Tweet
I'd like to preface my question with an analogy, as that will help members of the forum to focus on the problem at hand. Not that it is a complicated problem, but it does bring up contentious issues that may distract from the thrust of this post:
A Minister could make a Regulation (as opposed to the the Government bringing in a new Act of Parliament) that requires all JSA claimants to be under 6 feet tall, the Minister's reasons being that anyone over 6 feet tall will easily find work immediately, therefore having no need to claim JSA.
The effect of such a Regulation would be severe and unfair, but what can you do about it? It would obviously be an issue that needs addressing from a legal position.
The example above may appear to be a bit daft and unlikely, but I think it makes the point about the issues that need resolving in the following situation:
Due to the introduction of the new Lone Parent Regulations my friend had her Income Support stopped and had to claim JSA instead.
She then had her JSA stopped. The IS decision is being appealed mainly, but not exclusively (breach of ECHR Article 8 is also alleged), on the fact that my friend is not allowed under JSA rules to receive JSA, as she is not able to go out to work due to childcare provision being completely unavailable to her. Her JSA was stopped because she was not able to go out to work due to childcare provision being unavailable to her! She has applied for Hardship Payments, but got no answer.
The appeal against the Income Support decision is now at the Upper Tribunal, who are waiting for the Free Representation Unit to get on board. If they don't the problem is the quoting of the law, as the Secretary of State has asked my friend to identify the legal authority that proves the decision was ultra vires (as that is the main thrust of the appeal). The Sec of State has quoted Acts and Regulations in support of making the decision, so my friend now needs to show by reference to legislation that the decision was wrong.
My friend has been without any form of Personal Allowance for nearly five months, and I know that cannot be lawful. I'm not exactly a slouch when it comes to looking up a bit of law, but I can't pin this one down, so need some guidance on the relevant Acts and Regulations etc that would prove that despite the change in the rules brought about by the Secretary of State's Lone Parent Regulations my friend is still entitled to money to live on.
My friend may not get any joy from the Upper Tribunal for many more months (been nearly a year now since the IS decision), and her JSA appeal seems very unlikely to succeed, and no hardship payments are forthcoming, what should she do? Her MP has ignored her pleas for help and advice, the CAB aren't able themselves to do anything, and a letter before action threatening to seek an order in the county court has yielded no response. She is at the end of being able to borrow, her situation is desperate and she would be grateful for any advice.
The starting point for what the law says about this, I would imagine, would be 'The Poor Laws', moving forward to National Assistance and on to the Health and Social Security Acts etc.
I have some more to add that elaborates on the points raised above:
The Secretary of State is not complying with his promise to ensure adequate childcare for all Lone Parents moved onto JSA. The intention was there to provide the childcare, so obviously a need was seen for it. The fact of it not being provided is like pulling the rug from under one's feet - many agencies were concerned about the lack of childcare provision for older children, and was one reason that the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the new Regulations should not be implemented. My friend is unable to comply with the conditions for JSA due to this failure, which is beyond her control - as her circumstances are.
I believe, but am not certain, that a Regulation such as this one cannot override the Primary Legislation that has always sought to take care of those that need it by way of a minimum amount of income to survive on.
It is the responsibility of the Local Council, unless I am misinformed, to ensure that the necessary childcare is available, yet there is none. That is why she cannot be a Jobseeker, and why her JSA was stopped - but only after five months of unlawful receipt of JSA, which Jobcentre Plus was told would be the case well before her Income Support was stopped. Her acceptance onto JSA was a sham, a pretence and an abuse of the JSA rules designed to give credibility to the new Regulations.
Logic dictates that if she were entitled to JSA when she first claimed it, then barring any change in circumstances she should still be entitled to it now. I guess the government thought this a better way to do things than simply saying "no more money for you then - tough!".
My friend's JSA claim was closed for the following reason:
"[the Jobseeker] is not available and cannot be treated as available to be employed in the weeks(s) from 03/09/2009.
This is because Jobseeker has no childcare available and home teaches her children and is therefore not available to work any hours".
There is no question about the adequacy of childcare provision - there just isn't any available for children of this age, no matter what hours my friend would be prepared to work.
