Universal Credit Journal FAQ’s

Thanks @Brutus .  From your posting it still confusing to me of the dwp's replies, that they are being vague about the UC-Journal. Or maybe it is me just being moronic....


  .

In summary:

A work focused interview can take place within the UC Journal.

Evidence of compliance may be specified by the work coach, which might include using the UCJ. The manner is the medium, the particular way will be different for every person

However, any work related requirement must be appropriate, reasonable and achievable taking into account individual circumstances as well as DWP guidance and relevant laws i.e. DPA.

A sanction may be applied for failing to comply with a requirement under section 23(1), (3) or (4) (connected requirements: interviews and verification of compliance).

Requirements can be revised/revoked.


References:

23Connected requirements
(1)The Secretary of State may require a claimant to participate in an interview for any purpose relating to—
(a)the imposition of a work-related requirement on the claimant;
(b)verifying the claimant’s compliance with a work-related requirement;
(c)assisting the claimant to comply with a work-related requirement.
(2)The Secretary of State may specify how, when and where such an interview is to take place.
(3)The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of verifying the claimant’s compliance with a work-related requirement, require a claimant to—
(a)provide to the Secretary of State information and evidence specified by the Secretary of State in a manner so specified;
(b)confirm compliance in a manner so specified.
(4)The Secretary of State may require a claimant to report to the Secretary of State any specified changes in their circumstances which are relevant to—
(a)the imposition of work-related requirements on the claimant;
(b)the claimant’s compliance with a work-related requirement.

24Imposition of requirements
(1)Regulations may make provision—
(a)where the Secretary of State may impose a requirement under this Part, as to when the requirement must or must not be imposed;
(b)where the Secretary of State may specify any action to be taken in relation to a requirement under this Part, as to what action must or must not be specified;
(c)where the Secretary of State may specify any other matter in relation to a requirement under this Part, as to what must or must not be specified in respect of that matter.
(2)Where the Secretary of State may impose a work-focused interview requirement, or specify a particular action under section 16(1) or 17(1)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to such matters as may be prescribed.
(3)Where the Secretary of State may impose a requirement under this Part, or specify any action to be taken in relation to such a requirement, the Secretary of State may revoke or change what has been imposed or specified.
(4)Notification of a requirement imposed under this Part (or any change to or revocation of such a requirement) is, if not included in the claimant commitment, to be in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5)Regulations must make provision to secure that, in prescribed circumstances, where a claimant has recently been a victim of domestic violence—
(a)a requirement imposed on that claimant under this Part ceases to have effect for a period of 13 weeks, and
(b)the Secretary of State may not impose any other requirement under this Part on that claimant during that period.
(6)For the purposes of subsection (5)—
(a)“domestic violence” has such meaning as may be prescribed;
(b)“victim of domestic violence“ means a person on or against whom domestic violence is inflicted or threatened (and regulations under subsection (5) may prescribe circumstances in which a person is to be treated as being or not being a victim of domestic violence);
(c)a person has recently been a victim of domestic violence if a prescribed period has not expired since the violence was inflicted or threatened.

25 Compliance with requirements
Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which a claimant is to be treated as having—
(a)complied with or not complied with any requirement imposed under this Part or any aspect of such a requirement, or
(b)taken or not taken any particular action specified by the Secretary of State in relation to such a requirement.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/part/1/chapter/2/crossheading/workrelated-requirements-supplementary

Low-level sanction
104.—(1) This regulation specifies the reduction period for a sanctionable failure under section 27 of the Act (other sanctions) where —
(a)the claimant falls within section 21 (claimants subject to work preparation requirement) or 22 (claimants subject to all work-related requirements) of the Act on the date of that failure; and
(b)it is a failure to comply with—
(i)a work-focused interview requirement under section 15(1),
(ii)a work preparation requirement under section 16(1),
(iii)a work search requirement under section 17(1)(b) (to take any particular action specified by the Secretary of State to obtain work etc.), or
(iv)a requirement under section 23(1), (3) or (4) (connected requirements: interviews and verification of compliance).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/regulation/104

15Work-focused interview requirement
(1)In this Part a “work-focused interview requirement” is a requirement that a claimant participate in one or more work-focused interviews as specified by the Secretary of State.
(2)A work-focused interview is an interview for prescribed purposes relating to work or work preparation.
(3)The purposes which may be prescribed under subsection (2) include in particular that of making it more likely in the opinion of the Secretary of State that the claimant will obtain paid work (or more paid work or better-paid work).
(4)The Secretary of State may specify how, when and where a work-focused interview is to take place.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/section/15/enacted


