Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Reed in Partnership. What Kind of Partners for the Unemployed?

with 91 comments

Reed in Partnership – the  word ‘partnership’ should make anyone wary.

They are subcontracted to provide the flexible New Deal. In Suffolk.

Flexible New Deal has raised issues about them in the recent past.

We have yet to hear any criticisms of how they treat ‘customers’ locally. And we shall be scrupulous in fulfilling any demands they make on our members and supporters  – insofar as they correspond to Reed’s own criteria.

That is their “set of six core values “,  “Accountability, Honesty, Efficiency, Forward Thinking, High Performing and Customer Focus”. (here)

Any experiences of these – please comment.


Written by Andrew Coates

November 18, 2009 at 10:30 am

91 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reed in Partnership? It can’t be those who defrauded the Government under the previous New Deal scheme.. or could it be?!

    New Deal fraud:

    Illegal Immigrant fraud:

    Pretty major stuff…

    A quote from the opening line of their job advertisement: “Reed in Partnership was the first private organisation to deliver the Government’s flagship “New Deal” programme in 1998 and since then has assisted over 90,000 people back into work. Apply now to join us and become part of the success…”

    I doubt all their 6 core values!

    Flexible New Deal

    November 18, 2009 at 3:11 pm

  2. years back reed supplied staff for a major company i worked for,i am quite sad to read of this and always thought of them as a reputable company.

    this fraud issue seems to be widespread across the board and can quickly destroy a companies’ reputation even a good one when this is uncovered.

    the large sums involved has caused this culture of greed to fester,the government has allowed this to happen by throwing massive sums of taxpayers money into these contracts and attracting the wrong people to exploit this for their own interests.

    even at the job centre this is present where what appears to be nothing short of a £500 “bung” with the promise of more to follow is handed it to job seekers in the way of whats claimed as a “self marketing voucher”.

    there seems to be a money talks policy above all else and its little surprise this has attracted criminals with the sums involved, and the ease in which they appear to defraud the taxpayer.


    November 19, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    • Of course credit where credit is due. It is probable that your experiences or RIP (no pun intended) was due to very professional staff who were paid good money to do a good job.

      So when such company is offered the opportunity to apply for government contracts like New Deal it can completely knock the reputation when a company begins to become black hat in their ways of meeting targets and making money.

      Saying this however most of the large corporate bullies may appear to come across as reputable… dare I say it but without the press coverage etc. and to those who are not in direct dealing with them A4e might appear “reputable”.

      I think the system would work better if:

      a) all businesses were in the third sector
      b) no contract between them and JCP
      c) organisation actually focused on jobseekers needs
      d) the only financial support from the Government will be in the form of grants when and only when in following years the organisation has proved themselves

      Then again, what is the purpose of helping jobseekers get employment without getting any financial benefit?

      Thats why private businesses love these Government contracts, a nice way of making money;

      Third sector prime contractors of New Deal like YMCA Training can also be questioned, although a charity natively they wouldn’t be giving any support as a good samaritan to the unemployed… lets see a sample of their charitable objectives:


      No specific mention of unemployed people.

      Let’s see WHO they benefit:

      “• Children / Young people
      • People with disabilities
      • Other charities / Voluntary bodies
      • General public / Mankind”

      Let see their “activities”:


      Yes, read the last statement… all funding from the Government. This organisation was setup in 2002 and their sole REAL charitable aim is to leech off the taxpayer through Government bodies to provide a service where the only ACTUAL beneficiaries are the STAFF and those who are financially involved.

      I doubt this is technically charitable!

      Flexible New Deal

      November 19, 2009 at 7:33 pm

  3. I think Reed is trying it really hard when they put their own ‘charitable’ aims forward. AS they do Flexy, follow the links and there’s plenty of guff there.

    It’s a company. That’s all.

    Mind you the YMCA set the gold standard of guff with that line, “TO LEAD PEOPLE TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND TO FULLNESS OF LIFE IN HIM.”

    Oh yeah….

    Andrew Coates

    November 20, 2009 at 11:12 am

  4. i dont know how they get away with it,the comments made one computer between a number of people,some have said there isnt even a phone line to apply for jobs.

    also the comments with regards to people these companies employ one on an assault charge the other lying in regards to qualifications,with the practices of job centre plus a farce would not be the wrong term.

    perhaps this is a form of quantitative easing for the unemployed that hasnt been tried before,its clearly not working and never will.


    November 20, 2009 at 12:29 pm

  5. Today I was forced to attend RIP, Reed in Partnership. I`ll cut a long story short but I was told I had to sign a Data Protection form allowing them to use my details anyway they deem fit.
    I refused to sign before I had a chance to look into it.
    Does anyone know if I really do have to agree to sign it or can I refuse? I expect I`ll be threatened with losing my benefit if I don`t comply but I`d still like to see what happens. The funny thing was they already had lots of info about me, including the medical examiners report!!
    This is what the form contained below:-

    Name: (my name)
    NINO: xxxxxxxx

    Data Protection Acts of 1984 & 1998
    Privacy and eElectronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulatins 2003

    To Reed in Partnership Ltd:

    I authorise you to hold and process information received by you for the purpose of assisting me with any em0ployment opportunities, training and advisory services. I understand that my details will be held on computerised and paper based systems and that I may acess them under the Data Protection Acts of 1984 & 1998.

    I authorise my future employer to confirm in writing my stat date, job title, place of work and number of hours agreed to work. Also to confirm other details as and when necessary.

    I understand and agree that Reed in Partnership may provide such information to Government Departments, agencies and third parties in order to try to secure job interviews and employment for me and in order to achieve the aims of participation in the back to work programme.

