claimant commitment "second opinion"

[quote="FlyingVisitor" post=25968]Further information and in an attempt to keep UC matters in a sticky post:

Following ‘ourwelfare's’ helpful very post posts, I am concerned that JC officials are closing new claims unlawfully:

[quote="ourwelfare" post=25778]Did you know that if you ask for a "second opinion" on your claimant commitment and the 2nd work coach disagrees with you, your claim is closed immediately - you have no chance to then sign the CC you asked to be reviewed? I did not know that.

It didn't stop me asking for a second opinion as they called it. I wanted to find out how it would be handled. Unsurprisingly, in a rather argumentative manner. I knew they wouldn't make the change I asked for but it was interesting to find out why (that's another post). I'd said that checking universal jobmatch 5 days a week was unreasonable because the site was bad (for various reasons we all know) and that it was better to check it only every other day just like I did other jobsites, as I wouldn't miss anything as the adverts didn't change on a daily basis.

They helpfully pulled up a link on screen showing me that they had the right to close my claim if the work coach who was handling my second opinion disagreed with my refusal to sign my CC. I have no idea what the source was I should've asked for it to be printed off.

As we sat their "discussing" the matter I pulled out a bottle and was told that was not allowed as it could be used as a weapon. Many things can be used as a weapon I pointed out but they just turned away. Eventually I could stand it no longer and took a drink. Well, they said, you have been warned and the security may approach you. I said how come you have a bottle of water? I have a health condition! they exclaimed. So do I, I said, so why am I not allowed an exception. Again no answer.

Once the interview was over (they disagreed with my reasons surprise, surprise) I walked away and pulled my bottle again from my bag, literally steps from the door. Oi shouted the little security guy, you've been warned. I just walked out the door surprised they'd make such a fuss (did it look like I'd ever use it as a weapon?) He followed me out the door telling me I'd been warned and was "just being wise" (I thought that was a good thing, but local slang says otherwise). I turned to him and was about to launch into my medical conditions etc and how petty he was being but realised how pointless that was. As he leaned out the door mouthing off at me I just put on my most superior voice, held up my palm and said "there's no need to be aggressive" and walked away. Oh dear. I half expect a letter telling me I'm banned for some behaviour transgression.

If anyone knows of the link to this rule I'd be grateful if they could share it with me, just for future reference.[/quote]

My understanding was that a 'second opinion' meant the CC must be referred to a DM. Was this particular JC official and colleague misleading the claimant?

second opinion goes through another adviser if you refuse that they close your claim as this is whats been happening unlike the jsa where if you refused the jsa agreement then it would go to a dm

in short it makes a jcp staff god and you will do as I say even if I break the law you will suffer if you do refuse what I think should be within your cc agreement

after this from what we are finding you still have a right to appeal through a dm but that's down to jcp offices who then refuse to deal with you as you have no claim anymore as they see it

Oh, I see.

Do you have a link to the guidance please?

Cheers

This is for UC Caker where the second opinion is given by a colleague of the wc that raised the doubt (so no chance of any bias there eh?). It's still to the DM for JSA claimants. Have a look at UC legislation (wherever that is!).