SEETEC Serious Concerns.
A4E gets all the flack about the work programme.
BUT SEETC is another villain of the piece.
“Seetec, which has Work Programme contracts for the north-west, east of England and east London, paid its owner-boss Peter Cooper around £1.7m in dividends and salaries last year. Seetec’s turnover has increased over 30 times to around £50m a year in the past five years, thanks almost entirely to public welfare contracts.”
Seetec Ipswich is run from Princes Street.
We hear reports that they are more than happy to dish out dole punishments, that is ‘sanctions’.*
People get no money for some weeks and have to rely on food parcels for reasons – often false- given by this little crew.
Some cases we have heard of are truly appalling.
Seems like some little ‘itlers are at ‘work’ here.
* Sanctions:
- Higher level sanctions (for example for leaving a job voluntarily) will lead to claimants losing all of their JSA for a fixed period of 13 weeks for a first failure, 26 weeks for a second failure and 156 weeks for a third and subsequent failure (within a 52 week period of their last failure).
- Intermediate level sanctions of four weeks for a first failure, rising to 13 weeks for a second or subsequent failures (within a 52 week period of their last failure) may be applied following a period of disallowance for not actively seeking employment or not being available for work.
- Lower level sanctions (for example for failing to attend an adviser interview) will lead to claimants losing all of their JSA for a fixed period of four weeks for the first failure, followed by 13 weeks for subsequent failures (within a 52 week period of their last failure)
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Watching a4e
- IDS in bother againIt's another bad patch for Iain Duncan Smith. Those pesky judges in the Upper Tribunal have ruled that the Work Capability Assessment, which tests whether people are fit for employment, is inadequate when it comes to people with certain mental conditions, like autism, which mean they lack insight. It puts them at a substantial disadvantage when trying […]
Boycott Workfare
- ‘They could refer me to it whenever they liked’Job Centre Advisors routinely ignore their own rules; the process for challenging bad decisions is sometimes so obscure and long-winded that someone’s time on a placement is served before they get far enough to have the decision overturned. This person’s story highlights what a deeply frustrating process this can be. I was referred to Mandatory [...]
- Government must reveal workfare exploiters!Some great news: The government has lost its appeal and must reveal the organisations that have used Mandatory Work Activity, Work Experience, and Work Programme placements. That means we’re going to be able to show those organisations what we think of them profiting from free labour! The evidence the government submitted reveals what a huge [...]
My Provider(sub contracted to the council)only pays £3 for transportation,regardless of the actual cost,I challenged this as the “client” should not be out of pocket,their response was “We bulk buy tickets”so this is the cheapest form of transport..is this right?
“We bulk buy tickets”so this is the cheapest form of transport..is this right?”
No it’s a load of b######x!
Not being out of pocket means what it says. You get back exactly what it has cost you. What on earth does “we bulk buy tickets” mean? – they don’t buy the tickets and give them to you so it really is rubbish.
Insist on a full refund,
they tell people they have no money to pay their bus fares. some have waited 3 months. drivers have only been refunded half their petrol; for getting there not back.
my signing times are going to change every fortnight from now on the jcp said got a green card with diff signing time for next time and will then change it again for next 2 weeks ffs
yeah it’s bollocks. If you change all your volunteering, college and caring responsibilities to fit in round JCP and WP, they suddenly go and change your signing/session to a totally different day and time! Then you have to change it again, maybe drop out of your college course – then they change it AGAIN!
Mkmky, I believe they are suppose to cover all travel costs, regardless of where you have to go, for example, if you have to catch a train from one city to another – they have to cover the full cost! After all, if you don’t attend you could be sanctioned, and they would state it was your fault – even though it would be you advisers fault. But this what they want, they don’t want you to get a job; your advisers only function is to get you sanctioned. This is how these obnoxious organisations make money.
The little Hitler’s (Work Programme Advisers) will probably state that I was/am “only following orders”, and was/am therefore not responsible for any person being sanctioned.