    I agree that Reed in Partnership may contact me by telephone, e-mail, DSMS/text, post or any other appropriate form of communication in order to provide me with details of temporary work and/or employment opportunities, and/or for the purpose set out above.

    I certify that the information on this form is correct.




    December 9, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    • Try something a bit like this:

      An Agreement between

      Name: (my name) (“the Client”)


      Reed in Partnership (“the Provider”)

      It is agreed that:-

      I actively refuse to waiver my rights of having my personal information abused by Reed in Partnership Ltd in whole or part any violation to this agreement may result in financial penalties. I reserve the right to seek redress at any time.

      I grant the Provider an licence to process limited information as obtained from Jobcentre Plus that is directly regarding the course and the information I choose to disclose from time to time to the conditions specified at the time; such licence will be revoked 2 weeks after the programme ends for information obtained from Jobcentre Plus or immediately without prior notice at discretion of the Client verbally advised to the Provider or via writing for information disclosed by the Client.

      If the Provider wishes to submit the Client to any interview or other employment opportunities the Provider shall obtain permission from the Client via the telephone or face to face, before they make the telephone call, face to face meeting or postal application to the third party. Under no circumstance shall the Provider register the Client for any agency or third party. The Client should not be formally registered or submitted to any agency where the Provider remains transparent in the transaction – if this occurs the Provider shall be liable for Fraud for impersonating.

      The Provider shall give any employment opportunities to the Client while participating on the programme on the premises the Provider uses to deliver the programme. Under no circumstance shall the Provider attempt to harrass the Client by any method of communication by post, phone or email other than for the reasons specified in this agreement or instrumental to the management of the programme – not the aims or objective of the programme.

      The Provider shall not under any circumstances attempt to discover any future employer of the Client. The Provider shall not make contact with any suspected employer of the Client. The Provider may obtain such details from Jobcentre Plus.

      This agreement is signed by the Client and the Provider in full acceptance of the above; both parties shall keep a copy;

      Should the Provider not sign this agreement within 24 hours the above licence shall be revoked and all granted rights to process any information regarding the Client shall cease with immediate effect.

      Signed (Client): _______________________

      Signed (Provider): _______________________

      Flexible New Deal

      December 9, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  6. i am not happy about this as it was implemented in the earlier new deal.

    it relies on you signing your rights away (unclearly)explained to these third party “providers” “so they can help you” was the ndpa response,this involved checking you attended interviews,the reason why you were turned down for an interview and to bully and intimidate you because you did not get the job,regardless of experience,this bullying would happen regularly on new deal.it can be thought of as fox hounds chasing the scent,this time the ending is a sanction.

    these programs are little more the harassment/bully camps’ because you are a jobless person,with the front of improving employability prospects through training and improving peoples lives’.


    December 10, 2009 at 2:31 am

  7. Re Reed in Partnership Data Act Protection/Electonic Communications Privacy Directive

    I always refuse to sign this too. Watch the screen when the PA is inputting your details – you’ll see 3 options “Client has signed/refused to sign/not seen the Data Protection Act – so its hard-wired into their system. As you have already realised there is enough “exemptions” to these piece of legislation to allow free communication between themselves and the JobCentre for allowing payments, “sending you back etc”. It allow maximum flexibility in chasing after “job outcome” payments; it enables them to spam your details to employers, there could be many other reason. The Acts that they ask you to sign a Waiver to are actually put in place prevent mis-use of your personal data and to protect your privacy. I suspect that most people will sign (without even reading – notice the way in which they attempt to casually slip it through), even if they initially refuse, being told that they won’t receive their money will likely trick them into complying.

    P Skellan

    January 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm

  8. I should also add that you will also notice that when your PA is accessing your details the words “Client has NOT signed the Data Protection Act” are clearly displayed on red on the screen. It is also a very serious offence to breach these pieces of legislation.

    By not signing this you hamstring them and make it more difficult for them to sanction you. Remember: When you sign away your legal rights the Law can no longer protect you.

    P Skellan

    January 11, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    • Great advice!

      The biggest mistake is thinking once you have signed away your rights its all over. The truth is you can withdraw permission at any time.

      This can fall under Unfair Contract Terms that you are forced to sign with threat of sanction for non-compliance. As the above sample agreement shows, its a template they made for you and nto vice versa.

      If you have signed away giving them permission there is two big points to consider:

      a) You can write to the other party withdrawing consent at anytime.

      b) Even if you gave permission for the provider to contact the employer – there is no contract agreement with the employer and yourself consenting for them to disclose the information anyway. In effect the contract isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

      I would like to mention that a loophole exists. A piece of Social Security legislation gives powers to DWP etc. to obtain (the employers cant refuse) information from anyone claiming unemployment benefits (or those who have previously). Jobcentre Plus could abuse such legislation on behalf of the provider (as they work in partnership).

      Flexible New Deal

      January 11, 2010 at 9:28 pm

  9. A4e subcontract to Reed in Partnership. In Ipswich they are based at Crown House.

    Flexible New Deal

    January 13, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    • Please see a recent local job advert:

      “Personal Adviser – Ipswich
      Salary £21,000 – £24,000 per annum
      Organisation Description

      Reed in Partnership was the first private organisation to deliver the Government’s flagship “New Deal” programme in 1998 and since then has assisted over 90,000 people back into work. Apply now to join us and become part of the success…

      Job Description

      Personal Advisers – From £21,000 (depending upon previous experience in Welfare to Work only)

      Due to recent expansion we are currently looking to recruit a Personal Advisers for various offices around the UK. Personal Advisers work with participants on a one-to-one basis to increase their skills and to find them employment, by providing them with a range of opportunities through strong relationships with Account Managers, local partners, employment and support agencies. You will need to find innovative ways to overcome the barriers to work faced by your participants, as well as actively marketing the programmes we run to members of the community who may benefit from our services. In addition you will provide post-employment support to participants to help them to adapt successfully to the work environment.

