JSA Sanction information.

oneman wrote:Just for information.
I was sanctioned last week on JSA for not doing everything reasonably possible to find work. The usual crap that I have dealt with before. I sent off my evidence to the DM and got an appointment for hardship. At the appointment I was told that my claim had been disallowed by the DM and I must now apply for UC as my claim is closed, stopping all benefits immediately with no Hardship.
Apparently if you are on JSA and are referred to the DM you automatically have your claim disallowed and asked to sign up to UC.
Can anybody verify this I have had it confirmed by a manager and the Work roach doing the hardship appointment but still not 100% sure it's not all bull shit.

In general, natural migration could be triggered if entitlement to your current benefit ends (prompting a need to claim a new one) or you become entitled to a different or extra benefit. It shouldn't happen when you make changes to benefits you are already claiming.

Non Deficere wrote:

Sorry to read about your disallowance & sanction, have you submitted a Mandatory Reconsideration?  Do you need help with that?

Non Deficere wrote:When your JSA award ends following a disallowance notice, you simply reclaim JSA which entitles you to claim hardship, which is JSA at a lower rate.

I would ask for a legal written notification (reg 44) outing the reason for your immediate migration to UC.

Given that the process is not automatic, the key factors for a current claimant will usually be a change of circumstance that prompts a new claim.

Note: there are currently no clear rules or guidance on when natural migration should or should not occur. Dispute is already occurring regarding ESA pending appeal (see below). What follows is based on a reading of the law and understanding of likely DWP/HMRC/local authority approaches.

A new claim for JSA, ESA or UC will abolish income-based JSA and income-related ESA for the claimant in any case where s/he lives in a full service area, or where s/he lives in a live service area and satisfies the gateway conditions. A new claim for UC will trigger the loss of legacy benefits in any case where the claimant lives in a fullservicearea,orwheres/helivesinaliveservice area and satisfies the gateway conditions.

New claims for legacy benefits may result in the claimant finding that s/he cannot get them and so feeling effectively obliged to claim UC instead. The clearest examples will arise in full service areas, as in live service areas an additional requirement will be that the claimant satisfies gateway conditions.

Likely examples include:

an ESA claimant fails the work capability assessment (WCA) and tries to claim JSA pending a mandatory reconsideration. In a full service area, this will always result in the abolition of income-based JSA and income-related ESA. In a live service area, this will not happen if the claimant does not satisfy the gateway conditions – eg, because s/he has already requested a mandatory reconsideration of the WCA failure;
a JSA claimant in a full service area becomes sick and tries to claim ESA instead;
a claimant in a full service area not already on tax credits has a first child and tries to claim CTC;
a lone parent loses her/his entitlement to IS when her/his youngest child turns five and tries to claim JSA;
someone in a full service area on JSA becomes a carer and cannot manage JSA conditions – so tries to claim IS instead;
a couple separates or forms and there are attempts to make new IS/JSA claims.


When is natural migration unlikely

Changes should not result in a UC claim effectively being required if they merely lead to a current award or payment of a legacy benefit being changed rather than prompting a new claim. This applies both in full service and live service areas.

Likely examples include:

a claimant already on tax credits (WTC or CTC or both) has a child;4
a claimant on HB moves to new accommodation within the same local authority area and continues to qualify for HB;5
the youngest child of a lone parent on IS has a birthday but is still aged under five;
a claimant on JSA receives a sanction (also note that an application for a hardship payment does not constitute a new claim for JSA);
an ESA claimant fails the WCA, requests a mandatory reconsideration, ultimately appeals and gets ESA pending appeal, but at no point makes a new claim for ESA, JSA or UC. However, in some full service areas at least, the DWP is claiming that this is not possible and the claimant can only get UC pending appeal and thereafter. See below

Caker wrote:My understanding was that under JSA, the old regs still apply I.e. you only have to do more than 2 things in any benefit week; you cannot be sanctioned for what you did not do, as long as you did more than 2 things in each week of your claim.

If your claim has been closed wrongly, then that is not a bona fide change of circumstances but sounds like something fabricated by DWP staff.

If the regs have changed then I apologise for getting it wrong.


DWP staff keep trying to impose UC regs onto JSA claimants

Non Deficere wrote:When is natural migration likely

Given that the process is not automatic, the key factors for a current claimant will usually be a change of circumstance that prompts a new claim.

