Does anyone recognise this tribunal case?

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.

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/

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?