Although, this is not a defence, as defined under the Nuremberg Principle IV, which states:
“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relive him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
It would be interesting to know what SEETEC’s Mandatory Activity Notifications look like.
In order that the DWP can issue legal sanctions the WP Provider must correctly mandate jobseekers to attend an appointment or undertake an activity. Note that the DWP always assumes that a WP Provider has mandated a jobseeker correctly, so if a jobseeker wishes to challenge a sanction on the basis that s/he was not correctly mandated then s/he must provide this evidence to the DWP. For JSA claimants a Mandatory Activity Notification (MAN) must contain the following text in full:
“Please note that if you do not undertake the activities required in this notification your benefit could be affected.
When you take part in the Work Programme, you are taking part in the Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme which is established in law by The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011.
If without a good reason you fail to attend or participate in the Work Programme you may lose your Jobseeker’s Allowance and your National Insurance credits.
Your Jobseeker’s Allowance and National Insurance credits may be stopped for:
four weeks, or
13 weeks if DWP have previously decided on one or more occasions that your Jobseeker’s Allowance should be sanctioned because you failed to comply with your Work Programme requirements, or you committed any of the failures listed below, within 52 weeks of your last failure.
The failures referred to are, if without a good reason you:
fail to attend an adviser interview
if applicable, fail to take part in a particular employment programme
do not take the opportunity of a place on an employment programme or training scheme
refuse or fail to apply for or accept a place on such a programme or scheme notified to you by your adviser
fail to attend or give up a place or through your own misconduct lose a place on such a programme or scheme
fail to comply with a Jobseeker’s Direction.”
See Chapter 3a of the DWP’s Work Programme Provider Guidance (updated 03 December 2012) here:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-3a-22-october-2012.pdf
Note also that Chapter 3a states that a Work Programme Provider cannot raise a higher-level compliance doubt.
I should have added that if anyone wishes to quote from a SEETEC Mandatory Activity Notification that s/he has received then please take care to edit out any information that would identify you in any way.
Hello,
We are here too!
@seetec
I’m glad you’re here, because if you have been incorrectly mandating jobseekers by not including the text I’ve highlighted on your MANs you now know what the correct procedure is.
The action plans I receive from my WP provider do not contain the above DWP notification, does that mean if I fail to attend an appointment as listed on my AP my provider can’t sanction me?
I know my WP will raise a compliance doubt, but would supplying my action plan to the DWP be enough to lift any sanctions imposed?
Any advice appreciated.
Although I’ve heard of Action Plans being used as Mandatory Activity Notifications before, I have never seen this therefore I’m not sure of exactly how it works. However, if the text I have quoted above does not appear anywhere on the Action Plan and is not appended to any of the Action Plan entries then I think that you would have grounds for appeal. You may wish to make an appointment with a Citizens Advice Bureau adviser in order that you can show her/him your Action Plan and how it compares with Chapter 3a of the DWP’s Work Programme Provider Guidance.
every time I’ve been given an ‘Action Plan’ it has been either
a) Gobbledegook or b) Impossible-to-comply-with bollocks.
I don’t like the term ‘Jobseekers’ Agreement’. I didn’t AGREE to jack shit. It’s just a shitty paper they force you to sign, or be starved and evicted. That comes nowhere close to any definition of ‘agree’ I know.
All of it they decide, they agree. And at no point do they promise not to be lying, sneaky, conniving, patronising,
betraying, bullying thugs with less mercy than a bunch of
sharks.
Hello.
I never stated what provider has dealt me my punishment, but as i no longer give a shit i can reveal that it is the provider to which this article refers.
My 6 month sanction is just coming to an end. Then just the other day i received a letter to attend an appointment, or rather i received a mandatory activity notice to attend.
