I've made a complaint about my Work Coach

A suspicion

the op has flagrantly lied in the op

DWP are insisting she come in

i reckon she has missed multiple

and given the ease (and stupidity) of the lie in the op that can so easily be checked - I imagine she’s like that with agencies to.

so what was your understanding of what the compliance team do?

You didn’t get a response
You assumed you didn’t need to turn up to a meeting

Just wondering why you think they would get involved with OP, nothing states they are doing anything fraudulent, and they don't get involved in sanctions

That indication can either come for a report from someone, HMRC, an investigation or a suspicion of a work coach

They check claims where there is an indication that the claimant is being incorrectly paid - either due to a mistake or fraud

So you could have potentially did some temp work for 4 weeks and not claimed uc for that time, and they send you an upload link if you ask for one.

So your commitments would gave stated you attended appointments which you didn't,you hadn't started work yet and were still claiming so you should have gone to the appointment.

Or should you have sat on your arse for 4 weeks claiming money from the government, you had got a job to start in a month so its clear you were capable of working, you just didn't fancy it and wanted a bit more time before you started working full time.

🤣 still looking like one of the undead.

I got sanctioned for getting a job!

I'd passed 2 interviews, had signed the contract, it was 38 hours per week. However was not going to start for another 4 weeks.

I wrote all of this in my journal - they don't you a link to upload anything unless it's a fit note, and even then they just ask you to declare and not upload.

So I missed on appointment explaining that I had secured work etc etc - and they sanctioned me for not going in.

I went fucking apeshit, decision reversed finally.

It's really not an easy life on benefits - dancing to the tune of the government and the personality of your work coach.

I'm going to guess you're not certain what the Compliance team do?

Let me guess @Trinity65

You also despise the DWP?

Think you need to change your user name love
Endlessly Patient ?
lmao

Meow

Were you born this way or do you work on it ?

Wind your neck in
This isn't a Court of Law !!!

Some of you people , . Honestly.

I am a 'work coach' in a different country.

I don't understand why you've been sanctioned, when you say that you had the inteview over the phone?

Your reason of not being able to afford petrol wouldnt wash here - there are specific grounds.

I have had clients cycle similar distances, so it's not a ridiculous suggestion.

Others are saying that the website hasnt been down. If youre having internet problems then you need to fix it.

Exactly

I am rooting the DWP on.

If she'd have phoned up the Service centre they'd have sent a handover which would have been sent to her Case manager so they could have left notes on her claim or raised an mandatory reconsideration in regards to the DM's decision on the sanction applied, even the telephony staff could have left a note on her claim so you can't blame "the site was down".

I’m just pleased the DWP are standing firm with this one tbh

Mhmm! Also she states she doesn't know how much she'll be sanctioned but she'll have had a letter on her journal which gives you the details of how much will be reduced depending on the type of sanction, so she could work it out, but as another poster has also mentioned, sanctions have to go to a DM and you have to have missed a few appointments to be given a sanction from the FTA's (failed to attend) it's actually a bit of a process to get the sanction applied so again, bollocks

The OP won’t be back.

She has fibbed here (and taken us for fools!) and I imagine theDWP are on to her hence making her come in person.

op… brace yourself for a letter from the compliance team

I can also confirm that the site hasn't been down at all. We get emails to say if the sites down,phone lines,or any other technical issue, so that's absolute bollocks.

posters are ignoring the fact the Op LIED

LIED

the UC website has not been “down” once this week (or indeed since February (for 6 hours)).

So if the OP lies in her OP to anonymous posters… I would take a big bet that the DWP want her in because she’s done this multiple times and / or they are suspicious in some way of her claim.

I wish you lived near me. I am desperate for admin staff, and because its Civil Service, we can be very flexible with accommodations for disabilities.

Your work coach is a bit of an arsehole, quite frankly.

Just to add. I know for me and my colleagues we didn't want to have a caseload full of sanctioned customers, if we did then it would have been impossible to fill our diaries and do the required amount of appointments per day, if we had loads of sanctions we would not have been able to make appointments for them.

This is correct as a former WC myself and now working for another area of DWP.

Simple fact is the WC does not make the sanction, that is down to a Decision Maker. It's not a case that someone doesn't arrive and they are sanctioned immediately by the WC.

99% of the time as well, if there is any hint of a vulnerability the DM will not allow the sanction at all, and during COVID sanctions did not happen at all, all appointments were on the phone and if people didn't answer there was nothing we could do. Didnt even make a referral as it would be rejected.

Every WC I worked with was brilliant and went above and beyond to help the customer, sad fact was there were so many who knew how to play the system and did not want to be helped.

There never was and never will be targets for getting people sanctioned, it is a last resort.

There are many things I hate about the benefits system and feel so many things could be so much better. It should be possible to offer telephone appointments / zoom where appropriate to avoid unnecessary travel costs as the rates of benefits are far too low. However, as tough as it is it’s clear from the outset that you’ll be sanctioned if you miss appointments and that money must be put aside for the travel so this has to be prioritised or the sanctions then have a knock on effect so it’s false economy to use the £5 needed for travel for something else, if it then means your next payment is docked. I say that as someone who feels the whole system needs a complete overhaul and someone who feels that the rates or benefits are too low too. I hope you get sorted.

*So all the stats and reports that were so important that DWP paid a specialist team to resolve an urgent issue are not used? We were told they were needed to ensure targets were being met on sanctions and other metrics (and that matched the titles we saw, albeit more flowery language was used).

At least one person I had to deal with was quite smug about their usage.*

Yeah, they’re not used. This has been confirmed by several former Work Coaches now and I’ll join them. Stop flogging that dead horse. You’re wrong.

To return to the OP; I’d be interested to know what reason was given for this supposed sanction and how quickly it was imposed. The post indicates it was effected immediately but, as someone who worked as a WC as little as a year ago, I can assure you sanctions are not easily imposed and the rationale has to be cast iron (with no evidence that the claimant made any attempt, however feeble, to avoid it). Timescale-wise, about a fortnight is more realistic. The WC has to have it okayed by their Team Leader and then it’s referred to a Decision Maker. So, yeah, I’m dubious of OP’s honesty. She’s already lied about the site being down. Seems like just another thread to talk shit about Work Coaches. I’m sure some are terrible and really shouldn’t be in that line of work but, to echo the sentiments of a few others, most genuinely want to help their customers. Sadly, I’m my experience, it quickly becomes apparent that it’s just not an achievable goal within the framework that you must operate. I left for this very reason, but some brilliant WC stayed and are still there now. Don’t call them all ‘vile’; it’s about as accurate as useful as someone else labelling all benefits claimants as lazy.