Note: there are currently no clear rules or guidance on when natural migration should or should not occur. Dispute is already occurring regarding ESA pending appeal (see below). What follows is based on a reading of the law and understanding of likely DWP/HMRC/local authority approaches.

A new claim for JSA, ESA or UC will abolish income-based JSA and income-related ESA for the claimant in any case where s/he lives in a full service area, or where s/he lives in a live service area and satisfies the gateway conditions. A new claim for UC will trigger the loss of legacy benefits in any case where the claimant lives in a fullservicearea,orwheres/helivesinaliveservice area and satisfies the gateway conditions.

New claims for legacy benefits may result in the claimant finding that s/he cannot get them and so feeling effectively obliged to claim UC instead. The clearest examples will arise in full service areas, as in live service areas an additional requirement will be that the claimant satisfies gateway conditions.

Likely examples include:

an ESA claimant fails the work capability assessment (WCA) and tries to claim JSA pending a mandatory reconsideration. In a full service area, this will always result in the abolition of income-based JSA and income-related ESA. In a live service area, this will not happen if the claimant does not satisfy the gateway conditions – eg, because s/he has already requested a mandatory reconsideration of the WCA failure;
a JSA claimant in a full service area becomes sick and tries to claim ESA instead;
a claimant in a full service area not already on tax credits has a first child and tries to claim CTC;
a lone parent loses her/his entitlement to IS when her/his youngest child turns five and tries to claim JSA;
someone in a full service area on JSA becomes a carer and cannot manage JSA conditions – so tries to claim IS instead;
a couple separates or forms and there are attempts to make new IS/JSA claims.


When is natural migration unlikely

Changes should not result in a UC claim effectively being required if they merely lead to a current award or payment of a legacy benefit being changed rather than prompting a new claim. This applies both in full service and live service areas.

Likely examples include:

a claimant already on tax credits (WTC or CTC or both) has a child;4
a claimant on HB moves to new accommodation within the same local authority area and continues to qualify for HB;5
the youngest child of a lone parent on IS has a birthday but is still aged under five;
a claimant on JSA receives a sanction (also note that an application for a hardship payment does not constitute a new claim for JSA);
an ESA claimant fails the WCA, requests a mandatory reconsideration, ultimately appeals and gets ESA pending appeal, but at no point makes a new claim for ESA, JSA or UC. However, in some full service areas at least, the DWP is claiming that this is not possible and the claimant can only get UC pending appeal and thereafter. See below

.http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/universal-credit-and-natural-migration


Managed migration does not start until 2019 and JCP must follow the correct process and procedure, which includes claimants being issued with a a regulation 44 notice.  See my link above.

There are no general rules which set out how natural migration onto universal credit (UC) occurs.

Natural migration happens because of the rules which prevent you from claiming legacy benefits when your circumstances change (see What is Natural Migration onto Universal Credit?. In most cases the main steps are as follows:

1. You are claiming a legacy benefit and experience a change of circumstances which, before UC, would have prompted you to claim another legacy benefit.

2. You can no longer claim legacy benefits because you live in a UC full service area, or a gateway area and you satisfy the gateway conditions for claiming UC.

3. You therefore claim UC instead.

4. Your entitlement to the legacy benefits you were getting terminates and you are awarded UC.

oneman wrote:

Non Deficere wrote:

Sorry to read about your disallowance & sanction, have you submitted a Mandatory Reconsideration?  Do you need help with that?

This is the funny part that I can't get a answer to. If I have no claim because the disallowance has stopped this, how can I continue with Mandatory Reconsideration when my claim no longer exists.? Thanks for the offer of help. I should be OK with that. I've won all 6 previous Tribunal sanctions with the help of FLYINGVISITOR. The last tribunal took 5 years! and must of cost hundreds of thousands of pounds but I got my £14 back in the end.

Your claim is disallowed for a short period and which you're lawfully entitled to dispute.  

Have you received a P45U? If not, your JSA claim is still very much alive!

Non Deficere wrote:When your JSA award ends following a disallowance notice, you simply reclaim JSA which entitles you to claim hardship, which is JSA at a lower rate.

I would ask for a legal written notification (reg 44) outing the reason for your immediate migration to UC.

No more rapid reclaims for JSA I have been told. It goes straight to a new UC claim. They can't even issue hardship when a disallowance is marked on the LMS by a DM.
Sanction is for 2 weeks but it takes 4 weeks before any payment.
I'm wondering if this is just a sneaky way to push people onto UC?

