FOI sanctions for not applying for enough jobs

In a twist of fate the DWP are reluctant to say how many jobs a claimant has to apply for so as not to be referred for a sanction. They decided to reply by saying the following

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 August 2015. I apologise for the delay in replying to you. You asked:   
Could you please provide me with the minimum number of jobs a claimant has to apply for in a 7 day period to avoid the risk of been referred for a sanction. 
It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in relation to issues/policies under question.  
In cases where a customer does ask a question, rather than request recorded information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best answers the question. Once the public authority has provided the recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information provided is left to the requestor. 
We have understood your question to relate to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to whom the Jobseekers Act 1995 and Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 apply. As there is no legal requirement for JSA claimants to apply for a minimum number of jobs each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists. However, to be helpful you may find the following explanation useful about the entitlement condition for JSA claimants to actively seek work. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the Freedom of Information regime. 
In order to qualify for JSA, a person must be actively seeking work in each week of their claim. This means they are generally expected to do all they reasonably can each week to give them the best prospects of securing employment. The actions that it would be reasonable for the claimant to take will be personalised and tailored to the individual and will be specified on their JSA Claimant Commitment. 
Evidence shows that claimants who engage in active, effective and persistent jobsearch activity are more likely to find work quickly compared to those that don’t. Therefore, the expectation is that for most JSA claimants, looking for work will be a full time job in itself. Claimants are expected to spend several hours each day
looking for work, taking into account any restrictions applied to their availability. However, there is no `set’ time that a person must be engaged in looking for work whilst claiming JSA, rather it is a legal requirement for them to do all that is reasonable for them to do each week. 
If you have any queries about this letter please contact us quoting the reference number above.    Yours sincerely,   
DWP Central FoI Team  


They are clearly trying to say they are not an advice service, when they use so many varied reasons for applying a sanction, one of their excuses is not applying for enough jobs, all that was wanted was a clear guideline on how many jobs a person has to apply for between each signing on period, be it one a day or one per week.
The advisers clearly seem to think that it can vary from day to day and may refer a claimant for a sanction because they only applied for one job per week, while another adviser may refer a claimant for a sanction because they applied for five or ten jobs per week and simply say they are not doing enough to find work. I would have gone further on the request and asked then what details they refer to a decision maker with regards to a sanction referral, do they just put not applying for enough jobs when they refer it to a decision maker or do they actually say the claimant has applied for X number of jobs, something I think they do is the not applying for enough jobs and leave out any figures.

The DWP or JC+ should clearly have it in their rules that a person agrees to apply for a minimum of X job(s) per week and this should be information that can be freely given out to anybody who asks, but it appears the DWP are using the NOT AN INFORMATION SERVICE card to avoid giving out any official, or unofficial, directions of how many jobs a claimant has to apply for. It is my opinion they are lower than a rattlesnakes balls.

Pulling products and contracts

Tesco are pulling products off shelves their latest is Carlsberg lager they are soon going to be left with very few if any branded products. They have pulled products like schweppes, Ribena, just what is this organisation up too? It is my opinion that they will eventually get rid of just about every brand product and go down the ALDI/LIDL route, stocking the shelves with mainly own brand products from their value to the speciality range. They will try and squeeze the brand suppliers out of business, just like they did to local shops.

If the customers let them do this and brand names disappear from shelves then that will be it for the brand names and eventually Tesco, if they are allowed to get away with it, they are hoping to get the product from the makers at cost, or less,  if they don't comply then they are, IMHO, refusing to stock them.
They are effectively holding suppliers to ransom, telling them how much they want and how much they will pay then charging the customers top price, it is time the supermarkets were made to display how much they paid the manufacturer per unit, be it a can or tin, the only way suppliers can compete with demands from supermarkets is to pay the producers less per unit, just like they've done with milk, they pay less but expect the customer to pay the same or more. It's the same with other supermarkets with their 3 for £10 offers they still cost £10, take the cost of mince as an example the first time I bought it you 800g now you get 600g, that's 25% less for the same price and it's the same with all 3 for £10 offers meat cut thinner and less weight but the same number of items in the box but they weigh less.

Once one supermarket does it the others follow, it's the customers who hold the power when shopping not the supermarket, think about it for a minute, if you don't shop there they don't make the money and stuff is reduced because they cannot sell it.
The one thing that any supermarket hates is to see a potential customer go into the store and leave without making a purchase! They wiped out most of the local stores now they want to wipe out the branded product makers, well maybe not wipe them out, but hit them so hard they have no option but to get out by selling to the supermarkets at a low price, then after a while you see a store full of own brand products that creep up in price until they are charging the price that the brand product supplier wanted to charge in the first place. It's called wiping out the competition, they either submit and take the loss or go bust and the supermarket steps in and buys it for virtually nothing and uses the recipe to improve their own products. Once they have removed the competition they go on to increase the prices has they now hold the monopoly they have in all effect removed the premium brand suppliers and can steadily raise their own brand prices and the losers in all this are the low paid and benefit claimants who cannot afford the increased prices.