      All Personal Advisers receive:
      A competitive salary from £21,000 and development opportunities
      A comprehensive induction programme, in addition to on-the-job training throughout your time with us
      Support towards a recognised Advice and Guidance qualification

      Person Specification

      To be successful you must be able to demonstrate the following:Experience of working in a fast-paced and targeted sales environment (minimum six months) Experience of delivering excellent customer service (minimum six months) A clear commitment to working in the Welfare to Work sectorPrevious experience of working in Welfare to Work is NOT required.To apply for any of these positions you will need to complete an application form at http://apply.reedinpartnershipjobs.co.uk/

      Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited is an employment agency and employment business”


      Previous experience of Welfare to Work isn’t required however the unlikely prospect of someone with a background in SALES filling an ADVISORY role who can provide SUPPORT for the UNEMPLOYED is a little worrying to say the least.

      I guess they are looking for someone who can sell “ice to an eskimo” i.e. bullshit the unemployed person into jobs by lying about it.

      Any thoughts?

      Flexible New Deal

      January 21, 2010 at 8:00 pm

  10. Well I’ve been subcontracted to the YMCA.

    All these subcontractors..

    Haven’t Reed International got a bit of a reputation? Not a good one I hear.

    Andrew Coates

    January 22, 2010 at 12:30 pm

  11. Yeah – we have two prime contractors for Flexible New Deal: A4e and TNG – although you can’t choose between them.

    A4e subcontracts to Reed In Partnership (the above mentioned job advert states something about Reed Graduates… so is Reed In Partnership a trading brand rather than a group business?) and TNG subcontracts to YMCA Training.

    I thought A4e and YMCA Training was a match made in [hell] lol

    Flexible New Deal

    January 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm

  12. Actually they have now changed slightly since before Christmas. I had a recent appointment after having my medical check.

    I was so shocked and annoyed to find all my personal health issues in front of an non medical general office administrator.

    She was busy asking about health issues and putting it into her machine even though she had full medical records in front of her. I got a bit concerned and asked why are you putting all that into the system and how is that going to help me find a work and most importantly who are you going to show that to ? an employer ?

    She explained they are there

    1. to work on your CV

    2. to help with interview techniques.

    No where in there are they actually going to get you a job.

    After all the information was put in she brought out a data protection form which has changed from what Dave has posted it now states,

    I understand and agree that Reed in Partnership may provide such information to Government Departments, agencies and third parties

    There is nothing about them helping you find work.

    I refused to sign it saying once I sign this you are then able to legally sell on my medical information.
    She then brought out 2nd data protection form which was like the form above :

    … but like daves included this.,
    third parties in order to try to secure job interviews and employment for me and in order to achieve the aims of participation in the back to work programme.

    ofcourse she already had told me they are not here to find me work so this form is invalid and even with such statements there is nothing to define that my medical information is private and they could still legally sell it on.

    This meant now she could no longer help me improve my cv or interview techniques and threatened that they may now cut my claim!

    Because I refuse to sell my soul

    Why did not explain what you say would be read by a third party ?

    I also now wonder who else they are freely sharing current medical information with I guess a job in public sector is now a 100% off.

    I thought the job centre was here to help us get a job

    Since this they have written saying I scored 0 for ESA and should be back on JSA.

    So why did they also send all my private health information to outside party and are busy sharing this when they think i am a 100% healthy ?

    Be very aware of what you say to these people nothing is what it seems there is no privacy at all I am very shocked at lack of data protection.

    did no sell my soul

    January 29, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    • This is indeed a great problem. All these contractors want to know personal details, if youa re a drug user, alchool abuser, to start with then, then medical background. personally I don’t care, they can learn all they want to about me from the Web in any case.

      But for others this is a real problem.

      Apart from your case Souley there is the specific difficulty of people with mental health issues. More and more people with these are being forced into the Flexible New Deal etc. Who is dealing with the? The likes of Reed, YMCA, TNG, are totally unqualified in such areas. The poor sods are being churned through the mill with no regard for their right to decent living conditions and independence.

      It is an utter scandal.

      Andrew Coates

      January 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm

  13. Don’t fall victim to profiling:

    All providers are doing it. They want to know all about your interests, past jobs (not relevant when you give them the types of jobs you are looking for) and reasons for leaving.

    Please Note: They are looking to kick you off. If you got away at the Jobcentre for saying “contract came to an end” but you tell the Flexible New Deal provider a different story like “yeah boss was a d*ckhead” that will be passed back to the Jobcentre where you could be pending a 6 month sanction.

    It is the same with hobbies etc. your PA will ask you acting all friendly of your hobbies etc. what you been doing but should you say “yeah I was playing football 4 days last week” or “I am a photographer and take pictures daily” they will report you for not being “available for work” or accusing you of already having a job.

    Seriously, you are there mandatory to do the activities they prescribe… keep your personal details and going ons to a minimum.

    Flexible New Deal

    January 30, 2010 at 10:00 am

  14. The reason that “providers” such as Reed in Partnership want to “profile” you is to find your “Achille’s heel” – your weak spot.

    Always refuse to answer personal questions, none of us are children after all. It’s reasonable to say something along the lines of: “Why do you want to know that?”, “I’d prefer not to answer.”, or a more forthright: “None of your !”£$£$%^& business”.

    Another thing that you will find with these organisations is that they have a fondness for employing psychology graduates (ideally one with some sales experience), people who are well-versed in such things as interogation techniques, neuro-lingustic programming, suggestibility. They will use every psychological trick in the book to undermine you; lower your self esteem, reduce your self-confidence, get “under your skin”, fill you with doubts.

