JSA "new rule" ASE

Hi all, sorry for the length of this post.

Yesterday morning we (hubby and I) were informed that upper management has passed down an order that everyone attending the job centre is to use a JCP computer to "prove" they are looking for work, ie do a job search. The word "login" was used. Login to what wasn't stated. Proof of applying for jobs was mentioned, but it was to be on their computer and it was definitely connected to logging in and showing them something, which he absolutely refused to specify what he was on about. He used the word "group". When I said we can't be made to attend a group session he said, "No, no, you go sit on one of our computers on your own". I said no. I said if they want proof of anything they can have a print out of it. He then said that would be ok, causing utter confusion as to what exactly is going on.

It's my understanding that in order to prove ASE a JSA claimant can present their evidence in whatever manner they like:

Reviewing jobsearch
188. The JSA Regulations do not specify that claimants must keep written records of their job search. However, encouraging a claimant to keep a written record of the steps they have taken can help them to remember what they have done, and will help to build up a picture of the progress the claimant is making in their efforts to find work.
189. A claimant may have set up their own records, but if their record keeping is inadequate, or non-existent encourage them to use the Jobsearch Activity Log (ES4).
190. The evidence of jobsearch produced when they attend to have their regular reviews may be in various forms:
 information they have provided from their Universal Jobmatch account; [now defunct]
 evidence in writing from employers, employment agencies, or other organisations which they have contacted;
 copies of letters they have sent to employers;
 the claimant’s un-corroborated written evidence, for example an ES4;
 the claimant’s verbal evidence
 evidence from previous Jobsearch Reviews recorded on LMS.

We both job search on our own computers at home. We take printed Excel spreadsheets with us to prove ASE. I only failed once and that was a fortnight ago. I gave my evidence verbally and the roach (a different one who is normally nice but became aggressive towards me for no good reason) said he believed my evidence. (I do have a back up of it at home). This omission appears to have morphed into everyone now having to "prove" their job search on one of their computers and prove that jobs have been applied for. I don't see how that can work. They've only got 4 of them. I will not login to anything on any of their computers and I don't see how their demand that I do so is legal in any way. My passwords and accounts are none of their business. I only have to have them. They have no right to demand that I access them in their office.

I also have disabilities. I am listed as DP (disabled person). The way their computers are set up is unacceptable even for a non-disabled person. The chairs are plastic rather than proper computer chairs making them totally inadequate and not fit for purpose. There are no wrist rests available and there's certainly not the specialised item I use in front of my mouse due to carpal tunnel. It has been taken as read that I am able to comply with this "new" order. It's physically possible for me to use their mouse set up, but the result will be pain. There was no mention of "reasonable adjustments" in connection to this "new" rule of theirs. No JSD has been issued. I asked the signing on clerk what provision in the JSA Act they were using for this order? He could not answer this question.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-is-forcing-distressed-claimants-to-attend-weekly-meetings-says-whistleblower/

She is certain that the orders are filtering down from work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey, with every district manager putting their own “interpretation” on those orders, and then feeding them down to jobcentre managers, who pass them on to their work coaches.

The above is in reference to disabled people being forced to attend jobcentres on a weekly basis despite it not being appropriate and in most cases, highly dangerous for their health in a total breach of the Equality Act reasonable adjustments provision that all public bodies have a legal duty to comply with. The DWP was allowed to fully breach the Equality Act based on "business purposes". This current "new rule" about everyone having to use their awful computer desks, chairs and other inadequate items to vaguely prove something or other is simply an ongoing extension of it as far as I'm concerned.

Has anyone else been subjected to this "new rule" on ASE?

I have not been subjected to this new rule, but I used to be ask to do this when I did the Work Programme in 2015. Just like your experience, it was a complete clown show and nobody could really enforce the rule.

The government recommends (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/458857/Password_guidance_-_simplifying_your_approach.pdf) that users should not share, re-use or write passwords down anywhere. They should not be stored in plain text (like on a mobile phone).

DWP would need to let a claimant install a password manager on their computers - for them to access their passwords, which of course won't be possible. Jobcentre-computers are locked down and I don't even think middle managers can override that. This used to be my way to get out of using Work Programme computers as the provider could not meet my request of a password manager.

Thanks Jara, the password manager point is very useful.

From information gleaned from the Equality Act the DWP has a duty to anticipate my being unable to use their computers and to implement a reasonable adjustment before they tell me what to do. Their attitude is that I have to ask first, but in law that isn't the case. They've already breached the Act by not asking me if I'd need any reasonable adjustments in a fortnight.  