I had an arrangement with a previous manager that i could take the punitive sanction and not engage with them. No income being one reason.
i called them to postpone the appointment. They suggested i borrow the money for fares, I explained that I have relied on quite enough charity from people and do not have a steady stream of people i can ‘borrow’ from and that I could not walk there. And even if i was obliged to (I’m not) the snow and ice would be a problem. After the usual condescening passive aggressive call I simply tried my best and ended the call telling them how nasty they are. No swearing or abuse, just the truth.
They indeed have no discretion, the provider guidelines state that ANY non attendance should warrant a WP08 to be sent. One cannot ring up in advance and have any discussion that resembles human interaction, there is no reasoning with the Borg like government contracted drones.
So, I am not attending. With legitimate good reason. Therefore I will simply have to await another sanction doubt letter and give my reasons to the DM dept, that seemingly in my experience doesn’t even read your reply, or cannot comprehend written english. Hence i am to be attending my tribunal. In the spring probably. I likely wont win, but I’ll get me day in court!
If i am lucky my JSA will soon be reinstated after my current sanction for a few weeks, then If I am unlucky the DM will not think my reasons adequate for this weeks FTA and i will soon be facing yet another sanction under the new regime.
Oh well, after about 7 months with no income i have learnt to survive on very little. But as i have said i have a roof over my head, family and friends. I eat reasonably well as a result
If unlucky with this latest round of WP bollocks then i guess i can take another 4 weeks of struggle. But after that I suppose i will have to start at least attempting to comply, just enough though. If they take the piss i will assert myself and probably will get a second new doubt. Which then will be 13 weeks. Thankfully it appears the 3 year sanctions that are described as higher level shouldn’t affect non compliance issues.
I will resist these bastards all the way. I will probably be under sanction for most of this year. Because i will not ordered by those psychopaths. My 2 year sentence is up late this year, over halfway through, thankfully. And as for what happens then? At the moment i don’t care, maybe i’ll find an employer who will employ me! If not, cross that bridge then.
Get a job? Yeah, right. Looking for work? Genuine? That is excellent.
But it makes no difference, any disobedience you show your work programme masters will be met with swift punishment. Even if you are in the right. Even if you are legit! But so few resist, or are in the position where they simply have to comply, albeit reluctantly.
Then if you do resist you have to face a completely shambolic system that twists and squirmss and largely ignores what you have to say too.
Get a job? If only!
I do so feel for the people with little support out there, who must be suffering so much.
It’s quite sickening. But we have to stay strong. We may not live in a dictatorship, but when you are poor, it sure feels like one.
Good luck to us all.
My very first comment here…
Mr No, I just want to offer my moral support (for what it’s worth), and admire your strength in resistance.
Myself, I am currently with another WP pimp, until this summer. So far, I’ve been lucky. This site has been a help.
We will win. Stay strong.
MORE SERIOUS CONCERNS
Here are some interesting comments about the controversial Universal Jobmatch website set up an enormous cost to the taxpayer:
“the [Universal Jobmatch] site isn’t really about finding employment for the unemployed, after all there are many better sites available that the tax payer doesn’t have to fund, it’s really about controlling a section of society by mandating them to use it, and bullying them into accepting tracking cookies, so they can be indexed, numbered, contained and exploited.”
Another quote:
“Leaving aside the fact that the [Universal Jobmatch] contract has not gone to a British firm, and despite the UK teeming with expertise in this field, this is an unmitigated disaster of a deal which has delivered a lousy product for an astronomic cost”.
Here is the link to the full eye-opening commentary from an expert on online recruitment:
http://ayeright.com/2013/01/universal-jobmatch-worst-job-board-launch-ever/
Thanks I had forgotten who was behind this Universal Jobmatch.
Obviously not someone interested in giving work themselves to people on the Work Programme.
This also worth remembering (from Letters, Guardian today).
“The minister for welfare reform told the House of Lords that “it is bluntly impossible to do a total cumulative assessment … you don’t know what to put in or take out”. However, away from the blur of statistics in the Department for Work and Pensions, he should publish a limited assessment of the cumulative impact of the reforms down here in the London borough of Haringey.
