Padding wanted for "35 hour work search"

Regarding the 35 hours nonsense, just do a print out of the following and show it to your WC if they start playing games with you:


THE 35 HOUR RULE IS ONLY A GUIDELINE

Within the Universal Credit legislation, there is a specific reference to the expectation of 35 hours per week for claimants. The relevant text from the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 states:

1. Legislative References

"The 'expected number of hours per week... is 35 unless some lesser number of hours applies."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/data.pdf

This wording indicates that the 35-hour requirement SERVES AS AN EXPECTATION regarding job search efforts, RATHER THAN A STRICT MANDATE dictating how many hours must be spent actively seeking employment.

2. Interpretation of Expected Hours

It is important to understand that the 35 hours is a GUIDELINE rather than an OBLIGATORY requirement for job search activities. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has clarified that there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION for claimants to engage in a specified number of job search hours each week. Instead, the emphasis is on encouraging claimants to undertake reasonable efforts to secure employment without being constrained by an arbitrary target.

3. DWP Guidance and Misunderstandings

The DWP guidance explicitly states that a claimant's expected hours of work search are not intended to create an artificial target. The focus of engagement with claimants should be on their efforts to find work, RATHER THAN MEETING A 35-HOUR BENCHMARK.

As noted in various DWP documents and responses to Freedom of Information requests:

“A claimant's 'expected hours' of work search is not something that is intended to drive the claimant to meet an artificial hours target. The aim – and the focus of engagement with claimants – should be on getting them to do everything reasonable to find work as quickly as possible.”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/claimant_commitment_hub_pages/response/904624/attach/7/4%20Availability%20overview.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Thus, if claimants believe they must actively seek work for 35 hours, this may result in misunderstandings and miscommunications with their work coaches. Given that the law DOES NOT MANDATE a fixed number of job search hours, it raises legitimate questions regarding the authority of any work coach insisting upon that number.

4. Conclusion

In summary, the 35-hour rule SHOULD NOT be construed as a strict requirement. It functions more as a benchmark that can be ADJUSTED according to individual circumstances. This interpretation is SUPPORTED BY DWP guidance, which contradicts any notion of mandatory 35 hours in claimant commitments.

If claimants are misled into thinking they are required to spend 35 hours on job searches, it can lead to misunderstandings with work coaches that can result in unnecessary confusion. Therefore, it is essential for work coaches to recognise this distinction and ADHERE TO THE GUIDANCE provided by the DWP.


Note:

It has been pointed out that the document linked to in the above is contradictory. In that on one hand, the document states that a claimant's "expected hours" of work search is not intended to force them to meet an artificial hours target. The focus is on doing everything reasonable to find work as quickly as possible. On the other hand, it does say that claimants in the All Work Related Requirements (AWRR) Intensive regime are expected to spend a minimum of 35 hours a week engaged in work-search activities unless restrictions have been agreed to reduce their availability below this figure

But I actually see this ambiguity as a good thing for claimants. The document's language, while contradictory, creates a useful grey area. On one hand, it says claimants are not expected to meet an artificial hours target for work search, and the focus should be on doing everything reasonable to find a job. On the other hand, it sets a baseline of 35 hours a week for those in the AWRR Intensive regime.

This ambiguity could work in a claimant's favour. If a work coach tries to push someone into meeting the 35-hour threshold rigidly, the claimant could reference the part about not being driven to meet an artificial target. This gives claimants some room to negotiate, argue for flexibility, or deflect undue pressure. The doubt that exists in the wording can serve as a buffer against being forced into meeting strict requirements when their individual situation might warrant a more tailored approach.