Strange how these things go in cycle's . A few years back I had a similar situation with a Roach . I presented paper screen prints of jobs Ive applied for, all the other Roach's where fine with this. Yet one Roach wanted me to log in to a JCP computer and accessing my email account. While they look over my shoulder! Thankfully I didn't have to do this. Besides I was going to create a temporary email, and load up my application via the hard drive to p*ss them off!🤭 Here a couple of FOI's to give to the Roach ....

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mandating_claimant_to_login_to_p#incoming-1395850

"... claimants being mandated to share details of their personal email account specifically, regardless of the reason".

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/email_avidance_for_job_center_pl#incoming-804332

"I have recently been asked by s job centre plus advisor to bring in my log in details for my personal email account to show proof of myself emailing my cv for jobs and for making contact to employers."...



Also I found this on an email I got from the Dole (2022):

"Important: For security reasons DWP cannot discuss personal information with you by email. DWP will never ask you to send any usernames, passwords, personal, health/medical or bank account information via email and we will not process such information if you do send it – it will be delete".

Thank you so much Pintel for those links. The July 2019 one is perfect. I will definitely be taking that with me.

There is no legislation that supports either JSA or UC claimants being mandated to share details of their personal email account specifically, regardless of the reason.

The above is a good point, but to add to that, there is no legislation that I know of that enables the DWP to order anyone to login to anything on one of their computers in order to prove they've been ASE in the prior fortnight. The threat here is that if we refuse to comply with their "order" to prove ASE in this particular way then we will be sanctioned.

89. However, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence of their jobsearch activity (by whatever means they choose).

Finally in response to FoI 2851, although claimants have the freedom to choose how to demonstrate they have met the “actively seeking work” requirement, an adviser needs as much evidence as necessary to be satisfied that a claimant is actively seeking employment. Therefore, if an adviser is not content with the evidence supplied they may ask for additional information, such as copies of applications made (by whatever method this may be) and or employer rejection letters/emails. If a JSA claimant fails to provide sufficient evidence to show that they have met the “actively seeking work” requirement when required to do so, they may lose their entitlement to JSA.

The key here is that the onus is on us to provide sufficient evidence. The wording was "next time you will have to go on the computer to prove ASE". If our JSA payment is dependent on our giving them our passwords and allowing them to eyeball our logging into various things like email, Indeed, Find a Job etc, then I want that in writing with the roach's signature on it. They won't do this. I know they won't. They are simply trying it on. If they insist that this "new rule" is real where is the legislation for it? How does it justify their flagrant breach of their Public Sector Equality Duty to anticipate reasonable adjustments for me? The simple answer to that is, it doesn't.

Well done to you #Absolut .
There's too many people to whom roll over for these Roach's .... It seems to me that the JCP want to create a 'Cyber-Treadmill' ( the original context of the word treadmill, a device in the workhouse). Not to achieve anything, just to keep claimants busy 🤨?


One a side note, I wonder what the total cost of the DWP's office's energy bill for 2022/2023 will be for the tax payers? With all of their computers and heating costs. It might even be cheaper for them to go back to a paper based operation. Instead of the online/computer ️based operation?

21593 Corroboration of claimants evidence is not essential (see DMG Chapter 03). DMs
should note that
1. claimants will not always be able to obtain corroborative evidence if they state that they have
1.1 “asked around” or
1.2 applied for jobs that are normally advertised and filled by word of mouth and
2. employers do not always reply to written enquiries.
21594 If the DM has reason to doubt whether claimants contacted certain employers or agencies those employers or agencies may be asked whether they
1. keep a record of enquiries by job seekers and
2. are able to confirm that a particular person approached them for employment.
But such enquiries should only be necessary if the evidence before the DM is inconsistent or seems unlikely

Proof
21596 Before determining whether the claimant was ASE in any week the DM
1. must decide what the claimant did in that week to seek work and
2. may also have to decide what they did to seek work in previous weeks (see
DMG 21644 - 21646).
The onus is on the claimant to show what steps have been taken1.
1 JSA Regs, reg 24(1)
21597 Determining whether claimants were ASE in any week requires a comparison
between
1. what they in fact did to seek work in that week and
2. what the law required them to do.
21598 - 21599
Vol 4 Amendment 30 February 2010

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/893675/dmgch21.pdf

To save a referral to a Decision Maker, ensure you have paper copies of emails/screen shots on hand if necessary.

The DWP worker cannot determine how you show your jobsearch.

You may have a good reason for taking fewer steps.