The council has decided to charge people on benefits 20% council tax. Its analysis shows that 73 individuals will have to pay between £41.43 and £158.01 a week out of their £71 weekly jobseeker’s allowance (JSA), due to the cumulative impact of the council tax and the overall benefit cap from April. Also 49 couples with two children will have to pay between £72.40 and £255.24 out of their JSA plus children’s benefits of £258 a week.
Housing benefit cap adds to the damage done by the cumulative impact of the council tax and overall benefit cap (Editorial, 9 January). Moving uprating from RPI to CPI and the proposed 1% freeze on benefit uprating (News, 9 January) will further reduce the low value of the benefits in relation to the escalating prices of necessities.
Some brave claimants in Haringey, Camden and Hackney are starting the process of judicial review of those councils’ consultations. Information about the cumulative impact and options other than taxing benefits were not put to residents in Haringey. I would be prepared to pay the £45 a year, or 86p a week on band D, to leave the 100% council tax benefit for my poorest fellow citizens untouched. I was never given that option.
Rev Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty”
The reason not to sign up to this universal jobsite or any jobsite or even any website for that fact is that you would have to part with personal and sensitive information or commit fraud to protect it.
By getting you to sign up whether legally or otherwise you have to agree to the sites DPA RULES within terms and agreements which i assure you will no doubt be unfavourable when you consider one exemption to third party control under DPA is “OF PUBLIC INTEREST”.
We all can under the DPA control the flow of our data,especially when third party is in the frame.Try contacting if you can the owners to instigate third party control under the DPA as i complained about certain jobs having contact details removed and that they could only be got if i parted with personal and sensitive data and as yet, amonth and some on still havent received a single soltary reply (contact details given by JCP).
Mostly all the jobs are agencies so why bother with this site when you can go to theirs not to mention duplicates are even worse than last time. Youd think by now they would have someone chasing up the 2+ month old ones so as to remove them but no. On top now have you noticed like monsters site that certain jobs remain at the top, ied like to know if they pay for that privedge. Like the work programme JCP state its out of their control,that they have no power over it yet someone at DWP made the decision,the buck must fall somewhere within DWP/JCP. All and this is the official verdict given to me by one of the JCP advisors after consulting his manager was i quote ” you have to go through the complaints procedure”, you know the one where you complain to the person or comapny in question first,then independant examiner,MP,etc.
DWP/JCP are delibrately playing for time so it is in the best interests of every unemployed person and not to put in an FOI demanding to know who at DWP/JCP is in charge of overseeing this site and who oversees the work programme.
Personally i cant see how they can justify it let alone make you which is probably why their lying to claimants.If you know any that have signed up i urge you to convince them to unsign but to inform JCP that they are doing so in the interests of protecting their personal and sensitive data as is their right under the DATA PROTECTION ACT and not a single word more i mean it,not even in reply to,not even off the record,that way you stave off the sanctions not that as i said i believe they can although they might try (they love preying on your ignorance).
WHY FRAUD,PARTICULARLY ELECTRONIC FRAUD CONTINUES TO GROW THE DPA AMONGST OTHER LAWS WILL TRUMP ANYTHING I SUSPECT THE GOV CAN THROW AT IT AS THEY CANT SAY IT DOEST EXIST,THEY CANT STATE THEY CAN STOP IT,THEY CANT STATE THAT YOUR INFORMATION CANT BE STOLEN.
YOU HAVE RIGHTS PEOPLE,START KNOWING THEM.
Hello.
This is NOT anything to do with seetec or benefits, but has anybodyelse noticed that when using the public computers in the Ipswich area, at the library in Northgate Street. Some accounts work and load d faster than others. It took me 8 minutes to load today. The person next to me only a few seconds. Are the library now censoring websites or ist it ”cos” they system is just crap.
Middlesex we have complained about the Suffolk Internet service, collectively (through the local anti-cuts group, the Suffolk Coalition for Public Services) and individually.
