Sanctions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak

Noticed elsewhere some claimants are being informed via their Journal of the update.   It was buried in the document posted in the UC section. Sorry I missed it.

1.10 Sanctions

If you fail to meet any of the responsibilities that you agreed in your Claimant Commitment without good reason, you may receive a reduction in your benefit payment, known as a sanction.

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, you will not get a sanction if you cannot keep to your Claimant Commitment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-you/draft-uc-and-you#Sanctions

I am assuming it applies to legacy benefits and New Style ESA.

The relevant document for JSA is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880478/m-06-20.pdf

There's no specific mention of sanctions, but:

6. As a result of the outbreak of Coronavirus disease, a JSA claimant is treated as available for and actively seeking employment.

1. This memo gives guidance on the Social Security (Coronavirus) (Further Measures) Regulations1 which came into force on 30.3.20. Note:

The regulations cease to have effect on 12.11.20

2. 1 SS (Coronavirus) (Further Measures) Regs SI 2020 No. 371; 2 reg 10

I will check out new regs later.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/dwps-conditionality-and-sanctions-policies-continue-to-be-tailored-in-light-of-the-ongoing-public-health-situation-says-employment-minister

6 November, 2020 Open access
DWP’s conditionality and sanctions policies continue to be tailored ‘in light of the ongoing public health situation’, says Employment Minister

Written parliamentary answer confirms that guidance also takes account of the 'national working environment' and the claimant's health condition in ensuring any requirements are reasonable

The DWP's conditionality and sanctions policies continue to be tailored 'in light of the ongoing public health situation', Employment Minister Mims Davies has said.

Responding yesterday to a written question in parliament on what recent assessment the DWP has made of the potential effect of reintroducing (a) benefits sanctions and (b) welfare conditionality for disabled claimants during the COVID-19 outbreak, Ms Davies said -

'

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, we are financially supporting an unprecedented number of new and existing benefit claimants and have made a number of changes to the benefits system. At the start we switched off conditionality for all claimants, supporting people during very uncertain times. After 1 July, we began to reintroduce Claimant Commitments. Any work related activity which may be agreed by disabled people as part of this Commitment, continues to be tailored in light of their health condition to ensure it is reasonable.'

However, Ms Davies added that those with more serious medical conditions and disabilities are exempted from any form of conditionality and sanctions, and that -

'Our guidance continues to be tailored in light of the ongoing public health situation, the national working environment and of their health condition to ensure it is reasonable.'

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-10-30/109349

WelfareChampion wrote:Noticed elsewhere some claimants are being informed via their Journal of the update.   It was buried in the document posted in the UC section. Sorry I missed it.

1.10 Sanctions

If you fail to meet any of the responsibilities that you agreed in your Claimant Commitment without good reason, you may receive a reduction in your benefit payment, known as a sanction.

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, you will not get a sanction if you cannot keep to your Claimant Commitment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-you/draft-uc-and-you#Sanctions

I am assuming it applies to legacy benefits and New Style ESA.

How a 'coach' puts together a Claimant Commitment will be the critical factor and the operational guidance they work with, such as:

August DWP guidance on Work Search reviews and CCs by phone
https://mrfrankzola.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/spotlight-on-first-commitments-by-phone-appointment.pdf
https://mrfrankzola.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/spotlight-on-fortnightly-work-search-reviews.pdf

DWP are again relaxing the #BenefitSanctions regime, due to local Covid19 ‘lockdowns’
Jobcentre guidance says a Claimant Commitment (CC) should relfect the ‘impact of coronavirus’ and crucially “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“. With claimants being helped this means requirement to evidence spending 35 hours a week of Work Search and Work Preparation has been relaxed and a ‘Coach’ is looking for claimants to do “a reasonable level of activity”, based upon the local labour market and local covid19 restrictions.
*IE: Refer a claimant to a Decision Maker to consider applying Benefit Sanctions for failing to meet all requirements set out in a CC.
https://mrfrankzola.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/sanctionsrelaxed/

Doubt UC Work 'Coaches' and claimants know of:

1.10 "During the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, you will not get a sanction if you cannot keep to your Claimant Commitment"
Updated 20 October 2020
https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t4603-covid19-35-hour-work-search-claimant-commitments
Archive copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201016103130/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-you/draft-uc-and-you (16/10/2020) > https://www.google.com/search?q=%22During+the+coronavirus+%28COVID-19%29+outbreak%2C+you+will+not+get+a+sanction+if+you+cannot+keep+to+your+Claimant+Commitment%22
Plus this:
1 July 2020
Removed the wording 'You will not get a sanction if you cannot keep to your Claimant Commitment because of coronavirus (COVID-19)'.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-your-claimant-commitment-quick-guide#history
contradicts 1.10, though it has a ref to: "Updated 20 October 2020"

If a CC refers to online Work Search and a claimant has internet access at home and has not declined cookies on own devices*, can a claimant say they "cannot" meet this aspect of their CC due to covid19 and rely upon 1.10 to suggest sanctions cannot be applied by a Decision Maker?



*When a new CC is created the norm is for all claimants to be provided with
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/find-a-job-and-other-websites-what-you-need-to-know-about-cookies/find-a-job-and-other-websites-what-you-need-to-know-about-cookies
but as 'face to face' CC appointments are not taking place, this info is being skipped for new CCs.

“26. Between 30th June 2020 and the date that a claimant accepts a new or
revised claimant commitment, they will be expected to do what they
reasonably can to search for and be available for work. Claimants will not be
subject to sanctions for failing to comply with these obligations until they
accept their new or revised claimant commitment”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/691073/response/1648002/attach/html/3/Equality%20Analysis%20for%20Reinstatement%20of%20Conditionality.pdf.html

Video clip: DWP Secretary of State @theresecoffey expects #BenefitSanctions to be "very rare" under new Claimant Commitment "light touch" regime https://twitter.com/benefitforums/status/1286253096784596995 > https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d0d9a4b-4da3-449d-9f03-245c56f8e727 - Wednesday 22 July 2020

This is the standard text that that shown to a UC claimant during the process of 'accepting' a CC and last saw it when helping a claimant  at the start of November (pre Eng lockdown):

"Keeping your commitments
[commitments = plural/more than one]

Your payment can be reduced if you don't keep a commitment [commitment = single/just one] without a good reason. This is known as a sanction.

The length of the sanction will depend on:

   what you failed to do
   how long it takes you to do what you agreed
   how often you've been sanctioned in the past year

! Warning If you don't keep a commitment, you can avoid losing more money by doing what you agreed as soon as possible."

Note if refers to "a commitment" in the singular, rather than the whole of the Commitments or Claimant Commitment.


No doubt the new England 'lockdown' specifically affect's the ability to comply with a CC.

Random references by  a 'coach' that sanctions have been 'relaxed' via a UC Journal may have little status, as no regulations have been created. Though a quote could be made of the 1.10 ref above.

If you are helping  claimants, have found it useful to use screen sharing software https://www.computerworld.com/article/3241891/22-free-screen-sharing-apps-for-work-at-home-collaboration.html and suggest all 'coach' phone calls a recorded.

Have become an avid user of https://web.archive.org/save
It allows a dated snapshot of a web page to be archived, which can be handy to use for DWP challenges, complaints, reconsiderations and or appeals. As often DWP guidance published on gov.uk is not dated and can be difficult to track changes, such as the 1.10 ref above and https://web.archive.org/save also allows documents to be archived, such as https://web.archive.org/web/20201107211158/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843715/admk1.pdf

The date of the above doc archive (Chapter K1: Sanctions, general principles) is shown in the link "/20201107211158/" IE: 2020 11 07

Having dated copies/archives of DWP guidance can help ensure a challenge that relates to a past time period can be covered by policy/guidance that existed at that time

Statutory Instruments
2020 No. 371

Social Security
The Social Security (Coronavirus) (Further Measures) Regulations 2020

Expiry

10.—(1) The Secretary of State must keep the operation of these Regulations under review.

(2) Regulations 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 cease to have effect at the end of the period of eight months beginning on 13th March 2020.

Ends 12/11/20

(3) Regulation 3 (treating a person as having limited capability for work) and regulation 4 (suspension of the minimum income floor) of the Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit (Coronavirus Disease) Regulations 2020 F28 no longer have effect in so far as they apply to universal credit.

Reg 2 - Min floor
Reg 6 - UC NSJSA WRR
Reg 7 - Old Style JSA
Reg 8 – Periods of sickness
Reg 9 – Carers Allowance

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/371

DWP has not extended the period for claimants to be exempt from work search activites and sanctions became a possibilty after 1/7/20.

The Minimum Income Floor for the self employed, UC claimants has been extended for a further 6 months.  Some good news!

The reference to

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, you will not get a sanction if you cannot keep to your Claimant Commitment,

is the the tailored approach as mentioned above and eslewhere.  Good reason is limited to particular circumstances only. However, due to the outbreak DWP staff have the discretion to take into account why people cannot meet their commitments.  New policy: any doubts raised must be checked by another official before a referral is made.  
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/spotlight_work_search_reviews_by#incoming-1632044

A revised CC may be necessary.

The partial sanctions suspension did end and did not get renewed per:

"This regulation applies for a period of 3 months"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/371

They covered 'work-related requirements' but did not end requirements to participate in meetings (by phone due to covid),
or sanctions for leaving a job on a voluntary basis and of course the sanctions that started before the 30th March 2020 suspension.


The Gov emphasis has been on the reintroduction of Claimant Commitments for millions of claimants, all of which involve informing
claimants of sanctions for not keeping to "a commitment" in Commitments accepted.

If the regulations above did still apply, without any need for amendment or renewal, after the intial 3 months, then the DWP would have continued to use generic Claimant Commitments like https://pastebin.com/CjHFu3f6 as they would not be able to add likes of Work Search and availability to work requirements to CCs, which since 1/7/20 the DWP has been doing for new and revised CCs.

That said, there is little to no discussion in the public domain on 1.10 above. Accept that the regs do say:

"Expiry

10.—(1) The Secretary of State must keep the operation of these Regulations under review.

(2) Regulations 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 cease to have effect at the end of the period of eight months beginning on 13th March 2020"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/371

Q: "whether universal credit claimants will be required to start actively looking for work once the suspension of conditionality ends on 30 June 2020"?
A: "From 1 July, we will reintroduce the requirement for claimants of UC, NS and Legacy JSA to accept a claimant commitment as part of any new claim. For existing claimants, we will review and update their claimant commitment as capacity allows. This is so we can provide tailored support to help them find work or increase hours.
Claimant commitments must be reasonable for the ‘new normal’, [covid19] acknowledging the reality of a person’s local jobs market and personal circumstances to prepare them for getting back into work."
1 July 2020
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-06-22/62431

No MP Q&A specifically asked about how Benefit Sanctions are being applied, or not, during the covid19 pandemic. Evidence does exist that Claimant Commitments are
using a 'light touch element', per
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/690964/response/1647998/attach/html/5/Spotlight%20on%20Fortnightly%20work%20search%20reviews.pdf.htm to quote:


"Compliance
Claimants are only expected to do what is reasonable. When work
coaches are considering expected hours of work search and work
related 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.
Work coaches should focus on supporting claimants to do everything
reasonable to find work as quickly as possible.

Work coaches should not specify what actions a claimant should do to
search for work each week day. The current circumstances mean that
claimants should be able to organise their own time and work search. "

If the DWP was not such a rogue organisation one would expect the Decision Makers advice and guidance to explicitly state what the 'new normal' means for conditionality and benefit sanctions, which it does not.

I agree FZ, the DWP has a duty of administrative fairness towards claimants, which includes telling them about the terms of a  policy that might affect them.  DWP Decison Makers'...must also have access to all its policies.

It  includes telling claimants  about  the  terms  of  a  policy  that  might  affect  them: paragraph 168 Jeffrey and Bevan. This echoes the view of the Court of Appeal in  paragraph  43  of  its  judgment in B-v-  SSWP  [2005]  EWCA Civ  929; R(IS)9/06  (when  dealing  with  a  then  internal  DWP  policy concerning the enforcement of recovery of recoverable overpayments of social  security  benefits)  that  “it  is  the  antithesis  of  good  government  to keep  [the  policy]  in  a  departmental  drawer”. I  will  refer  to  this  aspect  of administrative fairness as the “prior information duty”.3.The  legal  consequences  of  breach  of  the  prior  information  duty  will depend  on  the  facts  of  the  individual  case.  As  the  Supreme  Court explained in paragraph 75 of Reilly and Wilson:  “A  failure  to  see  that  a  claimant  was  adequately  informed  before service of a notice under regulation 4 would be likely to, but would not necessarily,  vitiate  the  service  of  the  notice.  That  would  depend  on whether the failure was material. Public law is flexible in dealing with the   effects   of   procedural   failures.   Ultimately   the   issue   must   be determined  by  reference  to  the  justice  of  the  particular  case.  If  the effect of the lack of information given to a claimant materially affected him  or  her  by  removing  the  opportunity  of  making  representations which  could  have  led  to  a  different  outcome,  it  would  normally  be unjust  to  allow  the  notice  to  stand.  If  it  was  immaterial  on  the  facts, justice would not require the notice to be set aside.”

Ref: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57b19f07e5274a0f52000082/CJSA_4095_2014-00.pdf

The sanction guidance is a bit woolly at this time.   The test is whether sanctions have been applied during the relevant periods and to what extent.

I would have thought the sanctions blitz would be lifted again considering the latest national lockdown.

Thousands of people still haven't agreed a new or an updated claimant commitment since 1/7/20, so sanctions cannot be applied.

https://claimantcommitments.org.uk/covid-19/

Maybe more helpful information will come to light from this FOI request.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/claimant_commitment_sanctions_an#incoming-1671395

I haven't seen anyone reaching out for help across the net regarding sanctions since 1/7/20, nor any mention of santions on professional welfare advice sites to date.

Furthermore, where there is doubt that a claimant has not done reasonable work related activities, work coaches shouldcase conference with their site leader to consider whether a referral to a Labour Market Decision Maker is appropriate.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/spotlight_work_search_reviews_by#incoming-1632044

Edit:
To add Stats: Universal Credit benefit sanctions: July 2020: 7 (Seven) – July 2019: 22,565
https://mrfrankzola.wordpress.com/all-universal-credit-guidance/

"‘Conditionality has been generally reintroduced from the 30 June, and new and revised claimant commitments for UC claimants are being reintroduced from 1 July 2020 on a phased approach and as capacity allows (3rd August for Legacy JSA new claims). Claimants can only receive sanctions for failure to meet commitments once they have a new or updated tailored claimant commitment in place. This impacts data for Universal Credit (UC) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) sanctions."
10/11/20
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/benefit-sanctions-statistics-to-july-2020-experimental

UC Claimant Commitment (CC): Standard questions asked to prepare for a CC Work Coach discussion appointment
https://pastebin.com/bVvrqHCX

“26. Between 30th June 2020 and the date that a claimant accepts a new or
revised claimant commitment, they will be expected to do what they
reasonably can to search for and be available for work. Claimants will not be
subject to sanctions for failing to comply with these obligations until they
accept their new or revised claimant commitment”
FOI request: Your "equality analysis" on the reinstatement of conditionality [benefit sanctions] across affected benefits
29 September 2020
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/691073/response/1648002/attach/html/3/Equality%20Analysis%20for%20Reinstatement%20of%20Conditionality.pdf.html

https://pastebin.com/DW0TYm8b

More details of the DWP and DfC approach to Benefit Sanctions published today, by the SSAC.

"For new claims made from 8 July 2020, DfC [Northern Ireland] will instigate “light-touch” discussions without the threat or potential of a sanction" and "From 1 July 2020 DWP [England, Scotland and Wales] began to reintroduce new and updated claimant commitments for UC, on a phased approach as capacity allowed, and have told us that only once a claimant’s new or updated claimant commitment is in place can claimants receive a sanction for failure to meet the commitment without good cause." The "DWP has a developed a Discretion Framework that is available to DWP staff. While an internal discretion framework can help guide consistency on how conditionality might be eased". The SSAC report goes on to say:

"The approach by DfC is that the reintroduced work search conversations and the claimant commitment for new Universal Credit claimants will involve a light-touch discussion that will seek to support and help those new to Universal Credit, and that it will not involve the threat or potential of a sanction for non-compliance
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-review-of-the-covid-19-temporary-measures/a-review-of-the-covid-19-temporary-measures-occasional-paper-24
Comments https://mrfrankzola.wordpress.com/2020/11/18/two-tier-benefit-sanctions/
FOI For a copy of the 'Discretion Framework'
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/covid19_benefit_sanctions_and_co

*Benefit Sanctions policy is reserved to Westminster

Scotland and Northern Ireland have different policies in other matters too, for example:
https://www.ulster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/415372/Universal-credit-in-Northern-Ireland-interim-report-public-version.pdf
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/money/changes-to-scottish-disability-benefits-23023655
https://hub.careinspectorate.com/media/1075/a-fairer-scotland-for-disabled-people.pdf

Imposing a sanction at any time is discretionary.  