Pintel wrote:Well done to you #Absolut .
There's too many people to whom roll over for these Roach's .... It seems to me that the JCP want to create a 'Cyber-Treadmill' ( the original context of the word treadmill, a device in the workhouse). Not to achieve anything, just to keep claimants busy 🤨?

They can want to create whatever they like but the UK government passed the Equality Act 2010 into law and that means the DWP has to follow it in all their hair-brained schemes. They are a public sector service body. They are required, by law, under the PSED to anticipate having to make reasonable adjustments for all disabled claimants. When I'm told that from "now on" "everyone" (including disabled claimants) are to use a DWP computer to prove ASE I know I am dealing with a rogue office. They don't bother to make reasonable adjustments for their own staff, never mind claimants and I know that in order for it to happen I have to insist upon it. I will insist upon it that they cease being criminals. I include all non-disabled claimants in my fight against lawless DWP roaches who think they can order people to put passwords into their snoopy computers. My response is "or what?". Where is our choice to take print outs of our emails proving application submissions rather than entering our passwords on their computer that their sysadmin can get access to later?

It's quite obvious that there is no "everyone". One of us is being believed and the other one is not. It's one thing to say "you can print out from our machines if you forget to bring it". It's another thing entirely to be ordered to do it on their computer. Why do both of us have to do it? Well, because if it was just me that would be targeting me. If it was just my husband that would be targeting him. By saying "everyone" they think we are too dumb to work out that they are targeting one of us and they don't want to p*ss the other one off so they will engage in equal harassment.

Regarding passwords - G4S security guards already get access to people's names and the DWP seems to be perfectly ok about it. I've seen them thumbing through DWP appointment lists more than once and looking over people's shoulders while they are on the IAD computers in the guise of "helping them".   

Pintel wrote:One a side note, I wonder what the total cost of the DWP's office's energy bill for 2022/2023 will be for the tax payers? With all of their computers and heating costs.  It might even be cheaper for them to go back to a paper based  operation. Instead of the online/computer ️based operation?

What is going to happen is this - all work coaches will lose their jobs when Bob, the AI work coach, takes over. There will be no more need for them to "check compliance" as it will be immediately apparent via the app that there is an active job search going on. The sooner that happens, the better.

D Appleby wrote:The DWP worker cannot determine how you show your jobsearch.

I know that. They seem to believe otherwise. The message was quite clear. We are to show our separate job search evidence to them and prove job applications on their computer by logging in to our various accounts. This applies to everybody. I told the clerk that it is illegal for them to order people to enter their passwords on a DWP machine. I said if they want proof of applications we are happy to provide print outs. He said that was fine, but it was only in order to get rid of us.

This has come about because I told an aggressive clerk that my not filling in an ES4 is not evidence that I've not looked for work. I have never used it. He believed that I did have to use it. He believed that I have to show him something and it has to be on an ES4. I said JSA rules clearly state that I can give verbal evidence. I gave verbal evidence as I didn't have my sheet with me, fully expecting to see our own work coach to update our CCs. She was not there. He was off with us right from the start, and he's not usually like that. If he did not like this he should not have put our payment through. He should have raised a doubt. He did not raise a doubt. Now all of sudden we are to give them access to our accounts? NO. If they want me to prove that I've applied for a job, all they have to do is ask. I don't keep evidence of job application confirmatory emails on the web server. The emails are in Thunderbird, on my home computer. Even if they accessed my email for jobs applications there's nothing there.   I told him they can have print outs and if they don't like that I will take it up with a DM.

Thank you to everyone so far for responding. It is much appreciated.

Absolut,

The FOI's and DWP's own guidance should be sufficient when making representation to the office manager.

The risk is, that the DWP worker just charges ahead and makes a corrupt submission to the DM.  If a disallowance occurs you are immediately transfered to Universal Credit.

One a side note here. Does anyone know the details of 'Jobsearch' while on the Univ Credit scheme? . Is there much difference between JSA & Universal Credit. Just wondering what the rules are, to avoid any confusion with me and the Roach ?

Pintel wrote:One a side note here. Does anyone know the details of 'Jobsearch' while on the Univ Credit scheme? . Is there much difference between JSA & Universal Credit. Just wondering what the rules are, to avoid any confusion with me and the Roach ?

The rules are similar Pintel.  

The JSA agreement is more flexible compared to the UC/CC.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-your-claimant-commitment-quick-guide/universal-credit-and-your-claimant-commitment

JSA ASE attracts a 1 or 2 week disallowance.

UC sanctions are much longer and severe.  UC Hardship is a loan and has to be paid back, which lengthens the period of loss.

