UKSSCSC CJSA_2931_2003 (28 June 2004)

PLH                                                                       Commissioner's File:  CJSA 2931/03

	JOBSEEKERS ACT 1995
	SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1998

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ON A QUESTION OF LAW

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

Claim for:  		Jobseekers Allowance
Appeal Tribunal: 	            Romford 
Tribunal Case Ref:  	U/42/153/2003/00192
Tribunal date:		21 March 2003
Reasons issued:		20 May 2003

1. 	This claimant’s appeal is dismissed,  as in my judgment there was no error of law in the decision of the Romford appeal tribunal sitting on 21 March 2003 confirming the imposition of an 18-week sanction for jobseeker’s allowance because the claimant had failed without good cause to pursue a job vacancy that had been notified to him.  I decline the claimant’s request for an oral hearing of his appeal as he has failed to comply with the Legal Officer’s direction to identify what, if any, points of law he wishes to argue that require an oral hearing before a Commissioner, and having considered all the written material he has submitted I am satisfied that the appeal can be properly determined without such a hearing. 
2.	The claimant is a man now aged 46, who at the material time had been on jobseeker’s allowance continuously since early July 2001.  His original claim form and jobseeker’s agreement said that he was looking for administrative, clerical or computer programming work; but after a period of over 13 months' lack of success in this search it was plainly reasonable for him to be offered, and be expected to accept, other forms of employment including that of a driver, which was the type of vacancy notified to him by the Job Centre on 14 August 2002.  
3.	There is no dispute that on that date he was given written particulars of such a vacancy, with clear instructions and the name and contact number of the person to ring to arrange for an interview: pages 32 to 33.  It was also in evidence, and found as a fact by the tribunal, that this particular vacancy remained open and was not filled for a period of a further 2½ months until 1 November 2002.  The claimant’s responses when asked why he had not taken more effective steps to apply for this vacancy were evasive and contradictory.  First he said he had telephoned the employer but been told the vacancy was already filled, he could not remember when.  Then when the department had been informed by the employer that the claimant had in fact telephoned and arranged the interview but failed to turn up for it or to make any contact thereafter, the claimant said that when he rang to check the directions for his interview, he had been told the job had gone at that stage though he gave no details of when this had happened either. (Full details of the company and its address had in any event been set out on the written notification of the vacancy.)   Finally at the tribunal hearing, as shown on the chairman’s contemporaneous note of the evidence he gave, the claimant said first that somebody at the firm had told him the job had gone though he could not remember the date he rang; but then later on he asserted that he had found the job had gone when he initially phoned, and this had been the day after he went to the Job Centre.
4.	In view of that evidence, the tribunal which consisted of a chairman sitting alone was in my view justified in finding as a fact on a balance of probabilities that the claimant had not applied for the vacancy on the day it was notified to him or as soon as possible afterwards.  His evidence of having rung the company at once but discovering that the vacancy had already been filled could not have been true; since in fact, as the tribunal found, it had been notified to him and available from 14 August 2002 and not filled until 1 November.  The claimant had contradicted his earlier statements about when he had contacted the firm and what he was told when he did, and had not given any reason for not applying in time or shown good cause for failing to apply.  In those circumstances the tribunal confirmed that the claimant should be sanctioned from 11 December 2002 to 15 April 2003 
“because he had ample opportunity to apply for the vacancy, he failed to do so, and his credibility is suspect, when he gave evidence that the vacancy had gone whereas in fact it remained open for some time”.
5.	The tribunal’s findings of fact were clearly justified on the evidence before it, and its reasons for confirming the imposition of a discretionary sanction of 18 weeks under section 19(2) and (6) Jobseekers Act 1995 are clearly and adequately stated.  There can be no doubt that the imposition of such a sanction is within the band of reasonableness in a case where the claimant is found to have made no real effort to follow up a vacancy notified to him, has been out of work and continuing to draw benefit for so long, and has been less than straightforward with the department about the efforts he made to obtain the job.  The grounds put forward by the claimant for this appeal consist simply of disputing some of the findings of fact made against him and he has failed to identify any point of law or respond to the Secretary of State’s submissions despite the express direction for him to do so.
6.	In those circumstances I accept the submission of Ms M Earles on behalf of the Secretary of State dated 11 December 2003 on pages 67 to 69 that the tribunal was entitled to reach the decision it did and did not err in law in doing so, and this appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

(Signed)

P L Howell
Commissioner
28 June 2004