Non Deficere wrote:

My offer of help stands including attendance at a Tribunal if practicable.

I have supported a number of claimants at Tribunals including certain forum members.

Non Deficere wrote:


I'm off to the Citizens Advice this morning but it will just be a 10 min gateway assessment.
Then I will be dropping the bombshell to the Jobcentre that I have been claiming JSA or 4 years and I have not got a signed Claimant commitment that the law says I must have to get benefit. Wish I was a fly on the wall when that email. is opened. I already have Maladministration complaints in and SAR requests in (Just discovered yesterday that you have to do SAR request online now but it took up their time to answer me.)

Is it true that work coaches have to consider the steps that I have taken and not steps that I have not done as Canker stated earlier?

Non Deficere wrote:

Is it true that work coaches have to consider the steps that I have taken and not steps that I have not done as Canker stated earlier?

oneman wrote:

Non Deficere wrote:

Is it true that work coaches have to consider the steps that I have taken and not steps that I have not done as Canker stated earlier?

That is right, it is what you did and the steps you took fulfilled the requirement to actively seek work.

Let us know how you get on, your case may help many people.

Is there any legislation that I can refer to for this as this would clear my case up straight away. The problem is that I do not know what information the work Coach sent to the DM until I put the SAR in and that could take ages.

oneman wrote:Hi. yes thanks.
I have that info and the Jobseekers Act 1995 section 7(1) and 2. I also have the the Tribunal verdict in CJSA/1814/2007.

I specifically need the bit that states "that work coaches have to consider the steps that I have taken and not steps that I have not done " because they just kept waffling on about not doing everything that was reasonably possible.

What steps must be taken?
The first error made by both the adviser and the tribunal is that they applied a negative test, not a positive test. The law imposes a test that asks what the claimant did. They looked at what C did not do, not what he did do.
Para 13:
“Further, there is nothing in the Act or the Regulations requiring that a claimant must comply with everything in the Agreement. The reverse is the case. The agreement must comply with the law. To be valid, a jobseeker’s agreement must comply “with the prescribed regulations in force”: section 9(1) of the Act. The pattern of the legislation is that a jobseeker’s agreement must comply with the test of actively seeking work in sections 1(2)(c) and 7 of the Act and regulation 18 of the Regulations and not the other way round.”

Non Deficere wrote:

oneman wrote:Hi. yes thanks.
I have that info and the Jobseekers Act 1995 section 7(1) and 2. I also have the the Tribunal verdict in CJSA/1814/2007.

I specifically need the bit that states "that work coaches have to consider the steps that I have taken and not steps that I have not done " because they just kept waffling on about not doing everything that was reasonably possible.

What steps must be taken?
The first error made by both the adviser and the tribunal is that they applied a negative test, not a positive test. The law imposes a test that asks what the claimant did. They looked at what C did not do, not what he did do.
Para 13:
“Further, there is nothing in the Act or the Regulations requiring that a claimant must comply with everything in the Agreement. The reverse is the case. The agreement must comply with the law. To be valid, a jobseeker’s agreement must comply “with the prescribed regulations in force”: section 9(1) of the Act. The pattern of the legislation is that a jobseeker’s agreement must comply with the test of actively seeking work in sections 1(2)(c) and 7 of the Act and regulation 18 of the Regulations and not the other way round.”

Failing to take these step is maladministration.  This piece of caselaw is very old.

Oneman wrote:It may be old but is it still valid and can I send this info off for the mandatory reconsideration? Perhaps changing Tribunal in the second line to DM or just leaving the words "and the tribunal" out altogether?
I do know there is no definition in legislation as to what a step is. This point still makes me laugh.
It may be old but is it still valid and can I send this info off for the mandatory reconsideration? Perhaps changing Tribunal in the second line to DM or just leaving the words "and the tribunal" out altogether?
I do know there is no definition in legislation as to what a step is. This point still makes me laugh.

oneman wrote:Citizens Advice Says it is true. I will have to apply for UC or wait it out until I get the letter from the DM and then apply for mandatory reconsideration.

UC takes 5 weeks min. I'm sure I can accelerate the appeal but it could take 2 month before a Tribunal.
I'm not willing to back down and sign onto UC as that is irreversible when you do But My partner and son is suffering because it is a joint claim.

Non Deficere wrote:The main consideration is your rent.