Chapter K4: Medium–level sanctions
Introduction
K4001 This Chapter should be read with ADM Chapter K1 (Sanctions – general principles).
ADM Chapter K1 gives guidance on the meaning of terms, and what considerations apply when determining what reduction period applies. See ADM Chapter K2 for guidance on good reason, ADM Chapter K8 for guidance on when the reduction has effect, and Chapter K9 for guidance on the amount of the reduction.
K4002 A medium–level sanction is a reduction of UC for a sanctionable failure by a claimant who fails for no good reason (see ADM Chapter K2) to comply with1
1. a work search requirement, but only in relation to the requirement to take all
reasonable action to obtain paid work, more paid work or better paid work2–
see K4003 – K4004 for when a higher or low–level sanction applies or
2. a work availability requirement3 – but see K4004 for where a higher–level
sanction applies.
See ADM Chapter J3 for guidance on work–related requirements. See ADM
Chapter K1 (Sanctions – general principles) for the meaning of a ‘sanctionable
failure’ and ‘current sanctionable failure’.
1 WR Act 12, s 27(2)(a); UC Regs, reg 103(1); 2 WR Act 12, s 17(1)(a); UC Regs, reg 95; 3 s 18(1)
K4003 Failure to meet a specified work search requirement usually results in a low–level sanction being imposed1 – see ADM Chapter K5 (Low–level sanctions). See also
K4004 for when a low–level sanction is applied for a failure to comply with a specified work search requirement.
1 WR Act 12, s 17(1)(b) & 27; UC Regs, reg 104

K4004 A higher–level sanction may be imposed where the claimant fails to comply with a specified work search requirement to apply for a particular vacancy for paid work1.

Where the failure to comply with a work availability requirement is because the claimant did not take up an offer of paid work, a higher–level sanction may be imposed2. See ADM Chapter K3 (Higher–level sanctions) for detailed guidance.
1 WR Act 12, s 26(2)(b); 2 UC Regs, reg 102; WR Act 12, s 26(2)(c); UC Regs, reg 102

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/787448/admk4.pdf

D.Appleby wrote:Absolut,

The FOI's and DWP's own guidance should be sufficient when making representation to the office manager.

The risk is, that the DWP worker just charges ahead and makes a corrupt submission to the DM.  If a disallowance occurs you are immediately transfered to Universal Credit.

I know that once our claim is closed I can't go back to JSA. "immediately transferred to UC" actually means a data transfer only. I'd still have to make an actual claim and they can't force me to do that, as the work coach assigned to us last August tried to do.

I'm a bit of a stickler for paperwork because the DWP likes to shove their rules down our throats, but when it comes to them not following their own rules they get all shirty about it. For example, where common procedures are concerned, such as "signing on", the DWP is very much not "back to normal". When we go in every fortnight we are not asked to sign an ES24JP. No actual labour market declaration signing has been made since March 2020.

I declare that since I made my claim or last provided a signed declaration (if later), unless I have told you otherwise:
• there has been no change in circumstances which might affect the award of Jobseeker’s Allowance, or the amount payable;
• I have been available for employment, or have satisfied the rules for being treated as available for employment; and
• I have been actively seeking employment to the extent necessary to give me the best prospects of securing employment, or have satisfied the rules for being treated as available for employment.
I also declare that since I made my claim or last provided a signed declaration (if later):
• I have done no work, paid or unpaid, unless I have told you otherwise;
• I have reported any changes in the circumstances of my dependants, if I claim Jobseeker’s Allowance for them; and
• the information I have given is correct and complete.

When I asked the aggressive clerk why we don't sign anything he fobbed it off, citing covid and having to disinfect pens. We can't sign a declaration because "covid" but they can order us to use a keyboard and mouse used by the general public all day long?

As there has been no labour market declaration signature for the last 2 years then unless they get a new one pronto that is the one they are going to have to rely on in court. If they can use covid as an excuse, then so can we.

Cheers all for the responses.

That's right Absolut.  You can't be forced to move to UC if your JSA claim is closed due a disallowance decision (god forbid) following an ASE doubt referral to the DM.  The DWP worker will insist you move to UC if you need social security support.

D.Appleby wrote:That's right Absolut.  You can't be forced to move to UC if your JSA claim is closed due a disallowance decision (god forbid) following an ASE doubt referral to the DM.  The DWP worker will insist you move to UC if you need social security support.

