I do not find journalists to be reliable sources on these matters
According to the sourcehttps://www.understandinguniversalcredi ... sanctions/https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... #sanctions
"If you fail to do what you have agreed in your Claimant Commitment without good reason, your Universal Credit payments may be reduced for a set period. This is known as a sanction."
"If you are asked to attend a work search review but don’t attend and don’t have a good reason why, you will receive a sanction until you arrange and attend another work search review.You will be sanctioned for 91 days for your first higher level sanction in any 364 day period, 182 days for your second, or 1,095 days for your third "
"You will be sanctioned for 28 days for your first medium level sanction in any 364 day period, or 91 days for your second "
So for the scenario described there should be multiple failings to meet obligations without good reason.
Whether that actually occurred, or whether the petty bureaucrats were too harsh, is impossible to say from the undoubtedly one-sided account in the newspaper.
My understanding of Universal Credit is that it is designed to prevent claimants from being workshy - there are hundreds of thousands or millions on tax credits who refuse to work more than 16 hours (or 24) because they get tax credits , and the extra hours are barely remunerative. Whereas on UC that's no longer an option - instead of taking £4000 from the government for doing nothing at all, you should instead take £5800 from your employer in return for working more hours.
How this works in practice is certainly up for debate, but the issue certainly exists, and I believe that it is seen as a public policy imperative by much of the electorate to address it, in that many know such people who live a relatively comfortable existence while working 9-12:30 5 days a week