Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Universal Jobmatch Mandatory (but not ‘Blanket’) from 4th March.

with 68 comments

The PCS trade union has announced,

“The Secretary of State for DWP will make an announcement on 1st March 2013 that, with effect from 4th March 2013, FLAs can mandate claimants to register for UJ. This will be done via a Jobseeker Direction. Importantly, however, management have acknowledged that mandatory sign up to UJ will not be a blanket approach; instead, FLAs should encourage claimants to use UJ. Mandatory sign up will be on an individual basis, if the FLA feels that UJ would be beneficial to the claimant, and they have ‘unreasonably refused’. Management will be issuing guidance around this shortly.

Cookies Legislation

Currently, EU cookie legislation prevents mandatory sign up requiring customers to use their home computers to register for, or use UJ. This is because the choice to accept cookies on your computer has to be made ‘freely’, under the EU legislation. This means that if an FLA seeks to mandate a claimant to register on UJ, they will need to look at alternative methods of doing so – Internet Access Device (IAD) within a jobcentre, use of computer in local library, etc. Management refer to this as their ‘tactical solution’. PCS have raised doubts that there are sufficient resources within Jobcentres to enable this to be a realistic workaround.

However, the UJ project has indicated that they are seeking to make changes to the UJ site which will provide an option to remove the cookies from home computers. When these changes are made, FLAs will be able to mandate customers to sign up from home. This is what management are calling the ‘strategic’ solution, but they are unable to say when this ‘fix’ will be implemented.

Access to UJ Account

If, and when, a claimant signs up to UJ, they will be encouraged to give DWP access to their account. However, it is absolutely clear from a legal perspective that the claimant does not have to tick the box to give DWP access to their account, and can provide alternative proof of UJ sign up and use, e.g. screenprints

FLAs setting up UJ Accounts

It has been brought to the attention of PCS that some District Managers are encouraging FLAs to set up their own UJ account and then take claimants for a ‘walkthrough’ of the system. PCS has challenged the security aspect of this process and, as a result, management centrally, have issued clear instructions that this practice must stop. PCS has received assurances centrally that any advisor, following what they believed to be a ‘reasonable management request’, will face no disciplinary action as a result of their actions.

Robustness of UJ Site

PCS has raised serious concerns around the robustness of the UJ site. The UJ site has already attracted widespread media attention due to a number of rogue job adverts that have appeared and security concerns. Management have stated that they have increased the number of checks on the site to prevent ‘bogus’ adverts appearing, but are unable to offer any cast-iron guarantees that vacancies of this type will not appear in the future. PCS has also challenged management around employers offering jobs with salaries/wages below the national minimum wage level. Again, management state that they are constantly monitoring any misuse of the system. Although they admit that there a number of fixes to the site still to be made, for example around the geographical searches, management insist that the site popular and well used.


The view of PCS is that Universal Jobmatch is nothing more than a crude tool being used by DWP management to help deliver this government’s ‘scorched earth’ approach to the welfare reform agenda. Disgracefully, it is PCS members who are at the forefront of criticism from claimants and welfare groups alike when failings of the system are highlighted across the national media. FLAs should follow the guidance and use their own discretion when mandating claimants to sign up to UJ, and resist any local targets or blanket approaches at a local level.

The working processes outlined within this circular are absolute and not subject to any “interpretation” by district managers. Any attempt to amend these processes under the banner of ‘Freedoms and Flexibilities’ should be escalated to the Group Office as a matter of urgency.”


  • In Suffolk the public Library Computer system will not support Universal Jobmatch (just one of the problems this ‘privatised charity’ is causing). How can you get access to it if you do not have a home link to the Net? Johnny Void says that ”  Jobcentres will be providing Internet Access Devices for those unable or unwilling to use a home PC.”. We are sceptical, very sceptical , that local Jobcentres will be able to cope with the demand. Ipswich Silent Street DWP and JC are straining to park their growing number of clients as it is.
  • “Currently, EU cookie legislation prevents mandatory sign up requiring customers to use their home computers to register for, or use UJ.” So even if you have a link to the Net they can’t make you sign up through your home broadband etc.
  • If you feel you would like to use Universal Jobmatch (and we would hardly recommend ignoring any way of getting proper work) you do not need to  give your ‘adviser’ access to your account. If you dislike Nosey-Parkers, do not mark the box which allows this.