    Give them as little information as possible – every you say will be twisted and used against you.

    P Skellan

    February 2, 2010 at 2:47 am

  15. Low self-esteem and/or low self-confidence makes an individual much more malleable and more open to suggestibility. Take a leaf out of these repugnant organisations own book and always act in your own best interests. Don’t let the !”£$%^&S grind you down!

    P Skellan

    February 2, 2010 at 2:55 am

  16. “Drawing up a CV” is really just a cover for unearthing personal and private information, same goes for filling in application forms etc.

    The more that they know about you the weaker your position is. Play them at their own game – ask your PA personal and private questions along the same lines, and see how they respond.

    When dealing with these repugnant organisatiions give as little information as possible and NEVER volunteer anything.

    P Skellan

    February 2, 2010 at 3:09 am

  17. Its worth pointing out that “PAs”/”advisors” job security is linked to achieving targets.

    Most if not all are on very short-term contracts. In the case of Reed in Partnership many/most staff are on one month contracts, and their job security is DIRECTLY linked to achieving targets.

    When you think about it – who has got more to lose?

    P Skellan

    February 2, 2010 at 3:18 am

  18. P Skellan – if thier jobs are linked to targets (job starts) why would they want to dent your confidence and make it more difficult for you to get a job. and by the same token FND, what is the point in kicking people off – they loose an opportunity for proft.


    February 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    • FND works by a lump sum payment paid in a few installments throughout the contract.

      It would be rare to get kicked off Flexible New Deal… even if you get a 6 month sanction you are still on FND and still have to attend.

      In theory you could get 50 or so sanctions on Flexible New Deal. On New Deal (old/original) you go back for balance of time in most cases then if exited again you lose your place.

      Abu, you make a lot of sense about the confidence knocking however they never really “LOSE” a customer as they are guaranteed a job outcome from approx over a year since they began. There will be discrimination of parking people who might look like they can’t easily find a job.

      As there is so much time most providers can guarantee to push such person into at least a short term job outcome… They would apply for the job on your behalf and set you up for an interview. Threaten sanctions non-stop for non-compliance.

      They already profit as they received a big chunk of the contract value before they even began work.

      They will receive an outcome even if you secure a job yourself and sign off.

      Flexible New Deal

      February 4, 2010 at 7:09 pm

  19. Abu – the target in question in the “job outcome” payment, otherwise known as 13B. This “bonus” is paid to Reed in Partnership (or other similar “provider”) after you have been “signed-off” for 13 weeks and in supposed employment. Of course, it’s not in Reed’s best interests for you to obtain sustainable employment – Reed will actively dissuade you from entertaining any ideas that go against THEIR best interests. Reed encourages their PAs to have an eye on “repeat business”, the so-called revolving door effect; they aim to cash in again and again.

    The latest available figures indicate that 36% of New Deal participants are “placed in employment”, 27 of those are “still in employment” 13 weeks later, equating to approximately 1 in 10 overall.

    Denting clients confidence does sound counter-productive, but like I said, it makes the client more malleable and open to suggestion. People who are confident with high self-esteem will fight back. It’s all about “breaking people down” and “re-building” them – psychologists call it “re-adjustment”.

    Likewise, engendering feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness will also make a vulnerable client more likely feel unable to cope and thus to “exit” the “programme” – its all about protecting Reed’s bottom line.

    Reed in Partnership employees are abusive, obnoxious bullies – the lowest of the low; they are running a suppossed “employment support” business along the lines of a double-glazing telesales business.

    P Skellan

    February 4, 2010 at 7:21 pm

  20. Fortunately, at the moment, there are checks and balances in the system, and Reed in Partnership have to go through the JobCentre Decision Making and Appeals process.

    Reed in Partnership vigourously attempt to impose sanctions, including the 26 week “refusal of employment” sanction.

    Rest assured that Reed in Partnership would have no compunction in leaving you without and income, if you were left homeless and hungry then so be it.

    Thats how thoroughly ruthless, pure evil and beneath contempt this abomination of an organisation is.

    P Skellan

    February 4, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    • Just to highlight…

      Jobcentre Plus FND guidance booklets do NOT mention about providers having the ability to give variable sanctions.

      Providers however do have the powers to give variable sanctions as well as fixed sanctions.

      Flexible New Deal

      February 4, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    • Perhaps that could be stated in the appeal… not sure it would have any benefit though.

      Flexible New Deal

      February 4, 2010 at 8:52 pm

  21. hi my name is ANNA i am from Poland . I am with Reed from 2007 i wos working one year affter i leave the job. I found myself other job. They still coling me asking for my prove of incom . They eaven col my menager to give the information about how meny hours a week i am doing or how much they pay me without let me knowing. And they cleim that they from DWP and they say they need 2 check if i am taking froud benefits. They say that the need to close down something and i need to com 2 the office to signature something. And i refuse so the told me that i have to be awere the coming to my job talk with my menager. They cold her today but she told the my information is privat. I dont know what to do they dont wanna leave me alone . They make me to signature some like – emigration, medical record ,police, tax work, employer . That this is for them to use. I leave them i foun on my on job and the still want see my payment . When i am ask them why they say that going 2 give me 150pound bonus and open new account. Plese let me know they cen do that to everyone.


    February 4, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    • If they contacted you impersonating an DWP Employment Officer… the best route to take would be to inform both the police and DWP Fraud department.

      I can’t say I am surprised Reed is involved in some current legal disputes…

      Flexible New Deal

      February 4, 2010 at 11:01 pm

      • Great advice! This behaviour sounds oh so typical of Reed. Disgusting!

        P Skellan

        February 4, 2010 at 11:33 pm

  22. Anna – Reed have absolutely no reason to be pestering you or your present employer. Their behaviour amounts to harassment. You may have to take legal advice.