K 1 0 4 4 A c o m pli a n c e  co n diti o n  c a n b e
1. a n y w or k-r el at e d r e q uir e m e nt or c o n n e ct e d r e q uir e m e nt 1 or
2. a s u b s e q u e nt or diff er e nt r e q uir e m e nt w h er e t h e ori gi n al r e q uir e m e nt i s n o l o n g er a p pr o pri at e or r e a s o n a bl e, i. e. t h e cl ai m a nt f all s o ut of t h e All W or k R el at e d R e q uir e m e nt s gr o u p i nt o t h e W or k pr e p ar ati o n c o n diti o n alit y gr o u p .
N ot e 1: T h e cl ai m a nt m u st al w a y s b e i n a p o siti o n t o b e a bl e t o a c hi e v e t h e r e q uir e d a cti o n b y t h e d e a dli n e d at e s et. T h e r e q uir e m e nt s h o ul d b e r e a s o n a bl e, a p pr o pri at e a n d a c hi e v a bl e i n t h e cl ai m a nt’ s i n di vi d u al cir c u m st a n c e s.
N ot e 2: F or g ui d a n c e o n d e ci di n g w h e n t h e cl ai m a nt h a s c o m pli e d wit h a c o m pli a n c e c o n diti o n s e e g ui d a n c e at
K 1 0 4 6 a n d f or g ui d a n c e o n v ar yi n g t h e c o m pli a n c e c o n diti o n s e e g ui d a n c e at K 1 0 4 9 1 W R Act 1 2, s 2 7( 5)( a); 2 s 2 7( 7)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687082/admk1.pdf

Thanks for the reply Non-Def

K 1 0 4 4 A  compliance  condition can be
1. any  work-related requirement or connected requirement 1 or
2. a subsequent or different requirement where the original requirement is no longer appropriate or reasonable, i. e. the claimant falls out of the All Work Related Requirements group into the Work preparation conditionality group .




Note 1: The claimant must always be in a position to be able to achieve the required action by the deadline dates etc. The requirement should be reasonable, appropriate and achievable in the claimant’ s individual circumstances.
Note 2: For guidance on deciding when the claimant has complied with a compliance conditionse eg uidanceat
K 1 0 4 6  and for guidance on varying the compliance conditionsee guidance at K 1 0 4 9 1 W R Act 1 2, s 2 7( 5)( a); 2 s 2 7( 7)


Disclaimer: I have tidied the last bit of text from your post , sorry if anything is wrong?

There is a lot of “appropriate or reasonable,” terminology  in the dwp text?

“Note 1: The claimant must always be in a position to be able to achieve the required action by the deadline dates etc. The requirement should be reasonable, appropriate and achievable in the claimant’ s individual circumstances. “


However, who gets to set the ‘deadlines’for these tasks, as well all know with some work roaches they do like to make the rules up as they go along. And type it into their computer system of what they want, and then it is taken as agreed by the claimant and the work-roach when sometime it isn't?  


A further point is there an allowances for 'technological issues' from both sides. As a claimant could end up an sanction due to no fault of there own due to IT problems?

El-dudeareno wrote:Thanks for the reply Non-Def

K 1 0 4 4 A  compliance  condition can be
1. any  work-related requirement or connected requirement 1 or
2. a subsequent or different requirement where the original requirement is no longer appropriate or reasonable, i. e. the claimant falls out of the All Work Related Requirements group into the Work preparation conditionality group .




Note 1: The claimant must always be in a position to be able to achieve the required action by the deadline dates etc. The requirement should be reasonable, appropriate and achievable in the claimant’ s individual circumstances.
Note 2: For guidance on deciding when the claimant has complied with a compliance conditionse eg uidanceat
K 1 0 4 6  and for guidance on varying the compliance conditionsee guidance at K 1 0 4 9 1 W R Act 1 2, s 2 7( 5)( a); 2 s 2 7( 7)


Disclaimer: I have tidied the last bit of text from your post , sorry if anything is wrong?

There is a lot of “appropriate or reasonable,” terminology  in the dwp text?

