Decision of the Upper Tribunal
(Administrative Appeals Chamber)
As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (made on 31 March 2015 at Runcorn under reference SC121/15/00028) involved the making of an error in point of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the decision is RE-MADE.
The decision is: the proposed variation to the claimant’s jobseeker’s agreement was not reasonable and the claimant remained entitled to jobseeker's allowance on and from 26 October 2014, subject to satisfying the other conditions of entitlement. 
Reasons for Decision
1.	This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. On giving directions on the appeal, I invited the Secretary of State to suggest any decision that I might substitute for the one the tribunal gave. The Secretary of State’s representative has suggested a decision. The claimant has agreed that I may give that decision. 
2.	As the decision is given with the consent of the parties, I am absolved of the duty to give reasons by virtue of rule 40(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
3.	It is, though, appropriate in this case to set out in summary why the Secretary of State’s representative has proposed the decision that I have given. 
4.	The claimant was awarded a jobseeker's allowance from 22 June 2009. On 26 September 2014, an employment officer proposed to vary the claimant’s jobseeker’s agreement (the claimant commitment as it is now called). The claimant refused to agree to the variation, which involved attending ‘skills conditionality for UJ/CV workshop’, as he objected to opening a Universal Jobmatch account. The disagreement was referred to a decision-maker, who terminated his agreement and entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance from and including 26 October 2014.
5.	The Secretary of State’s representative before the Upper Tribunal has accepted that the proposed changes to the agreement were not reasonable. Her argument is that the purpose of an agreement is to set out details of jobseeking. It is not a proper part of that agreement to include ‘sanctionable activities’. The representative has submitted that the appropriate way to impose a condition to open an account, if that was considered necessary, was to give a direction under section 19A of the Jobseekers Act 1995. Moreover, it was not appropriate to vary the agreement by imposing a requirement to attend a Skills Conditionality Scheme. The proper course was to refer the claimant to the scheme under regulation 3(7) of the Jobseeker's Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013 (SI No 276). 
6.	Although it is not relevant in view of the Secretary of State’s approach on this appeal, the tribunal was also in error by failing to make clear whether or not it had accepted the substitute decision proposed in the Secretary of State’s submission to the First-tier Tribunal. The judge’s decision notice suggested not, but some passages in the judge’s written reasons suggested otherwise. 

Signed on original
on 3 September 2015	Edward Jacobs
Upper Tribunal Judge