What is a 35 Hours Jobsearch?

MrFrankZola wrote:

Caker wrote:I usually record 3 applications each week. I understand there is no minimum number to meet ASE requirements, so I stick to what would have met the criteria under JSA. I also record 2 or 3 other activities just for good measure.

Would not rely upon JSA conditionality as a basis to decide whether UCCC requirements/actions have been met.

Committed Claimant wrote:Non Deficere:

It sounds like you have decided that a 35 hour job search is the norm, although I don’t know who established it. Your post continues outlining ways of alleviating the worst excesses of what you have decided to accept.

I would just add that there is no specific requirement to apply for a specific number of jobs. This is another fallacy and a whole other kettle of fish, but hey, one contentious issue at a time eh.

Caker wrote:Just to throw in another curve ball (sorry), I have recorded the same amount and type of job search activity since I started my claim. The wc has expressed satisfaction and thanks for it (yes really ) verbally and in writing (UCj comments), and I have continued to get paid. so on that note, all looks well.

However, if I were to continue with the same level of activity and the wc took issue with something (or there was a different wc), and wanted to raise an ASE doubt, could I rely upon the fact that no doubt was raised previously for the same level of activity recorded?

Non Deficere;

The premise is your post has an important legal flaw.

There is no requirement in law for a claimant to apply for a specific number of jobs per week.

Non Deficere wrote:

Caker wrote:Just to throw in another curve ball (sorry), I have recorded the same amount and type of job search activity since I started my claim. The wc has expressed satisfaction and thanks for it (yes really ) verbally and in writing (UCj comments), and I have continued to get paid. so on that note, all looks well.

However, if I were to continue with the same level of activity and the wc took issue with something (or there was a different wc), and wanted to raise an ASE doubt, could I rely upon the fact that no doubt was raised previously for the same level of activity recorded?

Sorry, C, you cannot rely on past worksearch as a defence, but it is helpful (O's case).

The reason being, the labour market is continually changing.

Caker wrote:

Non Deficere wrote:

Caker wrote:Just to throw in another curve ball (sorry), I have recorded the same amount and type of job search activity since I started my claim. The wc has expressed satisfaction and thanks for it (yes really ) verbally and in writing (UCj comments), and I have continued to get paid. so on that note, all looks well.

However, if I were to continue with the same level of activity and the wc took issue with something (or there was a different wc), and wanted to raise an ASE doubt, could I rely upon the fact that no doubt was raised previously for the same level of activity recorded?

Sorry, C, you cannot rely on past worksearch as a defence, but it is helpful (O's case).

The reason being, the labour market is continually changing.

That leaves me quite lost because things rarely look different in my work search landscape. Same jobs keep being advertised. In one case I applied for the same job with 2 different locum agencies. One agency told me the vacancy was taken whilst the other kept up the pretence that it was still vacant. Neither of them got me into that job but both continued to advertise it for a further 2 months.

Committed Claimant wrote:If a job vacancy appears on a site 2 months after it first appeared, do they alter the Job Number, Job Ref, or Posting Date?

Exactly the same advert on indeed.

Could a claimant claim that s/he applied unsuccessfully for any job brought to his/her attention by a coach a month or two earlier but it had a different posting date then.

Bearing in mind:

The process for imposing a sanction:

“The work coach will “raise a doubt” with the claimant if they believe that person failed to comply with their Claimant Commitment”.

It is sufficient for the coach to raise the doubt. It is for the claimant to disabuse them of that doubt. The work coach is neither obliged or authorised to gather evidence to confirm or alleviate the doubt.

The coach passes on the doubt, along with any evidence provided by the claimant, to the Decision Maker.

By the time the DM starts gathering evidence 3 or 4 months could have passed. Surely any evidence that might have been there would have long gone or be so vague as to be inadmissible.

.......positively Stakhanovite statement that “I’ll do everything I can to get paid work,.......

K3052

Where K3051 applies the claimant has to have been clearly informed of the particular vacancy.
Note: The Jobs a claimant can be required to apply for must be jobs that the
claimant can reasonably do based on their individual skills, ability, location, capabilities and capacity and their own resource and should normally be discussed with the claimant at work search review. The claimant would have to show a good reason why a particular vacancy is unsuitable in their good reason for any failure, for example the job required a skill or qualification the claimant did not have.

Caker wrote:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720661/admk3.pdf

From the above:

K3052

Where K3051 applies the claimant has to have been clearly informed of the particular vacancy.
Note: The Jobs a claimant can be required to apply for must be jobs that the
claimant can reasonably do based on their individual skills, ability, location, capabilities and capacity and their own resource and should normally be discussed with the claimant at work search review. The claimant would have to show a good reason why a particular vacancy is unsuitable in their good reason for any failure, for example the job required a skill or qualification the claimant did not have.

What constitutes 'clearly informed' in this context?

K3056
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720661/admk3.pdf

"Should normally be discussed with the claimant". I presume this means that it does not have to be but can be sprung on them via UCj.

Yes, that is right.

This indicates that 'good reason' could include a skill or qualification that the claimant does not have but what about:

*claimant relies on public transport and the job finishes late at night, such as bar work and is in another town. Would anyone be mandated to work that left them vulnerable because of lack of transport late at night?

*work in a butchers shop if the claimant is a strict vegan?

*work that involves being 'very friendly' to male customers to encourage them to stay and spend more in a bar that mainly appeals to men, but is staffed by young women.

These are examples of good reason.

It appears to me people could be mandated to jobs that are not appropriate to that person's temperament.

In many cases the full details of the job are not apparent, it is upto the claimant to make further enquiries. The wc should only match jobs that are relevant to your circumstances.

Committed Claimant wrote:Noticed this FOI request to DWP on 12th April; they haven’t responded yet.

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
Universal Credit and JSA related.

I have a problem understanding what "35 hours Jobsearch" is?

Who decides, the claimant or work coach?

Is there any guides available on how to complete this requirement?

This concept is new and was never a requirement. Why?

I note jobcentreplus work coaches when I've asked them don't seem to be able to give any sensible answers!

If claimants are being sanctioned because a work coach thinks they haven't done 35 hours a week jobsearch and nobody knows how to define 35 hours jobsearch isn't this unfair and fraud?

Yours faithfully,
S M Hall

Can’t wait for their response to this one, should be a doozy!!!!!!