Thanks for reading - hope to receive some positive feedback but understand if it's negative, but correct.
A Minister could make a Regulation (as opposed to the the Government bringing in a new Act of Parliament) that requires all JSA claimants to be under 6 feet tall, the Minister's reasons being that anyone over 6 feet tall will easily find work immediately, therefore having no need to claim JSA.
The effect of such a Regulation would be severe and unfair, but what can you do about it? It would obviously be an issue that needs addressing from a legal position.
The example above may appear to be a bit daft and unlikely, but I think it makes the point about the issues that need resolving in the following situation:
Due to the introduction of the new Lone Parent Regulations my friend had her Income Support stopped and had to claim JSA instead.
She then had her JSA stopped. The IS decision is being appealed mainly, but not exclusively (breach of ECHR Article 8 is also alleged), on the fact that my friend is not allowed under JSA rules to receive JSA, as she is not able to go out to work due to childcare provision being completely unavailable to her. Her JSA was stopped because she was not able to go out to work due to childcare provision being unavailable to her! She has applied for Hardship Payments, but got no answer.
The appeal against the Income Support decision is now at the Upper Tribunal, who are waiting for the Free Representation Unit to get on board. If they don't the problem is the quoting of the law, as the Secretary of State has asked my friend to identify the legal authority that proves the decision was ultra vires (as that is the main thrust of the appeal). The Sec of State has quoted Acts and Regulations in support of making the decision, so my friend now needs to show by reference to legislation that the decision was wrong.
My friend has been without any form of Personal Allowance for nearly five months, and I know that cannot be lawful. I'm not exactly a slouch when it comes to looking up a bit of law, but I can't pin this one down, so need some guidance on the relevant Acts and Regulations etc that would prove that despite the change in the rules brought about by the Secretary of State's Lone Parent Regulations my friend is still entitled to money to live on.
My friend may not get any joy from the Upper Tribunal for many more months (been nearly a year now since the IS decision), and her JSA appeal seems very unlikely to succeed, and no hardship payments are forthcoming, what should she do? Her MP has ignored her pleas for help and advice, the CAB aren't able themselves to do anything, and a letter before action threatening to seek an order in the county court has yielded no response. She is at the end of being able to borrow, her situation is desperate and she would be grateful for any advice.
The starting point for what the law says about this, I would imagine, would be 'The Poor Laws', moving forward to National Assistance and on to the Health and Social Security Acts etc.
I have some more to add that elaborates on the points raised above:
The Secretary of State is not complying with his promise to ensure adequate childcare for all Lone Parents moved onto JSA. The intention was there to provide the childcare, so obviously a need was seen for it. The fact of it not being provided is like pulling the rug from under one's feet - many agencies were concerned about the lack of childcare provision for older children, and was one reason that the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the new Regulations should not be implemented. My friend is unable to comply with the conditions for JSA due to this failure, which is beyond her control - as her circumstances are.
I believe, but am not certain, that a Regulation such as this one cannot override the Primary Legislation that has always sought to take care of those that need it by way of a minimum amount of income to survive on.
It is the responsibility of the Local Council, unless I am misinformed, to ensure that the necessary childcare is available, yet there is none. That is why she cannot be a Jobseeker, and why her JSA was stopped - but only after five months of unlawful receipt of JSA, which Jobcentre Plus was told would be the case well before her Income Support was stopped. Her acceptance onto JSA was a sham, a pretence and an abuse of the JSA rules designed to give credibility to the new Regulations.
Logic dictates that if she were entitled to JSA when she first claimed it, then barring any change in circumstances she should still be entitled to it now. I guess the government thought this a better way to do things than simply saying "no more money for you then - tough!".
My friend's JSA claim was closed for the following reason:
"[the Jobseeker] is not available and cannot be treated as available to be employed in the weeks(s) from 03/09/2009.
This is because Jobseeker has no childcare available and home teaches her children and is therefore not available to work any hours".
There is no question about the adequacy of childcare provision - there just isn't any available for children of this age, no matter what hours my friend would be prepared to work.
Thanks for reading - hope to receive some positive feedback but understand if it's negative, but correct.
Comment