There are all kinds of problems, like Facebook being botched, or some ordinary sites being inaccessible, or E-Mail accounts being hard to use (and some things disappearing).
It is because they have not upgraded their Browsers (and some problems with their cables, but that’s minor).
To do this Blog is a hard slog in itself, like writing with mittens on, and then the posts sometimes disappear as you are writing them.
The privatised ‘co-op’ Library says they are looking into this (we first complained 3 months ago).
Nothing has yet changed.
In fact, as the Browsers become more and more out of date, it gets worse all the time,
Dear Mr CoatesThank you for this. When I was last at the Jobcentre, I spoke with the female that was sigining me on. She asked me where I did the access for UJM from. I told her the public library. She asked me if I experienced problems there using UJM. I said frequently. She said she was aware of it as were the Jobcentre. They have had a meeting with the library about UJM accounts vanishing into the ether when the library computers are used. They are trying to persuade the library to do something but as your post says, it’s getting worse and slower. I am lucky in some respects, the communal flats I live in have a computer for use by everybody. I am still trying to find out more about UJM coming down in april. Watch this space ;0)
James I took out your E-Mail since I thought you may not want this publicly known.
The more people complain about the library Internet the better.
Department for Work and Pensions group
Universal Jobmatch: Update
17 January 2013
PCS has received many queries and concerns from members regarding the use of Universal Jobmatch (UJ). This circular provides an update on recent issues.
Staff accessing their own UJ accounts
On its introduction, members of staff were encouraged to set up their own accounts to demonstrate the use of UJ to claimants. It has came to light recently that accessing your own records (or that of friends or family) using the UJ icon on your desktop is subject to the same security restrictions as other departmental system such as JSAPS or LMS. Staff are permitted to set up and access their own UJ account, but it must be done through the internet browser and jobsearch activity must be done in their own time.
PCS has asked that DWP provide clarification to their managers, in addition to the ‘implementation updates’ they have issued already. They have stated that the advice to set up an account and demonstrate its use to the claimant was local and not from the UJ project. Clearly, we believe that no action should be taken against a member of staff where they have been misadvised by their manager.
JOBSEEKER DIRECTIONS AND MANATORY USE OF UJ
PCS was aware that, despite assurances otherwise from the UJ project of DWP, management in some jobcentre districts were instructing advisers to tell claimants that UJ is mandatory and access must given to the DWP.
As a result of legal challenges and negative press attention, DWP have revised the guidance on UJ to make it clear that this cannot be done. The UJ Jobmatch toolkit chapter 3, paragraph 50, states: “You cannot issue a Jobseeker’s Direction to either require a claimant to create a profile and CV in Universal Jobmatch or to mandate a claimant to give us access to their account – this is their decision not ours.” Paragraph 52 also states that “We cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this.”
PCS is awaiting clarification from DWP management on the status of the many Jobseeker Directions that were incorrectly issued to claimants before the guidance was clarified. PCS members should contact their local representative to challenge any instruction to inform claimants that the use of UJ or access to it is mandatory.
Further UJ issues
PCS remains concerned with many security and checking aspects of UJ, including:
•How claimants data is protected in terms of reported data-fishing by bogus employers
•The recent high profile bogus and unsavoury adverts placed and the checks are in place to ensure that these are not placed on the system again.
•Compliance with minimum wage and the terms and conditions of the use of the site
•Process of ‘accepting cookies’ and EU data protection principles
As yet, DWP have refused to meet with PCS again on UJ and have stated they will respond in writing to our concerns. We believe this to be unacceptable, as problems with UJ impact daily on PCS members, with some claimants becoming frustrated and even abusive due to difficulties they experience using the system. PCS will continue to push management further on this and request that any further issues are reported to your PCS rep or to DWP Group Office at leeds@pcs.org.uk.