    Do not attend any office of Reed in Partnership. And most importantly – do not sign anything!

    P Skellan

    February 4, 2010 at 9:32 pm

  23. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to call a Public
    Inquiry to establish whether paying private companies to reduce UK unemployment represents good value for the taxpayer?


    Gerry Attric

    February 5, 2010 at 12:05 am

  24. Anna, go to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (there is one in every town) straight away. They will help you. The CAB are very good with such cases.

    Those bastards should be held to account.

    Andrew Coates

    February 5, 2010 at 9:48 am

    • Good idea!

      P Skellan

      February 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      • If Reed realise that they have broke the Law and are in serious trouble they will try and wriggle out out of this situation. Don’t accept any apologies or bribes from this utterly evil organisation. Be thoroughly ruthless! As Andrew says – make sure these bastards are held to account!

        P Skellan

        February 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm

  25. Trouble is corporate bodies (i.e. businesses that aren’t sole traders – be in limited companies, organisations etc.) and even Government departments are exempt from most laws.

    A business who steals money from you isn’t theft in that sense. In order to get your money back you would have to sue them (take civil action in the courts) it would be outside the Police’s remit unless an individual was named as the culprit so in most cases a criminal case isn’t existant.

    Of course there are watchdogs and trading standards/OFT etc. but they are useless at any enforcement.

    Most scams take YEARS to be discovered and such action taken is a fine. By then, the management shuts the limited company down and then setup another. Individuals and business then lose out of millions of pounds which aren’t recovered.

    Of course, directors can be disqualified… however, it is extremely RARE for this ever to happen besides the individual doesn’t have to become a director, paying someone else to instead.

    Flexible New Deal

    February 5, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    • Too true, the Police would only mount a prosecution against an Individual in these circumstances, not the Corporate Body that is Reed, and even then they would need evidence. I suspect that Reed would use the argument of “being in Partnership” with the DWP as a defence against an impersonation charge. And I suspect that this procedure is standard practice (employees of Reed will be told to do this) as it gives more import to their inquires.

      P Skellan

      February 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm

  26. Re: Data Protection Act

    Interesting to note that in the New Deal Contract (for YMCA, but I’d expect it to be broadly similar re other “providers”), that sharing of clients personal data with “third parties” is expressly forbidden:

    “13.2.2 not disclose Personal Data to any third party other than (i) to the extent required by a court order, or (ii) employees or sub-contractors to whom such disclosure is reasonably necessary in order for the Provider to carry out the Programme provided that such disclosure is made subject to written terms substantially the same as the terms contained in this Clause 13 and provided that such disclosure has been approved in advance by JobCentre Plus.

    Also worth noting:

    “Jobcentre Plus shall be the Data Controller of the Personal Data collected and held by the Provider in performing the Services, and such Personal Data shall form part of JobCentre Plus’s Data.


    Raw Deal

    February 14, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    • Well spotted!

      YMCA Training disclosed such information to QDP Services without consent of participants.

      The section of that contract (multi-programme) is the same for all providers.

      Flexible New Deal

      February 14, 2010 at 7:27 pm

  27. This means that RIP (and other “providers” are in Breach of their New Deal Contract when they disclose Personal Data to a “third party”.

    Raw Deal

    February 14, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    • The problem is we don’t know for sure if such a clause exists in the Flexible New Deal contract.

      Participants on Flexible New Deal at Reed can always use that as a way out. PA’s aren’t likely to have read the contract anyway.

      Flexible New Deal

      February 14, 2010 at 7:29 pm

  28. It also belies the outright lies that New Dealers are told by RIP ie that signing the Data Protection Waiver is necessary for RIP to be able to “talk” to JobCentre Plus. Don’t sign!!

    Raw Deal

    February 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    • hehe yeah. DWP and RIP talks anyway. All New Deal providers and Jobcentre Plus talk even when you are a) not signed on the course or b) after the course has ended.

      Flexible New Deal

      February 14, 2010 at 7:31 pm

  29. can anyone advise me about pathways

    roy waring

    March 17, 2010 at 11:47 am

  30. rip are just your typical workfare, new deal provider, pure and utter scum.


    March 17, 2010 at 12:00 pm

  31. check this from their website:

    Reed in Partnership has been working with Amey Facilities in Glasgow since 2008, and to date have placed nearly 50 members into work as school cleaners, with an outstanding retention rate of 100%.

    Since last September we have been working closely with five Operations Managers, who cover 30 schools across Glasgow. Because we have a large number of offices across Glasgow and a good supply of candidates we have been able to fill roles in all the required locations.

    To improve the service we provide even further, we constructed and have now started
    implementing a bespoke “Routes to Success” course for Amey to ensure all their new staff are well prepared for work, with the specific skills and knowledge required by Amey.

    John Robertson, Operations Manager at Amey Facilities has welcomed the recruitment
    support provided by Reed in Partnership: “Reed in Partnership are a preferred supplier of staff recruitment and we have built a great relationship with Kirsty Cameron [specialist recruitment manager], due to her determination and hard work.”

    Our success to date means we are now actively planning to expand our service provision for other areas of Amey such as roads maintenance.

    cleaner is bad enough but ROADS MAINTENANCE!!


    March 17, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    • ROADS MAINTENANCE!! – I sure hope Amey don’t sign up for workfare!

      chris heron

      March 17, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    • I’ve got a bad back.


