the number of hours of work-search and related activities could be used to calculate Earnings Thresholds.

I don't understand that either. It looks bizarre.

You think the JCP would clarify the situation, as I thought that:

Full time work as over 16x hrs a week.
Be expected to be available for work for 40x  hrs a week.
Be jobs searching should be a aprox 35x hrs a week?

Does anyone know where the dwp get there calculations from.  

Caker;
I must have been distracted when those flip-charts were shown.

Still not clear what is meant, where are those terms they use defined by DWP or in law?


Caker;
Aspects relating to employment and tax laws used in unemployment benefit legislation in an effort to add a cloak of legitimacy.


Pintel;
You can’t seriously think that Jobcentre Plus would clarify any situation for you, do you?

Coaches are trained to be as vague and evasive about the law as possible, that’s why they take care not to give claimants any definite instruction that might be contentious in writing.

The figures they use in calculating their interpretation of number of hours claimants should spend on work search activities stems from EU Working Time Directives, introduced and amended over the past 30 years, and the UK Working Time Regulations, introduced into UK law to comply with EU law.

Here again, used in unemployment benefit legislation in an effort to add a cloak of legitimacy.

Here’s some links if you want some homework:

Health & Safety Executive
http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtimedirective.htm

EU Directive
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003L0088&from=EN

UK Regulations
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1833/contents/made

Pintel wrote:You think the JCP would clarify the situation, as I thought that:

Full time work as over 16x hrs a week.
Be expected to be available for work for 40x  hrs a week.
Be jobs searching should be a aprox 35x hrs a week?

Does anyone know where the dwp get there calculations from.  

For the purposes of claiming JSA you cannot continue your claim if you work 16 or more hours per week.  However, in 1996 claimants could claim Family Credit and Earnings Top UP for single people/couples.  Full time work back then was usually 40 hours a week. I am not sure why the hours never changed. It certainly helped to reduce the unemployment figures!!

You cannot be required to seek work circa 35hrs per week when claiming JSA

Just for info.  

Universal Credit expectation to spend 35 hours per week on Work Search activity

23/7/20
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_expectation_to#incoming-1622379

I am not up for adding anything more to this topic at this time.

"Claimants are only expected to do what is reasonable. When workcoaches are considering expected hours of work search and workrelated requirements, they must include the impact of coronavirus. Work coaches should not take any action if the claimant has not met all their work related requirements, but can show a reasonable level of activity"

https://mrfrankzola.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/dwp-universal-credit-spotlights-on-first-commitments-by-phone-and-work-search-reviews.pdf

Get local help and support with Universal Credit via https://advicelocal.uk and check out UC claimantcommitments.org.uk

@theresecoffey said Jobcentres are now using "light touch" Claimant Commitments, with #BenefitSanctions being "very rare"
Video: https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1286252685566586881/pu/vid/704x392/08HF-lsVARoqI5qP.mp4?tag=10
(on post July 1st conditionality)

Light Touch Claimant Commitments
https://web.archive.org/web/20200904190037/https://twitter.com/a4ehighpark1/status/1301586256879648770
https://web.archive.org/web/20200904185943/https://twitter.com/keybIxde/status/1301947454372425733