007 Universal Match update
https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/universal-jobmatch-not-mandatory-pcs-confirms/
Have used a secondary email account for this one. Heard a rumour that ujm may be taken down by dwp in april. anybody else heard this one
Reply to Mr Middlesex
I have not heard the rumour of the possible demise of Universal Jobmatch in April. where did you hear it from?
Mind you, if Universal Jobmatch is not taken down to prevent further embarrassment to the Government – plus numerous legal complications – it will undoubtedly collapse under the weight of its own increasingly omni-shambles structure.
About time SEETEC was mentioned! I have been accused of not attending a Jobsearch, notified them that I had a survey for heating/ventilation on the day and accused of arriving 25 minutes late for a review. Luckily, I was reported to DWP and able to supply photocopies of e-mails to show information about the survey and that I was not 25 minutes late but 5 minutes early for the review.However, I am out of pocket for the photocopies and my transport cost to the review as SEETEC still say that I was late!
If what you say is true in regard to these emails i cant see what legal leg SEETEC have Suzanne Marquess.
If in the future the UK does vote to leave the EU, does that mean that SEETEC could / would lose their funding from the EU Social Fund
Tobanem, The rumour about UJM coming down in April is being banied around the block of flats I live in. The housing association that owns the block has provided a communal computer for general use. When I was on UJM on Monday I was told I was wasting my time because was going to be changed or taken down in April. I don’t know where the other tenant got his information from. I ‘ll try and find out
if enough people on the internet say it, will they have to actually take it down so that it looks like their idea not ours?
get rid of UJM now!
Why does that sound seedy? Can I add that clip from La Belle Verte now? Ha
MORE ABOUT UNIVERSAL JOBMATCH
A vacancy advertised today on the Universal Jobmatch website (still called Directgov) has a closing date of 7 January 2013. I note there is no provision to tell the DWP why you don’t want to apply for that vacancy in the drop down list of pre-configured options.
Apart from this one ludicrous example of bungling inefficiency, and it is only one of many more examples, Universal Jobmatch is doomed because not only is it not mandatory to register in the first place, it is not even necessary – as the following evidence from the PCS Union will show:
According to the Universal Jobmatch toolkit chapter 3, paragraph 52, it says “We (the DWP) cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of their jobsearch activity AND UNIVERSAL JOBMATCH WILL NOT CHANGE THIS”.
So, as long as a Jobseeker is actively seeking work from any source(s), and as long as a Jobseeker actively applies for these vacancies and subsequently records that activity in a diary, then that satisifies their jobseeking requirements and obligations!
Fuller details here:
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/78E359C6-7B09-4FC6-98EBD4696432C199
“A vacancy advertised today on the Universal Jobmatch website (still called Directgov) has a closing date of 7 January 2013. I note there is no provision to tell the DWP why you don’t want to apply for that vacancy in the drop down list of pre-configured options.”
-Because I don’t have a time machine
Alternative answer:
Dear DWP guy, I have purchased the time machine as mandated by the Work Programme, and I then used it and applied for this job. I’ve also banged your mother.
Love from your new dad.
PS, you are now disinherited.
PPS, now I’m your new bio-dad, hope you like the sickle cell anaemia I’ve just given you.
*sigh* April yeah. I heard a rumour that the entire government/corporation network is stepping down in April too in a generous act of suicide
Good Morning ”Antraeus” I have further information on the ” collapse of UJM [Maybe]. The person that told me got it from his brother that lives in the area around Nacton Road. I can’t help any further Sorry People
What I want to know is:
Now Universal Jobmatch is sinking faster than the Titanic and is not not mandatory, despite IDS ranting about it, is he going to pay the £20 million UJM cost to set up back to the taxpayer or is he going to be sacked for incompetence?
There are now some rumors of certain Private Providers (Work Programme) – some Jobcentres may no longer be sending the unemployed to them after around april/may via orders from the DWP due to the Private Providers piss poor results in finding people work.
The following is not a rumour, but a fact – which I think has been raised before in the not too distant past.
