Family and Friends Forum

WorriedAndConfused

Member since
November 2024

137 posts

Hi

so my husband lost his job after being advised to disclose to his boss that he had a court date coming up. Nothing was disclosed about the actual charge. The word court was enough to get him fired.



we moved onto benefits, which is fine because we didn't know what's happening. The CJSW said they would tell the job centre manager about his conviction and that he is not allowed internet access, which means he can't search for jobs. They also said the new work coach will be aware of this. Well, he went to his appointment this week and the work coach questioned why he hadn't done any job searches. He had to think fast and make up an excuse. I don't know if the CJSW has actually told the job centre or if the job centre just haven't put anything in place. We could be sanctioned over this.



anyone else has something similar happen?

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 8:00amReport post

Distressed and pregnant

Member since
November 2020

1201 posts

Hi,

is it a joint claim? Could you put a note on your journal? xxx

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 9:36amReport post

WorriedAndConfused

Member since
November 2024

137 posts

Hiya

Yeah it's a joint claim. He was advised not to put anything on his journal or mention it all whilst in the job centre as CJSW would take care of all of that

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 9:58amReport post

Distressed and pregnant

Member since
November 2020

1201 posts

Job centre are aware of my partners conviction but he has to go through it whenever he gets a new work coach. Could he contact the cjsw to ask if they have been made aware? Have cjsw said anything about how he should apply for jobs as most are online applications now? How long is his order for? xxx

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 10:38amReport post

edel2020

Member since
March 2022

541 posts

There is a process for protecting this sort of confidential information. A designated officer in the jobcentre should be contacted and the info is usually held in a locked cabinet, with only limited details shared with the work coaches.

However, because the court order in this case is so restrictive, it raises a further problem. Access to the internet is essential for job hunting and restricting it is generally considered disproportionate, in England and Wales at least.

My suggestion is that he speaks to the CJSWR and agree his use of the internet for job searches. If they will not agree to that, then ask them to speak to the work coach over the phone, to explain there is a court order in place saying he cannot use the internet.

It is important to remember that he does not have to discuss the offence, only the restrictions. He should have already told them that he cannot work in any job that requires a DBS check example, because they need to know that.

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 10:50amReport post

WorriedAndConfused

Member since
November 2024

137 posts

We are in Scotland

it was the police officer who attends to check his phone who requested a ban on his internet usage as she didn't like all the social media he has on his phone - which is the same that I, and most others, have. She was so nasty saying its utterly unacceptable to have so much social media. The condition set by the court is "no unsupervised internet access" which his lawyer believed to be the same as it was before the hearing (phone checked and history checked) apparently not



the order is for 3 years. He meets with his new CJSW tomorrow. I do know they haven't had the multiagency meeting yet so they are not on the same page at the moment and their interpretation of conditions are all over the place.



as for the job searches, as everything has to be uploaded on to the journal which is obviously online. As are the applications. He's to go to some place called routes to work and they will search jobs for him (and know his restrictions) but he has to wait for them to send an appointment out to him.



the whole thing is a mess

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 11:19am
Edited Thu May 22, 2025 11:23amReport post

edel2020

Member since
March 2022

541 posts

Was he referred to Routes to Work by the jobcentre? So long as the work coach realises he is going to be doing his job searches somewhere, there should be no question of any sanction.

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 11:35amReport post

WorriedAndConfused

Member since
November 2024

137 posts

CJSW said they would sort routes to work. Just wish someone would get their act together

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 11:55amReport post

Mummy-to-lots

Member since
November 2024

48 posts

Sorry to jump in but can I ask.... can they completely restrict/stop Internet access?? My son has very little going for him at present and pretty much all he does is gaming (he has always been massive gamer) when restrictions comes in if he can't play online games I really fear for his mental health, I feel emotional just thinking that he lost so much already.

Posted Thu May 22, 2025 10:28pmReport post

WorriedAndConfused

Member since
November 2024

137 posts

Well before these conditions were confirmed, the police officer who comes to check his phone told him she wanted a ban on internet access but he could still play the Xbox but the CJSW said it's a ban on everything.

Posted Fri May 23, 2025 12:09amReport post

edel2020

Member since
March 2022

541 posts

I do not know about the situation in Scotland, but in England and Wales, the court of appeal was absolutely clear that a total ban on internet use is disproportionate.

When an SHPO is handed down, the barrister should check it very carefully. SHPOs do not normally contain internet bans, only a requirement to not delete your internet history. Any ban should be challenged.

What should happen, but very rarely does, is that the barrister should discuss any court order with their client before they go into court. That gives the person a chance to ask questions, like am I still allowed to play online games.

But once the court order is in place, it can only be undone by going back to court.

Posted Fri May 23, 2025 11:14amReport post

Quick exit