      March 17, 2010 at 8:08 pm

  32. lol this blog ranks at number 8 in google for rip lol bet the bastards love that


    March 17, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    • Hiya reggie 😉

      It currently ranks at number 6 lol


      March 28, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      • hi clair 😉

        you’ve got the right attitude, just keep perky and positive, rip won’t like it, but sod them 😉 its em rip £advisers£ that have the problem. we really should feel sorry for them lol, I mean I often wonder what traumatic life event caused them to take a job like that lol just look at them – a right bunch of saddos lol

        best of luck



        April 2, 2010 at 11:53 am

  33. Since joining this so called “Course” i have been depressed, feeling of worthlessness, reduced to tears, continuously worrying, angry, frustrated, unsociable, nightmares, tired ect ect!!! 😦

    In all my life i have never felt all these symptoms at once 😦


    March 27, 2010 at 11:19 pm

  34. I am sorry to hear this Clair.

    One way out of this is to think that you are a new George Orwell investigating the life of the down and outs.

    Then you should write about it!

    Best wishes,

    Andrew Coates

    March 28, 2010 at 11:19 am

  35. Good Afternoon Peeps 😉

    Sorry about the previous post, I was feeling exposed & emotional!

    My initial thoughts – led me to believe, i am a waste of space; since reading this blog the Guardian & BBC fraud articles which Reed In Partnership have been responsible for. I have realized these Evil people at RIP are trained to implant negative thoughts into your mind. To make you think you have no alternative’s but to do as they say. I am not changing my personality while present in this Evil establishment(s) I will remain polite, happy, activity seeking work in my sector & treat People how i like to be treated.

    Thanks Andrew 😉 maybe i should write an article with evidence to the Guardian? 😀


    March 28, 2010 at 12:05 pm

  36. I have a strange feeling weed in partner shit (ops mean’t rip) will try to have this Blog deleted 😦


    March 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm

  37. And there is no deterrent either to disuade individuals working for them NOT to committ fraud. No one ever gets prosecuted, they just get sacked. And the providers are free to continue bidding for contracts

    NB: I said “individuals” in case any provider think this is a libelous statement. I have not identified any provider by name!

    Gerry Attric

    March 28, 2010 at 3:47 pm

  38. Reed in partnership invites people (job seekers) with pending convictions, surely they could separate villians from law abiding citizen.

    junkie’s, alcoholics, convicted criminals, charged of violence, football hooligans, convicted of theft, rude boy’s, mugging & assault, anti – social behaviour.

    I have been approached by drug dealers twice beggars.


    March 28, 2010 at 6:13 pm

  39. Been attending RIP for a while now. Started out quite supportive, but recently have become more sinister and sneaky.
    They got many to fill applications for a job vacancy, which turns out to be an unpaid work trial. Was told I had got an interview for a job I had not even seen or applied for and went along only to find it was… UNPAID WORK TRIAL!


    March 30, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    • What kind of “work” was this “work trial”, and for how long?


      March 31, 2010 at 4:21 pm

  40. good luck with the interview – NOT!


    March 30, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    • That place really does spew some bullshit to try make you feel small if you don’t jump through their hoops.


      March 31, 2010 at 8:50 am

      • it appears that you have mental health issues, hugodross, have you been to see your doctor recently?

        RIP Adviser

        March 31, 2010 at 3:02 pm

  41. “it appears that you have mental health issues, hugodross, have you been to see your doctor recently?”

    Maybe I should, get off the New Deal circus then!


    March 31, 2010 at 4:09 pm

  42. “What kind of “work” was this “work trial”, and for how long?”

    Retail for a month I think, never got pass the interview stage.


    March 31, 2010 at 5:02 pm

  43. Question

    Reed in Partnership: What Kind of Partners for the Unemployed?


    Read my new post.

    * RiP hit hard by Ofsted
    * Grade 4 for each section
    * Staff not CRB checked
    * Local contract for the disabled


    Flexible New Deal

    April 9, 2010 at 9:22 am

  44. […] Reed in Partnership and the dodgy Data Protection Act 1998 agreements […]

    • This kind of puts into perspective all those “anti-suicide”, “anti-bullying”, “anti-harassment” campaigns that the Government we are subjected to. I wonder what the statistics re depression/suicide rates of those unfortunate enough to be placed on these “courses”.


      May 18, 2010 at 5:33 pm

  45. i’m with rip… they put us on a journey course, what a crock of shit… one of the girls mentioned that she had just got a flat after being on the street. the other day as i was arriving for me appointment she was leaving in tears. i asked her wot was wrong and she said that her advisor had told her that reed will make sure that she is thrown back onto the streets…. i had to take her to starbucks to calm her down…. this is a fucking disgrace…. are these cunts trying to drive people to suicide…. the sooner these places are shut the better…. burn in hell all you work for these cunts.

    davy jones

    May 16, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    • one of ma mates landed in hospital cos she was put on job centa course — slit her wrists u think they do this on purpose???? try n get the peeps to kill emselves????


      May 17, 2010 at 10:09 am

    • This kind of puts into perspective all those “anti-suicide”, “anti-bullying”, “anti-harassment” campaigns that the Government subjects us to. I wonder what the statistics re depression/suicide rates of those unfortunate enough to be placed on these “courses”.


      May 18, 2010 at 5:34 pm

  46. Provider Guidance Updated 29 March

    Employment Zones

    19. Compliance with Data Protection Act and Information Disclosure
    The contractor must ensure that there are adequate arrangements in place for
    collecting, processing and sharing customer information.

    It is important to remind a customer of the DWP confidentiality statement which they
    signed when they first made a claim to benefit. However, a customer’s signature
    which only acknowledges awareness of the DWP Confidentiality Statement does not
    constitute “consent” at all and does not enable any sort of data sharing or disclosure.
    It simply provides a degree of assurance that DWP will handle personal data fairly
    and lawfully.

    There is no specific legislative “enabler” which gives a provider the ability to gather
    or share customer’s information with a third party, for example an employer or
    another training provider, for the purpose of placing the customer into training/work
    and obtaining outcome-related payments from DWP. The informed consent of the
    individual must be obtained beforehand, in line with the requirements of the Data
    Protection Act.