It is to do with Work Programme advisors telling their clients to register with the now doomed Universal Jobmatch website!
Do any readers from far and wide have any more info on the likely geographical scale of that activity? I know it was happening in Scotland, but I heavily suspect it is more widespread.
It is bad enough for Civil Servants to bully and lie to Jobseekers about “mandatory” registration, but it is utterly ludicrous to have private business companies additionally doing the same thing!
When will this madness end?
You may be interested in this:
“Current policy is that Work Programme providers can help to encourage Work Programme participants to voluntarily use Universal Jobmatch but they cannot require them to use the service.”
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/138126/response/347917/attach/html/3/4460%20response%20PDF.pdf.html
Unless I have completely misunderstood this, the DWP is saying that Work Programme Providers cannot mandate jobseekers to sign up to Universal Jobmatch. If a WP Provider issues such a Mandatory Activity Notification and then raises a sanction doubt because a jobseeker does not comply the DWP will not impose a sanction.
My adviser at the Colchester seetec office was telling a group of about 10 that we had to sign up to UJM and that it was mandatory intill I pointed out the PCS artical on it then they got the ass ache and said it would be soon and best to sign up now. I still refused and won’t be bullied into it.
Oh, and whatever happens to Universal Jobmatch and even the entire Work Programme, there is always that 6 month sentence to serve on the coming Community Action Programme!!
That’s the next one we have to tackle.
History repeating.. Anybody old enough to remember the Community Programme in the 1980′s. Forced to clean graveyards etc. Happend to me too. Found out there were offenders doing their community service on the same ”work gangs”.
how easy would it be to report the death of IDS and get so many official sources confirming it, the authorities close down his bank accounts and take all his property? while the real IDS is living in an oildrum under a bridge, on smack?
‘According to our records you have died, so you are not entitled to any benefits’.
…
I have had trouble getting this site to load again [Public Library]Has anybody else had trouble today. I am concerned that ”some public bodies” allegedley may have something to do with this.
People you would have absolutely no problems at the Work Programme if you didn’t sign any documents at your induction. When you signed those documents (even just the travel reimbursement document) they then have removed you from ”common law” and have now got you under ”civil law” as you have entered into contract with them. Getting you under civil law gives them a hell of a lot of power over you as basically you are consenting to do whatever they ask you. Staying under common law gives you ultimate protection and that’s why they want to get you away from it. You can not be forced to enter into any contract under the threat of penalty (like stopping your benefits) as that makes it what is termed an ”adhesion contract” (invalid in the eyes of the law.) All contracts must be entered into with the fully informed, freely given consent of both (or however many parties) are involved.
The contract is then completed with the wet signature of all parties. I’ll explain more…..
I am officially ”on” the Work Programme, but when the Jobcentre referred me, they asked me to sign for a letter that said i was being referred to a Provider and i refused to sign for this letter or take it home with me (you don’t have to sign anything at the Jobcentre apart from a jobseekers agreement and the piece of paper that you sign every two weeks – everything else needs your consent.) That referral letter that the jobcentre want you to sign has nothing to do with making sure you have been notifed about being placed on the Work Programme (which is what they will try to tell you), the truth is, they actually need you to sign for that letter because they want you to ”understand” the Work Programme. But when they ask you if you ”understand” something they are actually talking in legalese and what they actually mean is do you ”stand under” (do you obey). So once you sign for that Work Programme referral letter, what you are actually doing is declaring you ”stand under” the work programme, and you consent to it (but they obviously don’t want you to realize that that is what in fact you are doing.)