“Note 1: The claimant must always be in a position to be able to achieve the required action by the deadline dates etc. The requirement should be reasonable, appropriate and achievable in the claimant’ s individual circumstances. “


However, who gets to set the ‘deadlines’for these tasks, as well all know with some work roaches they do like to make the rules up as they go along. And type it into their computer system of what they want, and then it is taken as agreed by the claimant and the work-roach when sometime it isn't?  


A further point is there an allowances for 'technological issues' from both sides. As a claimant could end up an sanction due to no fault of there own due to IT problems?

Thanks El-Dude for taking the time to post the ADM info.  I lost the will to do so!  

There is never going to be an unequivocal response by DWP to the question regarding the use of the UCJ, because not all claimants will be able to use it.

The Prior Information Requirement is relevant if you disagree with the work related activity suggested by your work coach:

Reference:

K1151+

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687082/admk1.pdf

You cannot be sanctioned if the UCJ fails.

Here are some good FOI's with regards  to the UC  that might be of use to some people.  


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uc_job_search_evidence_format#incoming-1115310

El-dudeareno wrote:Here are some good FOI's with regards  to the UC  that might be of use to some people.  


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uc_job_search_evidence_format#incoming-1115310

Thanks for the link El-Dude

“DWP has been clear that there is no specific information or legal requirements that
compels all Universal Credit claimants, in every case, to use the journal."

Does this mean that some people can be compelled to use it?

This reminds me of the vague language used when Universal Jobmatch was launched.  To this day, it is not mandatory to use UJM when claiming JSA, however the majority have created a profile, given access and use it.

DWP has endeavoured to fix all the errors following successful appeals (including my own) i.e. security, quality of jobs, scrutiny of new employers, change of search engine and removal of the Government Gateway, making it more difficult for people to appeal particularly for the UC work search requirement within the UC claimant commitment.

The Human Rights Act can no longer assist at a First Tier Tribunal.

I wonder how long it well be before administration processes are designed to make the use of UC Journal "mandatory".  For example, JSA claimants are entitled to travel expenses if the attend the Jobcentre/more frequently than fortnightly.  There is no provision at this time to pay expenses to UC claimants.  How many people can afford circa £3-10 (each visit) to attend the Jobcentre daily/weekly?

Claimants can still present their work search as they wish, but it must be uploaded to the UCJ unless an individual has particular circumstances!?

Relevant information:

Evidence and information in connection with a claim
37.—(1) Subject to regulation 8 of the Personal Independence Payment Regulations, paragraphs (2) and (3) apply to a person who makes a claim for benefit, other than a jobseeker's allowance, or on whose behalf a claim is made.
(2) The Secretary of State may require the person to supply information or evidence in connection with the claim, or any question arising out of it, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The person must supply the Secretary of State with the information or evidence in such manner as the Secretary of State determines within one month of first being required to do so or such longer period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/380/regulation/37

Evidence and information The policy intent that a person shall provide the necessary information and evidence in order to determine their claim is unchanged, as is the requirement to notify the Department of changes of circumstances. This is carried forward to the proposed new regulations [CP 36, 37].
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324114/uc-pip-claims-payments-draft-regs-2012-memorandum.pdf

26 MARCH 2018, 09:59 AM

rightsnet wrote:and reg 37 of the UC (C&P) regs demands that information is provided “in such manner as the Sec State determines” so they are at discretion to refuse to accept it.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/12303/

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_information_and#incoming-1133740

If I were to refuse to allow a work coach to access my online journal - by explicitly refusing consent - could I then complain to the ICO that they have broken data protection? I'm not sure if the new data protection act allows the DWP to access the UC journal or not.

I haven't heard anyone mention that as an option so I assumed it was a dead end. But as all the FOI replies show, it seems that claimants simply have to accept what has been imposed on them by the jobcentre worker they deal with. And the law allows it but never explicitly refers to data protection at all.

But again, if the UC journal is my data then surely I can choose who accesses it? If anyone knows of any reasons why this won't work, please let me know because I can't work this out. I'd be happy to go down this route if it was a valid option to at least test it. But I suspect I might be missing something.

Any feedback appreciated.

ourwelfare wrote:If I were to refuse to allow a work coach to access my online journal - by explicitly refusing consent - could I then complain to the ICO that they have broken data protection? I'm not sure if the new data protection act allows the DWP to access the UC journal or not.