    The information disclosure consent form must, as a minimum, contain the following
    • What customer’s information your organisation will collect;
    • why the organisation needs the information, for example for the purpose of
    recording the numbers of customers placed into training and/or employment ,
    monitoring the effectiveness of the service and reporting outcomes to DWP
    and claiming associated payments;
    • how the information will be stored;
    • when and why the information will be shared with a third party, for example an
    employer will be contacted when the customer starts work within so many
    weeks of leaving provision for the purpose of obtaining evidence of
    employment so that a job outcome payment can be claimed from DWP.

    Your organisation needs to make it clear to customers that giving consent is
    voluntary and that refusal to give consent or withdrawal of an existing consent will
    not affect any benefit they may be entitled to.

    Authorisation to contact an employer to obtain evidence of employment must be
    expressly stated by the Provider and consented to by the customer before any
    information disclosure takes place. Renewal of consent needs to be confirmed at
    every intervention

    Office of Data Protectorate

    July 4, 2010 at 1:58 pm

  47. Updated 29 March 2010

    Office of Data Protectorate

    July 4, 2010 at 1:59 pm

  48. On my first interview with RIP I had to sign their disclaimer form against my will. I was told by my Reed adviser that though it was in theory “opptional” in reality if I refused the Jobcentre would stop my JSA.

    When I later quized the Jobcentre afterwards about this they said it was untrue.Now it fortunatly looks like the forced disclaimer signing wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. After reading this I certanly wont be signing any thing else against my will and god help Reed if they try to take advantage of the disclaimer I was forced to sign.

    RIP'd Off

    July 4, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    • “Your organisation needs to make it clear to customers that giving consent is
      voluntary and that refusal to give consent or withdrawal of an existing consent will
      not affect any benefit they may be entitled to.”

      Office of Data Protectorate

      July 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  49. Never be afraid to say No.

    Confiscate the agreement too (besides even if you did sign it you should have a copy given to you)

    Flexible New Deal

    July 4, 2010 at 7:46 pm

  50. I recently tried to enrol my daughter at a nursery and was given a form to sign authorising the nursery to share (my) and my daughter’s data with “Governmnent Agencies and third parties”. Not sure if it was the best idea, but I refused to sign anyway. The wife gave me a bit of earache, but you know what women are like. A nursery for crying out loud. Just thought I’d let you know that it’s not just the unemployed that are being subjected to this. The phrase “Totalitarian Tiptoe” springs to mind. Best wishes to you all.

    Concerned Parent

    July 19, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    • Thanks for letting us know.

      They are normally crafty by saying “Government Agencies” as most people aren’t all too bothered as most Government bodies can obtain the information lawfully without your consent anyway under prescribed conditions.

      “third parties” as we all knows means everyone else. Could sell your details on to insurance companies and scammers too.

      Flexible New Deal

      July 19, 2010 at 4:08 pm

  51. I had an interview this morning with RIP (well, ‘assessment centre’) and was disgusted to have the people I would be trying to help in a trainer role referred by a member of staff to as ‘them’ and ‘that lot’ and spoken about as if all unemployed people are the same and a horrible unco-operative bunch at that.

    I take offence that companies like that are allowed to be so disrespectful and sneering – how can you judge a group of people as all the same? I am glad not to have been considered one of them and will look forward to not working with them.

    V Bennett

    November 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    • I am not in the least surprised at this, V Bennett… Interesting stuff 🙂 Just out of curiosity 🙂 what else happened, was said, what’s the inside track on RIP? 🙂


      November 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm

  52. I was referred to RIP in september this year and entered second step in October which meant RIP were responsible for paying the JSA component of my benefits.
    Now I had requested that this was payed directly into my bank account but due to their error was being payed by cheque instead which greatly complicated my life as I rely on the bank to pay my bills by monthly direct debit.
    Despite my repeated requests and their assurances this would be fixed they continued to do this for 6 weeks at which point I was forced to officially complain to management.
    For my troubles I received a letter referring me back to the jobcentre and am currently awaiting a decision as to wether my benefits should be stopped!
    How on Earth can these people get away with this and any advice would be appreciated?

    j. mccahey

    November 29, 2010 at 12:58 pm

  53. Been with them (N15) over three months now. Had one, yes only one interview with a potential employer. Many useless workshops, prep sessions, screenings, lots of strange errors, mistakes, non existing interviews, wrong dates, wrong hours, lack of communications between other similar places where they send ‘members’. They bring nothing but mess to your life, no way to plan anything, very difficult to do anything else, need to postpone dentist and vet for my dog twice, no way to go on course or training, even if you show them documents they kinda forget next day and continue to make you feel you are the worst scum around. If they are paid by government I call it fraud. Massive fraud. I try to use my mobile phone sound recorder as much as possible, no doubt it may be very useful. All the best to all you people.