Now, let me be clear, even though i didn’t sign for or accept that letter, i still received an appointment letter from my Provider (which i knew i would) telling me to turn up for an induction. So i went just for a laugh as i knew they had no power over me as i would not be entering into contract with them by not signing or agreeing to anything, and not supplying them with any information.. This is how the farce unfolded as i officially started on the Work Programme……I turn up, sit down with my ”adviser” who says ”hows it going?” my reply ”I do not consent to provide you with any information” and that is my response to EVERY question they ask. My confused, perplexed advisers response? ”then i’m going to refer you for sanction” my reply ”hahaha you do that – i’ll look forward to it!”. A couple of weeks later i receive an entitlement doubt letter from the DWP asking for an explanation….i write back ”i have no contract with this private company, no signed agreement and i do not consent to provide them with information”. Response from the DWP ”We recently told you a doubt has been placed on your entitlement to Jobseekers Allowance. We have decided this doubt no longer applies”. and that folks is the gospel truth.
This happened about 6 times until the penny finally dropped in my Providers head and they realized the game was up and that i knew about my common law rights and there was nothing they could do to me. The DWP must have been heartily sick of sending me an entitlement doubt letter, when they knew i was just going to write back and give them my ”no contract” response which they then have no choice but to accept.
I have now had no contact from my Provider for nearly 6 months, which is just fine and dandy by me. Finally i can now be left in peace to do what i need to do……find a bloody job!!!!
Interesting comments, Twinkle99!
Presumably, you have not registered with Universal Jobmatch yet!
Do you think you will have much luck (or peace) with Universal Jobmatch?
At any Private Provider you don’t sign anything for your travel expenses, the adviser signs for it and you get it back unless your a complete and utter numbty and have been told to sign and have – D OH! – Homer Simpson!
There is more chance of aliens landing in my front garden within the next 10 minutes than there is of me registering with Universal Jobmatch.
For Twinkle99
Your witty answer also describes the odds that the average Jobseeker has of obtaining a job through Universal Jobmatch!
What is your equitable reaction to the forthcoming “mandatory” Community Action Programme?
Fuck C.A.P. as well, if you want to work for 30 hours a week and still do all your jobsearch – be a clown!
In every system there is a weakness, this is now being investigated by myself and others who brought down Universal Jobmatch (thanks to all for that) this is just another ileagal threat from IDS and will be defeated before it even gets off the ground.
By the way the earliest C.A.P. can be introduced is 10th June 2013 and if you want to know why, someone else can provide the answer, I know why and so do you IUA but I’ll leave up to Twinkle to tell us all!
For Obi Wan Kenobi
Can you expalin in clear terms what you are talking about here?
The Work Programme began in June 2011, The Community Action Programme is for people who complete the 2 year Work Programme without getting a job, it lasts for 6 months and involves you going to work for 30 hours a week for your benefits.
Yes, I already knew that – in fact I knew about CAP when it was first announced just after the Work Programme started, a move which was clearly an early admission of the failure of the Work Programme itself!
i done the same as t99 with my provider but gave them that 6 page letter that was on the other site at my induction and point blank refused to sign anything and walked out.
had 1 sanction doubt which i 1 and nothing else from them and don’t even have to go or been since my induction day sept 2011.
cant wait for the jcp to call me in after my 2 yrs on the wp only to tell them it lasted only 20mins. hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaahahaahha
31/10/2012 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR GREGORY KORAL
31/10/2012 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, SECRETARY GREG KORAL
looks like my provider hit an ice berg n he fucked off already b4 it sank and there is no new 1 so no director in charge pmsl
things don’t seem to be getting any better for this work programme.it does not come as a surprise.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ltb–lying-thieving-bastards-bbc-documentary-lifts-the-lid-on-offensive-code-used-to-describe-disabled-and-jobless-8469818.html
If Seetec are this bad, howcome they are still getting contracts from the government. I have been on the Work Programme now for nearly 2 years and will be soon fininshing. While I have found that some of the placement less than helpful, I find that staff are always helpful, friendly and don’t ask me to do anything I am not able to do. The five weeks at Poundland were less than useful and the during the five weeks I was only offered 2 15 minute breaks in the whole of the five weeks. I only stuck it out because I was too scared that I might get sanctioned.
can i be sanctioned for refusing to sign forms