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t4562-claimant-commitments-light-touch-regime#13058

Ideally, all the nations within the United Kingdom should be applying the same policy, particularly at this time.

"Recommendation 3:

DWP and DfC should communicate clearly with those whose pre-lockdown claimant commitments have not yet been updated to identify what it is reasonable to expect them to do under their existing claimant commitment. DWP and DfC should also ensure that there is consistent treatment with those who have updated claimant commitments so that no sanctions are applied for something that would not be sanctionable under an updated claimant commitment."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-review-of-the-covid-19-temporary-measures/a-review-of-the-covid-19-temporary-measures-occasional-paper-24

Just an update from CPAG

30 October 2020

Sanctions and conditionality

In Mind the Gaps 9

We reported on sanctions and conditionality, and how these issues have been affecting claimants during the pandemic. Conditionality in UC was suspended during the early stages of the pandemic response. At the beginning of July conditionality was re-introduced, albeit with reassurances from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that conditionality during the pandemic would be ‘light touch’ and sanctions would be rare. The EWS has received fewer case studies on conditionality than usual, which suggests that this light touch approach is being implemented, however we are monitoring this situation closely. The case studies submitted to the EWS indicate how problematic conditionality can be in the current context.

A woman had a brain haemorrhage and neurologists advised avoiding stress and taking regular rest. Despite significant medical evidence that her condition remained unchanged, when she was reassessed the DWP decided that she was capable of work-related activity. This decision was eventually overturned at appeal. Meanwhile, the Jobcentre pressured her regarding requirements to satisfy the work-related activity. Unfortunately she had a stroke which has left her severely unwell and still in hospital.

A musician on UC obtained an audition but his work coach refused to accept that attending the audition would satisfy any requirements under his claimant commitment. The musician was at risk of sanction when he attended the audition rather than apply for other jobs. Luckily, he got the job. If he hadn’t, he may have been sanctioned despite taking active steps to apply and interview for suitable work.

https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/policypost/CPAG-mind-the-gaps-briefing-30-October.pdf

Adhering to current guidance should prevent sanctions, suspensions etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/607742/suspension-termination-guide.pdf

Responsibilities when suspending payments, terminating entitlement to benefit or staying a decision

1050 The officer suspending payments of, or terminating entitlement to benefit or staying a decision must:
•consider each case carefully on its merits, taking into account all factors that might make the decision unacceptable
•consider whether it is appropriate to suspend payments or stay a decision in full, in part or not at all
•give the customer the opportunity to give any reasons they may have for not suspending, terminating or staying a decision
•be able to show they acted reasonably whenever they exercise their discretion and

1052 If suspending payment will result in hardship, a decision to suspend should not be made. If an existing suspension is causing hardship, the payment of benefit must be re-instated immediately. If staying a decision would result in hardship the DM should make the decision and pay benefit.

1101 Officers carrying out these duties must be able to:
•use the discretionary powers in an objective and unbiased way •appreciate the effect their decision may have on customers and •give a reasoned account of the factors that were considered when making a decision.

Caselaw

If a claimant can fairly be said to know they are supposed to do something they have properly been required to do, and what the consequences of non-compliance are, but they still fail to do it for no good reason, then the intention of the legislation is that a sanction should be applied. Nevertheless, tribunals should scrutinise UC sanctions decisions with care, and the legal provisions imposing them should be strictly construed. As the Upper Tribunal Judge said in RR v SSWP (UC) [2017] UKUT 459 (AAC) at paragraph 45:
“...tribunals must always bear in mind that the UC sanctions regime involves a financial penalty, and so the provisions should be strictly construed (see by analogy DL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA) [2013] UKUT 295 (AAC) at paragraph 14). Putting the matter another way, I subsequently suggested that “there is an argument in sanctions cases that the claimant should be given the benefit of any doubt that may reasonably arise” (CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA) [2015] UKUT 61 (AAC) at paragraph 19). I do not suggest that in the present case there is any need to give the Appellant the benefit of the doubt. However, especially with the increased severity of the UC sanctions regime, as compared with the previous arrangements, tribunals need to scrutinise sanctions decisions with considerable care”.
https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t2953-universal-credit-imposition-of-sanctions-notification-of-requirements

https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/jb-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-uc-2018-ukut-360-aac

Read the full decision in CUC/1808/2017.

Judicial Summary
Universal credit - claimant commitment - medium-level sanctions imposed for non-compliance for no good reason - “all reasonable action” for purpose of work search requirement - 35 hour rule for “expected number of hours” not immutable
Published 6 December 2017

https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/rr-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-uc-2017-ukut-459-aac

Claimants should be given the benefit of the doubt.

DWP staff shouldn't make any referrals to the Decison Maker without consulting with their manager. I have read elsewhere this is common practice and has been for sometime.

Look forward to reading further information on this matter.

Sanctions the favourite weapon of JC minus jobsworths.

Lets make sure they use that notion fairly, reasonably, and if not, create hell for them through the appropriate channels. I feel MPs and media should be fed more information with things like this. Whether they would actually do anything is another thing altogether.

WelfareChampion wrote:Just an update from CPAG

30 October 2020



A musician on UC obtained an audition but his work coach refused to accept that attending the audition would satisfy any requirements under his claimant commitment. The musician was at risk of sanction when he attended the audition rather than apply for other jobs. Luckily, he got the job. If he hadn’t, he may have been sanctioned despite taking active steps to apply and interview for suitable work.

https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/policypost/CPAG-mind-the-gaps-briefing-30-October.pdf

One point thou i would of thought a "Audition" was defined as an interview . A "test of your suitability for the employment" position So now you could be 'Sanctioned' for attending an work related interview By the JCP staff now!

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/audition

Yes, it is crazy Pintel.  

Examples of reasonable action

10.seeking information on an occupation with a view to getting employment in that occupation

The claimant is a musician so the activity was a high quality step in finding suitable employment..

The better the quality of the activity, the more likely that the action that the claimant has taken has provided the best prospects of obtaining paid work.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878192/admj3.pdf

The musicians audition was most definitely an interview which if successful -would lead to work which will beat 'ANYTHING' on offer by JC minus & Co.No doubt, those ideological morons would have had the musician attending a burger flipping course, or,cat sat on mat."We're moving yo closer to work".Erghhh...NO YOUR NOT!

I dare say there are many examples of the JCP Roaches , being a 'Hinderance rather than Help'
I've spoke to people who have had to rearrange interviews because it clashed with a JCP appointment, and the Roach was to stubborn to arrange another time in the day. Sometimes they are the biggest to work....

I wonder if the DWP have a definition of what they class as an 'interview'. As if the Musician had been sanctioned, i wonder what the DM/ AI program would of made of this situation

"I wonder if the DWP have a definition of what they class as an 'interview'. "

imho Pintel and with some experience is: anything and everything you don't have a scrap of interest in ever pursuing. Anything, that is long term duration, low pay, with particularly unsociable hours as we all have to be SO "flexible".And another favorite is when they 'just happen to have X company doing in house interviews inside roach central ' naturally on the top floor for anyone whos on crutches or has problems with walking.Aka we are here to help you. :evil:The interviews all arranged so nicely on the same day or a return journey required all ultimately turning into utter wasted tome for the job seeker and the company involved. There seems to be a theme they do around Xmas ,mass recruitment for certain companies.

Hopefully no repeat of this behaviour:  DWP Staff Told to Focus on Benefit Sanction Over  Christmas    

http://www.thehighlandtimes.com/news/2016/12/20/dwp-staff-told-to-focus-on-benefit-sanctions-over-christmas/

Christmas is usually the time of year for recruiting retail, hospitality and warehouse/production workers et al.
https://www.indeed.co.uk/jobs?q=christmas%20jobs&l=uk&advn=2407038775533660&vjk=f25e7c2cbc13b083

JSA claimants who take on a short-term job will have to claim UC when the job ends.

Take care if you are notified of one of these jobs.  There are very few advertised this year.  

Edit:

To add latest FOI request:

Claimant Commitment sanctions and the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak

Response

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/claimant_commitment_sanctions_an#incoming-1686262