    December 11, 2010 at 12:30 am

  54. get a life a job and stop moaning

    andrew coates

    December 11, 2010 at 8:49 am

  55. Stop your whines and moans. People like you give the GENUINE workseeker a bad name.

    Flexible New Deal

    December 11, 2010 at 1:44 pm

  56. Same brush for everyone … how convenient, how easy, how simple,
    Same brush for everyone … how shallow, narrow minded, just typical
    Wise man giving advice, they know, they think …
    Hopefully one day will come and bring you experience …
    Life changing one … waiting to see your post then …
    After a three doses of painkillers a day, every day, every day …
    Waiting to see your post then …
    Now spit at me …
    Here you can …


    December 12, 2010 at 1:12 am

  57. From the moneysavingexpertforums:

    Dark Lady 10-04-2011, 5:08 PM

    “For me it was a leg up into the sex industry as i went from a work placement in a charity shop to a work placement filing at the council to a proper job in a sex chatline office which i applied for off my own back to get off benefits and off New Deal. The New Deal provider at the time (Reed) wernt too happy about what had to go on the paperwork. In fact it took two hours to sign off because they were panicking about it.
    Then just after i started the job (which was nightshifts) my boss told me that “someone from the Jobcentre” had been round to the chatline office (during the day while i was at home sleeping, night shifts remember) wanting to know the exact details of the job i was doing. Now it doesnt make sense that it was a Jobcentre advisor cos they have it all to gain when you sign off.
    So it must have been someone from Reed New Deal who was !!!!ed at losing his bonus (cos they didnt get one back then if you found a job and signed off on your own back but they got a bonus if you stayed on the dole and kept doing work placements with them) this was ten years ago. I was absolutely furious.
    A They could have lost me the new job.
    Luckily my boss saw through it and told them to get lost.
    B Once i had signed off it was no bloody business of theirs anyway. How dare they.
    The Reed advisor even had the cheek to say to me “oh the chatline are only paying you 12 and a half grand a year. We can do better than that.” So i fired back, “No you cant. You have had me on work placements for months on end.
    Absolutely unbelievable and 12 grand a year was a bloody good wage ten years ago especially in a small town like this. So i bit that companys hand off and kissed New Deal goodbye.”

    Dark Lady 11-04-2011, 3:30 PM

    “Four Candles you talk about it getting you motivated to get up in the morning but the chatline job i got was nights. People might work 9 to 5 in your world but thats not the case for everyone.
    And i found the chatline job myself so Reed got the hump over losing their bonus and the chance to keep handing me out as free labour. Which is why they came to my office when they knew i wouldnt be there because of sleeping during the day because i worked nights. They were deliberately trying to make a nuisance of themselves hoping my new boss would get fed up and sack me so then i would have to sign on and then be back on their books as free labour again. I was lucky that i had a decent boss who saw through it and told them it was none of their business anymore.
    But if these !!!!!!!s had got me the sack i would have gone straight to the press.”


    Martin Lewis

    April 18, 2011 at 5:08 pm

  58. About an e-mail that I sent to my Reed adviser at The Work Programme last night:

    Hi (first name)

    I would like to make it absolutely clear that I am not willing to sign a consent form and I do not agree for Reed to share my information.

    Although I was asked to sign the back of the Action Plan this afternoon, you did not point out that the action plan itself contained practically the same consent agreement as the one given to me on a separate sheet, which I was not willing to sign anyway. I was led to believe that I was only signing an undertaking to an action plan. Only when I got home, and I read the form properly, I noticed the sub-section under the Data Protection Act sub-heading. I now feel that I was being tricked into signing a consent form against my will. You offered me the back of the action plan to sign, and you pointed to the action plan… at no stage did you draw my attention that there was a second request for a signed consent to share my information.

    Also, I was not told anything about the complaints procedure – which is mentioned in the faded paragraph above my signature.

    What was the point of giving me “Annex 1 – Employment Programmes – consent to share information” form which on page two says: “if you do not give consent, this will ot affect your entitlement to participate in the programme, or any job offer or employment obtained. You can write to Reed in Partnership Providers at any time to withdraw your consent and this will not affect your placement on the programme or any employment or offer of employment made.”? Please accept now that I have withdrawn my consent to those paragraphs in the Action Plan that refer to me sharing my information with third parties.
    To sneak a consent agreement on the same sheet as an Action Plan was a contradiction to my right regarding consent. In the future, please do not attempt to make one document serve two distinct purposes and ask me to sign it, because such an attempt to extract a consent from me, I find to be quite upsetting and underhanded.

    Yours sincerely

    I received a reply to my email, and here it is (I offer this information so that it may help anyone experiencing something similar):

    Hi cvitae

    Apologies that you felt that the Data Protection statement was hidden and that it was not made clear, this was not in our intentions.

    You are not obliged to sign the Data Protection Act at Reed in Partnership although this effectively restricts us from passing on your details to prospective employers and internal vacancies. This could diminish your chances of gaining employment.

    Please be advised that on all future action plans you can cross out the Data Protection statement and write that you do not agree to this.

    In regards to our complaints procedure, if you have any issues please address them with me in the first instance, if you are unable to find a solution with myself the complaint will be passed to my Business Manager who will write to you with their findings within five working days. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the initial investigation your issue will be escalated to a senior member of staff who will investigate further and aim to provide written feedback within ten working days. We will investigate complaints thoroughly and look to provide a positive resolution to all issues presented to us.

    If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

    (full name)
    Employment Adviser
    Work Programme
    Reed in Partnership



    January 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm

  59. I know this is old but I just wanted to say the Reed in Partnership scheme was of no use to me whatsoever. They basically operate like a macrocosm of the JCP offices – that is to say a lot of bored, cynical unfeeling arseholes in an impoverished part of the city parroting the same tired script to 100 desperate job seekers every day without ever actually offering you a job. I was already tired of the JCP’s horrible approach to dealing with the unemployed, that being to constantly remind you to apply for jobs as if the thought hadn’t already occurred to you and then send you off on a course to make their stats look good when they got sick of the sight of you. This, of course, is how I ended up with RINP, but it turned out their attitude was 100% the same, only with patronising “classes” and roleplay interviews thrown in with the threat of losing your JSA for failure to participate. Acceptable from the JCP, of course not, but certainly expected. From a branch of a so-called recruitment agency? No. There is no scale to measure how patently inexcusable that is.


    October 14, 2013 at 9:02 am

  60. Hey there, I think your blog might be having browser
    compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer,
    it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!
    Other then that, amazing blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: