Reduction of 35 hour job search committment

Copied from 'lounge'

dboy wrote:"Today I have been informed by 1 work coach and then 2 managers that while on JSA I am expected to look for work for 35 hours per week."

Pintel wrote:Is there anyway that you can have this 'alleged' 35 a week job search reduced? Like on the distances that a claimant can travel to employment. scratch

Short answer is neither condition is set in stone and can be varied due to individual circumstances.

The issue for those on JSA is that the WC can set any "reasonable" requirement as far as work search goes. So if they can genuinely justify the need for a 35 hour work search then it is all above board and it must be complied with. But, as ever, it all comes down to what the definition of "reasonable" is!

ABC wrote:The issue for those on JSA is that the WC can set any "reasonable" requirement as far as work search goes. So if they can genuinely justify the need for a 35 hour work search then it is all above board and it must be complied with. But, as ever, it all comes down to what the definition of "reasonable" is!

The law is clearly defined in the JSA regulations as to what satisfies the condition to be Actively seeking employment. 2 step's or more, less in some cases.

dboy wrote:

ABC wrote:The issue for those on JSA is that the WC can set any "reasonable" requirement as far as work search goes. So if they can genuinely justify the need for a 35 hour work search then it is all above board and it must be complied with. But, as ever, it all comes down to what the definition of "reasonable" is!

The law is clearly defined in the JSA regulations as to what satisfies the condition to be Actively seeking employment. 2 step's or more, less in some cases.

So by that definition, the time taken, to complete those steps, cannot be stipulated. It is only relevant that the steps were completed and not how long was spent doing them.

[quote="dboy"]

ABC wrote:The law is clearly defined in the JSA regulations as to what satisfies the condition to be Actively seeking employment. 2 step's or more, less in some cases.

It's actually more than 2 steps. So a minimum of 3! Again, irrespective of what the legislation says, it comes down to what your WC thinks is "reasonable" and almost all will dispute that 3 steps is sufficient (been there, done that) so you end up with a doubt being raised for failure to seek employment if you challenge it and have to go through that whole stress inducing rigmarole.  

[quote="ABC"]

dboy wrote:

ABC wrote:The law is clearly defined in the JSA regulations as to what satisfies the condition to be Actively seeking employment. 2 step's or more, less in some cases.

It's actually more than 2 steps. So a minimum of 3! Again, irrespective of what the legislation says, it comes down to what your WC thinks is "reasonable" and almost all will dispute that 3 steps is sufficient (been there, done that) so you end up with a doubt being raised for failure to seek employment if you challenge it and have to go through that whole stress inducing rigmarole.  

Yes thank you for the correction more than 2 which is 3 steps or more.

And I agree Work coaches do unlawfully raise a doubt but hopefully with a prominent note on my file pointing out that I am only expected to take those number of steps each week then I hope for me any way, I can prevent that from occurring in the future.

In the past 6 years it has never been a issue really but I wanted to set out the ground rules with my brand new shiny work coach.

My first supposedly permanent work coach after having random work coaches for the nearly the past 2 years.

I have also asked for them to make other staff and managers aware to prevent others suffering the same fate.

If you look at the numbers of adverse benefit decisions for not ASE on JSA I think they are in the 0.4% range or possibly even less, this could be down to a softening of the regime ,difficulty with them securing a successful off flow payment due to high rates of successful MR's /appeals or everyone has learned to play the system.


If I have a ASE doubt raised with a note on my file (if they agree to my request) then I can only assume I am being wilfully harassed and they will be committing a clear case of maladministration.

Will update if my plan works/ fails regardless it is going to be a fun signing on the next session, wounded beasts can be dangerous animals.

I have needed to give WCs a dressing down on more than one occasion over the step based rule. Some WCs claim that they have 'no knowledge of the law' (jobseekers' act). That doesn't wash with me as I remind them it applies to them with or without their knowledge of it, so they would do well to educate themselves.

CC operational rules:

70. To meet the entitlement condition for actively seeking employment each week, claimants must take all reasonable actions to give themselves the best chance of securing employment.

Absolut wrote:CC operational rules:

70. To meet the entitlement condition for actively seeking employment each week, claimants must take all reasonable actions to give themselves the best chance of securing employment.

Regardless of how one interprets the rules one thing is clear which is the point of contention,
JSA is STEP based condition and UC is a TIME based condition.

Caker wrote:Some WCs claim that they have 'no knowledge of the law' (jobseekers' act).

Following one of many bust-ups with my WC I asked to see a manager and during the course of the meeting she explicitly stated that she had no knowledge of the law, going only on accepted procedures in the Jobcentre. Just on a personal level I would be ashamed if I had their job and lacked the knowledge to do it effectively ... i.e. within the parameters set by legislation. still, you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!