That is interesting. I had a workroach close my JSA account (unlawfully and she was sacked) There was no way of going back once it was closed so I was forced onto UC.

oneman wrote:That is interesting. I had a workroach close my JSA account (unlawfully and she was sacked) There was no way of going back once it was closed so I was forced onto UC.

It's the claim itself for UC that means there's no way back. Not claiming UC after the closure error is what Rights Net recommends. They can't help if a UC claim has been made, only if it hasn't been made. Not everyone can afford to not immediately claim UC, or has the strength or knowledge to pursue a judicial review to get the JSA claim re-opened.

As far as I know only a Decision Maker can close a claim and it can't be the same person who raised the doubt (a work roach). The DM guide to closure of a claim (readily available online) makes it very clear that they'd better be 100% sure before closing down a JSA claim in case the claimant pursues a judicial review.  

The work roach was not my usual work roach and I had had issues with her before. The bitch just wanted to make things difficult for me. There was definitely no way back as they showed me that my claim and my details had been removed from the system. They no longer existed.

oneman wrote:The work roach was not my usual work roach and I had had issues with her before. The bitch  just wanted to make things difficult for me. There was definitely no way back as they showed me that my claim and my details had been removed from the system. They no longer existed.

That's just awful. If it happens to us I'm prepared for it, financially. However, we can't take a sanction on top of a closure. They nastily port sanctions over to UC. Did they do that to you as well?

I did not exist so no sanction.

oneman wrote:I did not exist so no sanction.

Wow. That's bizarre. To delete a claimant's total prior history it would take a sysadmin. They are supposed to keep data for a number of years before deleting it.

Update on the situation - we weren't asked yesterday, during our JSA "work search review" to go on one of their computers to prove ASE. I was subjected to a passive aggressive verbal diatribe instead that had nothing to do with JSA or our work search evidence. I was badgered about claiming UC for about an hour.  

Next appointment: booked in to change 4.5 year old CCs, neither of which have an employment officer's signature on them. Seeing as they aren't allowing us to sign anything it will be interesting to see how they think an unsigned CC will hold up under the JSA Act. Our 4.5 year old ones only have our signatures on them and there's no documentary proof we've been anywhere near the JCP office since March 2020  

Might be time for a formal complaint.

About 10 years ago while on JSA. I had an unsigned CC ( my signature missing ) running for about 4 years. I brought the matter up when a sanction was issued but it made no difference. I can't remember why until I dig out my old letters but I think that something else overrides the CC.
What ever you do, never sign over to CC from JSA. It's just too much of a problem if you get a sanction and it is all stacked against you. I was lucky and could afford to ride it out until I won the appeal. Other people may not be able to do this and unfortunately they know this and this is why they want you to change over.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/judge-brands-dwp-jobseekers-agreement-unlawful-action-disabled-claimant/
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/5862

This aforementioned information maybe helpful to some people.

oneman wrote:About 10 years ago while on JSA. I had an unsigned CC ( my signature missing ) running for about 4 years. I brought the matter up when a sanction was issued but it made no difference. I can't remember why until I dig out my old letters but I think that something else overrides the CC.
What ever you do, never sign over to CC from JSA. It's just too much of a problem if you get a sanction and it is all stacked against you. I was lucky and could afford to ride it out until I won the appeal. Other people may not be able to do this and unfortunately they know this and this is why they want you to change over.

Thanks for the response.  I'm aware that a sanction can be ported over from JSA to UC. I will not shift across voluntarily to UC if I can help it. Like yourself it will take them illegally closing our claim for that to happen.

If a JSAg (CC) is not signed it falls back to the rules in the Jobseeker's Allowance Act. That is what over-rides a CC. The 'law'.  It always has. But some roaches are a law unto themselves, as you already know. The CC is not a "contract" as DWP employees seem to believe. I know they are going to try to make the new CCs onerous so that we will refuse to sign them. We will sign whatever garbage the roach comes up with. It means nothing to me. It's all fiction. They can't give me a job. Only an employer can. All they can do is sanction us or close our claim. Neither of those actions gets us a job. All it does is prove they are a waste of taxpayer money. Not one of them have ever truly helped me.

Mephistopheles describes himself in the following way, “Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint.” Which roughly translates as “I am the spirit who constantly negates everything you say.”

Describes perfectly nearly every single roach I've ever met.

I'm not sure what you mean "never sign over to CC from JSA". Do you mean sign over from JSA to UC?

D.Appleby wrote:https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/judge-brands-dwp-jobseekers-agreement-unlawful-action-disabled-claimant/
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/5862

This aforementioned information maybe helpful to some people.

Thanks for the info. Most illuminating.