To this is absolutely insane! Universal Credit Sanction

The cvs do contain work experience, but rather than just listing them, they have alot more detail.

Old:
1980 - 1983 - Grange Hill bank - manager
1983 - 1985 - Walford bank - senior manager

The experience would be in the covering letter.

New
1980 - 1983 -Grange Hill bank - manager

• responsible for running and managing the bank
• recruitment and training of new employees
• developed links with local schools
• increased turnover by 35%
• won 1981 regional manager of the year

1983 -1985 Walford bank manager - senior manager

• youngest senior bank manager in company
• etc

Not going to a UC appointment because someone touched your bum on the tube but you didn’t see who it was?

I think this very much depends on the type of job you are applying to.
I have never applied for a job by just clicking and sending my generic CV.
All require a covering letter and all require me to tailor my cv for the job I am applying for.
I cannot imagine applying for a job w/o telling the prospective employer about my previous employment. Surely previous employment is your experience.

Not in my recent experience of job hunting and then helping with a recruitment procedure. I'd say 50% of applications were CV plus either a covering letter or personal statement that needed to be tailored to the job specification (ones that aren't are sifted out straight away without even looking at CV). Other half were long application forms - also including personal statements.

The job market has got much more competitive so it's better to apply for less jobs but more carefully.

I spent some time job hunting a few years ago, but I didn't spend my days in bed while I was waiting to be granted an interview. I signed on with a temp agency and did all sorts of work while I was job seeking. That's the sort of thing that people who are serious about finding a job do.

I agree. Applying for jobs has changed. You see a job, click, and send your cv. Covering letters are rarely needed either.

op - is your daughter’s cv a modern cv, with strengths, experiences etc, rather than a list previous employment, which was the cv of the past?

@Flumpflimpo do you have a link to back up that example you kept mentioning? “I’ve heard of” isn’t proof of anything.

I was an HR professional for one of the oil majors for a number of years and then volunteered as an adviser for Citizens Advice for 10 years. I don't know more than everyone else, but I absolutely know more than you.
Anyone can say "I know of an employer ..." - that's about as reliable as you claiming an Irish woman sued for unfair dismissal when she actually sued for breach of contract which is wrongful dismissal, so just give me the name of the case (employee? v employer?) and I'll read the judgment for myself.

You’re not wrong in that it’s a bloody hard time for youngsters. In that golden 30 years of the post war period when Britain was so much poorer than today and all the boomers had their hard luck stories made, benefits were given out at need, no questions asked and no sanctions, with council housing available. Britain is a bloody shit country now, absolutely shit to its people. However that will not help you right now - follow the legal advice and get your dd to apologie and follow all procedures correctly from now on.

As i already said if you bothered to read the thread, i know of an employer that was sued for something similiar, and the employee won.

So you dont know more than everyone else.

Miss high and mighty that you are.

I'm not being nasty - I'm making a statement of fact which is that you clearly know nothing about employment law and even though I have been politely correcting you on the law for a while now, you keep arguing with me, so I've run out of patience with you.

You can easily do it on indeed. You save your cv and then just click quickly on loads of jobs

She worked in a corporate role but doesn’t understand you aren’t going to get a similar job from Indeed? Thats your problem to start:

The daughter is lying. She's depressed so I do understand but it physically not possible to apply to that many jobs.

Indeed, and I could have said the same to you when you quoted me i.e. "I know that" but I chose to be polite and explain further what I believed she was trying to say even though she was getting it horribly wrong. I actually think you and I agree i.e. that she was incorrectly referring to gender discrimination when she meant sex discrimination (even though sex discrimination doesn't apply to this case either).

OP you post kinda doesn’t make sense and I get thr feeling there is a lot more to this story. You say your daughter is in bed for up to 16 hours a day. That gives her eight hours. Some of that will be eating, showering etc and yet she is applying for 9/10 jobs a day and has applied for over 1500 jobs. But she has missed more than one appointment? You may not like it but as others have said I’m she has missed appointments and has been sanctioned. You say she doesn’t have any money but she lives at home with you and can’t pay her phone bill. Is that what the money is for? Honestly I think she needs to reevaluate the situation, take responsibility and not have you fight her battles.

Nice! We should have a day one right.

I know someone who just won at an employment tribunal, because her boss said something nasty about her, to someone else.

There were witnesses to what was said, which helped.

Back in the day you only needed one year's continuous service to qualify for full employment rights in the UK, but this was increased to two years in 2012 (good old Tory government 🙄 ). Labour's new Employment Rights Bill, which is due to become law in April 2026, will remove this two-year qualifying period for protection from unfair dismissal altogether, making it a day one right. 😃

I think im right actually.

Ive heard of employers being sued for saying less.

My last workplace got sued for something similiar

The only issue in this instance, is that there is no witness and no proof

But you obviously don’t. It’s not helpful to tell the OP that they could sue. They can’t. It’s not helpful to say they would win at a tribunal. They won’t.

Jesus.

What is wrong with you. Why are you being so nasty?

I was trying to help the OP.

Couldnt you just correct me on something in the law, if it needs to be corrected,

Instead of writing very nastily

"it's clear she doesn't know anything about employment law"

She told the OP that the boss was known to be like that. She heard around the office that he was known to behave that way. So… he would have said it to a man.

She would not win a sex discrimination case. She would lose money.

I doubt that he would have said it to a man!

Not sure why you quoted me. I know that. That’s what I just said?

She also is not referring to gender reassignment. That’s the closest match to the word she has used, but that’s absolutely not what she was meaning when she said it.

She thinks she was talking about sex discrimination. She wasn’t. She was talking about something that doesn’t exist. But she absolutely did not mean gender reassignment. I doubt she even knew that was a separate protected characteristic.