The old UJM was run by a third party on behalf of the DWP and therefore under the DPA you could restrict the DWP from reading your UJ notes box and applications etc. The UC online claim system belongs to the DWP and there is no facility to restrict the DWP from accessing any part of its own platform as far as I know.

Use of the UC journal is not compulsory.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uc_job_search_evidence_format#incoming-1115310

DWP has been clear that there is no specific information or legal requirements that compels all Universal Credit claimants, in every case, to use the journal. However some claimants can have a requirement set, to provide information and evidence as part of their work-related requirement for claiming Universal Credit. This requirement can be set by a Work coach under Section 23 of the Welfare Reforms Act 2012, Chapter 2 but it does not compel this evidence to be supplied in a particular way, only that it must be supplied if and when requested.

Ah, that explains it.

I know that the UC journal isn't compulsory but if it is added to your CC then it is. Since claimants don't have any power to overrule a work coach when a CC is written then effectively its just luck whether you can get them to leave out using the journal.

Thanks for the info.

ourwelfare wrote:If I were to refuse to allow a work coach to access my online journal - by explicitly refusing consent - could I then complain to the ICO that they have broken data protection? I'm not sure if the new data protection act allows the DWP to access the UC journal or not.

I haven't heard anyone mention that as an option so I assumed it was a dead end. But as all the FOI replies show, it seems that claimants simply have to accept what has been imposed on them by the jobcentre worker they deal with. And the law allows it but never explicitly refers to data protection at all.

But again, if the UC journal is my data then surely I can choose who accesses it? If anyone knows of any reasons why this won't work, please let me know because I can't work this out. I'd be happy to go down this route if it was a valid option to at least test it. But I suspect I might be missing something.

Any feedback appreciated.

Hello and welcome ourwelfare!

Explanatory notes:

Section 104: Electronic communications
510.Section 104 applies where regulations under SSAA 1992 or SSA 1998 require or authorise the use of electronic communications. Examples could be regulations which make provision about the manner in which a claim for benefit must be made or relevant information or evidence must be provided. Section 189(5) of SSAA 1992 and section 79(6) of SSA 1998 ensure that regulations made under those Acts may include incidental and supplementary provision.

511.This section makes it clear that these powers include, in the case of regulations to which this section applies, provision of a kind set out in sections 8(4), (5) and 9(5) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. These cover, for example, provision as to:

the form which electronic communications must take;

the conditions under which electronic communications are allowed the use of intermediaries in the transmission or authentication of electronic communications; and

the method of determining (and proving in legal proceedings) whether, when, where, and by whom an electronic communication was made.

512.The section also enables conditions or requirements concerning the use of electronic communications to be framed with reference to directions given by the Secretary of State.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/notes/division/5/5/9

The legislation:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/section/104

Further explanatory notes:

Section 23: Connected requirements
83.Section 23 provides for other requirements which can be placed on claimants in connection to the four work-related requirements. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to require a claimant to participate in an interview at a particular time and place. This interview may be for any purpose relating to the imposition of a requirement, verification that a requirement is being met or helping the claimant to comply.

84.Under subsection (3) a claimant may be required to confirm their compliance in a particular way and provide evidence that requirements are being met. For claimants subject to work search and work availability requirements this can be used to require them to declare on a regular basis that they are meeting all the requirements placed upon them.

85.Subsection (4) provides that claimants may be required to report certain changes of circumstance which may affect the work-related requirements that are imposed on them, or that they should become subject to, such as leaving a job.

Section 24: Imposition of requirements
86.Section 24 contains provisions about the imposition of requirements on claimants. Subsection (1)(a) allows for regulations to prescribe circumstances in which specific requirements must or must not be imposed on certain claimants. Subsection (1)(b) does the same for any action which may be specified by the Secretary of State. This can be used to prevent the imposition of requirements where it would be inappropriate to do so. Subsection (1)(c) allows for regulations to set parameters around the detail of any action that may be required by the Secretary of State. This may be used, for example, to prescribe a maximum number of interviews a claimant could be expected to attend in any given period.

87.Subsection (2) provides that when deciding whether a work-focused interview requirement or a particular action under a work preparation or work search requirement should be imposed the Secretary of State must take regard of any matters prescribed in regulations.

88.Subsection (3) allows for any requirement imposed or action to be specified to be changed or withdrawn. If a requirement or a change to a requirement is not included in the claimant commitment, the Secretary of State may determine how a claimant is to be notified under subsection (4).

89.Subsection (5) allows for claimants who have been victims of, or threatened with, domestic violence within a prescribed period to be exempted for a period 13 weeks from any work-related requirements applying to them. Further details of how domestic violence is to be defined and the circumstances in which this exemption may apply will be set out in regulations under subsection (6).

Section 25: Compliance with requirements
90.Regulations under section 25 may set out the circumstances in which a person will be treated as having met or not met the requirements placed upon them. These regulations may set out, for example, the level of activity which the claimant will be required to demonstrate in order to be treated as meeting requirements (such as the time to be spent looking for work).  The regulations may also provide that where a claimant does not engage properly with the requirement (for example by being disruptive or violent in an interview or on a training course, or where a claimant’s behaviour or appearance undermines their chances of success in a job interview) they will not be treated as meeting that requirement.

Case law provides, that you can provide job/work search in a format of your choosing.

ourwelfare wrote:I know that the UC journal isn't compulsory but if it is added to your CC then it is.

 

I can see what you are getting at but agreeing to what is in a CC is not compulsory either. If my work coach added the requirement to my CC that I must provide evidence via the journal I would challenge it. I would ask for a DM (decision maker) to take a look at it and I would quote their own FOI response.

ourwelfare wrote:Since claimants don't have any power to overrule a work coach when a CC is written

If a roach demands that evidence is provided via the journal on a CC that is 100% in opposition to the DWP's own rules about it not being compulsory then the roach is going to end up with egg on their face and the offending CC will have to be amended.

In my opinion, a distinction needs to made between the use of the UC Journal and the presentation of evidence.

Full Service UC is digital by default. Therefore, DWP has a legitimate aim when processing UC claims in a particular way.

Inevitably, there will will be people who are unable to claim digitally and the legislation makes allowances for such claimants.

A useful FOI:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/487547/response/1178334/attach/html/3/DPA%20FOI%20Request%20FOI%202532%20June%202018%20complete.pdf.html

ourwelfare wrote:Ah, that explains it.

I know that the UC journal isn't compulsory but if it is added to your CC then it is. Since claimants don't have any power to overrule a work coach when a CC is written then effectively its just luck whether you can get them to leave out using the journal.

This whole journal thing is my biggest fear/paranoia at the moment. My work coach seems determined to make me use it, however he hasn't added it to my claimant commitment (yet).

I purposely didn't outright refuse to use it, I find the tactic of acting naive works well and with him assuming "i will use it for next time" when he's explaining how "brilliant" it is. However this tactic won't work forever, so I need to plan for

1) him getting angry and confronting me why i haven't used it
2) him adding it to my claimant commitment

I can probably deal with 1 in a variety of ways but 2 is where i run in to trouble.

When I accepted my CC online after the meeting I think I had 5 days to accept it but there was no option to appeal it or anything. If I wanted to appeal a CC what is the process? I read somewhere that basically another WC in the jobcentre can be the person who agrees or disagrees with it. This can't be right?

It's 100% a sanction trap and I don't want anything to do with it

roberto wrote:

ourwelfare wrote:Ah, that explains it.

I know that the UC journal isn't compulsory but if it is added to your CC then it is. Since claimants don't have any power to overrule a work coach when a CC is written then effectively its just luck whether you can get them to leave out using the journal.

This whole journal thing is my biggest fear/paranoia at the moment. My work coach seems determined to make me use it, however he hasn't added it to my claimant commitment (yet).

I purposely didn't outright refuse to use it, I find the tactic of acting naive works well and with him assuming "i will use it for next time" when he's explaining how "brilliant" it is. However this tactic won't work forever, so I need to plan for

1) him getting angry and confronting me why i haven't used it
2) him adding it to my claimant commitment

I can probably deal with 1 in a variety of ways but 2 is where i run in to trouble.

When I accepted my CC online after the meeting I think I had 5 days to accept it but there was no option to appeal it or anything. If I wanted to appeal a CC what is the process? I read somewhere that basically another WC in the jobcentre can be the person who agrees or disagrees with it. This can't be right?

It's 100% a sanction trap and I don't want anything to do with it

When representing people in Jobcentres, a I find presenting a current FOI on the matter is very helpful!
Occasionally, the JC officer has challenged the information and wondered where we got it from.   In this scenario ask the person to type the topic into their Intranet!

One reason I don't want to be waving FOI requests around is I don't want to get a name for myself as "that guy". I think its a difficult balancing act in between appearing to know your rights and the regulations, but not come across as being "difficult" because like it or not these work coaches have the potential to ruin our lives. They are the ones with the power.

Basically,
if they think you are too weak - they could take advantage of you
if they think you are too strong - they could seek to annoy or inconvenience you in plenty of legal ways. stupid courses, stupid schemes, etc etc.

roberto wrote:One reason I don't want to be waving FOI requests around is I don't want to get a name for myself as "that guy". I think its a difficult balancing act in between appearing to know your rights and the regulations, but not come across as being "difficult" because like it or not these work coaches have the potential to ruin our lives. They are the ones with the power.

Basically,
if they think you are too weak - they could take advantage of you
if they think you are too strong - they could seek to annoy or inconvenience you in plenty of legal ways. stupid courses, stupid schemes, etc etc.

I understand!  From years of experience your situation should improve.

All you need to say is, that you prefer to provide your evidence [specify how] and you understand that this is acceptable to DWP.   If this challenged, show the JC officer a copy of the internal guidance.

Edit:

Helpful article
https://mrfrankzola.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/dwp-says-universal-credit-journal-not-mandatory-for-your-work-search-records-or-cv-why/

Thankyou for that link.

Yeah thats something I had in my head as a possible response. Today I went to a work search review with my written evidence and print outs, and it's interesting the language that these people use.

At my first meeting with him whilst drawing up the CC he showed me my journal on his screen and said "this is where you will record your job search". Not this is where you COULD, but WILL...they just expect compliance with everything. And today as soon as he saw my printouts he said "you really need to start using your online journal" and showed me again 'how to use it'.

He didn't add it on to my CC and I left with him assuming I'll use it next time... but next weeks meeting will be an interesting one.

I think there are probably only 2 reasons as to why they are so obsessed with making claimants use the journal. (1) pressure from their superiors or (2) sanction-bait trap

roberto wrote:Thankyou for that link.

Yeah thats something I had in my head as a possible response. Today I went to a work search review with my written evidence and print outs, and it's interesting the language that these people use.

At my first meeting with him whilst drawing up the CC he showed me my journal on his screen and said "this is where you will record your job search". Not this is where you COULD, but WILL...they just expect compliance with everything. And today as soon as he saw my printouts he said "you really need to start using your online journal" and showed me again 'how to use it'.

He didn't add it on to my CC and I left with him assuming I'll use it next time... but next weeks meeting will be an interesting one.

I think there are probably only 2 reasons as to why they are so obsessed with making claimants use the journal. (1) pressure from their superiors or (2) sanction-bait trap

The main driver is to save time for the JC Official.  Full service UC was designed to provide a digital service that reduced operational costs amongst other things.

Edit:
Additional info:-
https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t1651-universal-credit-full-service-overview-june-2017-video

The crux of the matter would seem to be as stated in Frank Zola's link, i.e.

Jobmatch and Journal contradiction

A central contradiction is why DWP requires claimant permission to view Universal Jobmatch account users CV and Work Search records, but no equivalent ‘rules’ exist for the UC Journal? The DWP can’t even be bothered to write Journal guidance.


“We do not have guidance on DWP staff and Jobcentre work coach access and claimant use of UC online account or to-do lists”
Source: ‘Universal Credit claimant’s Journal, to-do lists and Claimant Commitment.’ – DWP FOI reply 3771  – 2 October 2017

But that is a year old now. Has there been any further clarification by the DWP? Has additional legislation been written to change the fact that the claimant has previously been able to provide evidence of their work search in whichever way they choose (as stated in the - now defunct - UJM guidance)?

Actually, while I'm here, what's the situation with telephone numbers and email addresses, has that now somehow become magically mandatory as well?

Non Deficere wrote:The main driver is to save time for the JC Official.  Full service UC was designed to provide a digital service that reduced operational costs amongst other things.

Fair enough but I would understand if my attendance at the JC wasn't required. I'd happily rather use the journal than attend the JC, but if they are making me attend weekly I have no intentions of making their lives any easier.



ABC
"We do not have guidance on DWP staff and Jobcentre work coach access and claimant use of UC online account or to-do lists"

Thats certainly very interesting from a legal perspective. No guidance = they do what the hell they want?
Would love to know if there has been any updates like you say