On the Web we learn that security problems, the risk of identity theft, and bogus job announcements, continue.

This is no surprise: the system is created by some American company whose interests are far from public service.

It is likely that more difficulties will come to light in the coming weeks.


68 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. So basically their be targeting those that lack the knowlege to state their case. In this instance i urge those that are informed to listen out during signing on periods for any of these targeted people.

    Not covered in the above post was wheres government stats that proves employment success through putting your CV online as opposed to the conventional approach of manually applying. Im sorry but a tick in a box means nothing as its all so they can monitor you while not having to toil over paped evidence.

    I signed my CV up years ago to three well known sits, one being the very company running UJ and it hasnt still to this date increased my chances of employment and why because its a statistic, a propbability.

    What do i mean

    We say if we take one of two dice and throw it we get a 1 in 6 chance of getting a desired number but we all know we can throw one 6 times and equally not get this desired number. the reason is its a lot more complicated than just 6 mere sides as you have to factor weight,height,air resistence,etc. This being the case makes any stat/probability incorrect when it only measures a mere few factors.

    Stats only produce what its creator wants it to produce and nothing more so is often incorrect or should i say incomplete when other relative variables are not introduced.

    This said made to or not is hardly the end of the world as if your concern is one of privacy then simply remove your full address and replace it with an email address so the top reads only full name (you could quite legally put either both or just christain or surname) followed by an email address.I personally add area but again isnt important and not putting it in often encourages a response from employers.

    Remember just because you have uploaded a cv dosent mean you have to log your evidence electronically, you are still within your rights to continue applying via the manual method thus negating any chance of anyone profiling your activity.

    As for sending you vacanies the individual who sent it most be able to demonstrate why and how you are eligable for said vacancy, theirs no point me sending you a shelf filling vacancy if you dont have te required experience and qualifications (yes, retail has qualifications).

    By thinking about this carefully you will see no matter the law used that the idea can still fall down around its own ears.


    March 3, 2013 at 3:19 pm

  2. Another complaint and very much an infringment is that even now its not open to the general public (ie,some email address,contact details removed delibrately) unless you sign up which in terms of opportunity is wholely unequal and as such infringes rights in concerns to equal opportunities for all.

    I dont care what DWP put into law as i can go around all day destroying their ideology thus disproving their point and thats why IDS and the likes are affraid of me and wont address my very valied points and concerns.

    IDS and his kind are like children to me when i consider their intellect compared to mine so you choose who you follow as following ignorant idoits isnt something i do.


    March 3, 2013 at 3:32 pm

  3. Heres what happens when you confront DWP on how is it legal,see what i mean about being ignored when you hit a valid point.



    March 3, 2013 at 3:54 pm

  4. they will never make ujm mandatory its just a smoke screen to catch ppl out atm

    not even got pcs at my jcp yet or there getting the provider to get ppl on it there.

    super ted

    March 3, 2013 at 4:21 pm

  5. ‘Numbercrunching with UJM’, by something survived…

    1) The thing about needing to print out proof:
    Our JCP has 2 dodgy computers at the back, and you must prebook and queue. They are not linked to a printer. The printers in the building are linked only to the JCP’s separate and staff-operated computer system. Which is not linked to UJM.
    I’ve not got into the queue for a computer yet as the queue is very long, and before you join the queue you must reach the end of a queue to get an appointment to make an appointment for permission to get into the next queue. (like in ‘Brazil’, by Terry Gilliam!)
    Neither of the computers is currently working properly. The person who decides who is allowed to prebook an appointment for the first queue, is: the G4S Security Guard! And he doesn’t give them (appointments) to people he doesn’t like or whose face he doesn’t like. Quite often black and Asian people have been told there are no slots available. (This is the same guard who has previously said ‘jungle bunnies’, ‘coons’, ‘queers’, etc. A radiant example of humanity.)

    Our city has roughly 20,000 permanent residents and 15,000 part-time/temporary residents.
    Of the permanent residents, approximately 7,000 are registered unemployed and have to sign on at the jobcentre. This is every two weeks, except in the case of homeless people with ‘No Fixed Abode’, who have to sign on 5 days a week. Slots last less than 5 minutes to sign on. They want you out quickly because more jobseekers are pouring in.
    Despite a recruitment drive and forced acceptance of job offers, most of the positions filled at the DWP/JCP locally have been minimum-wage ones at the out-of-town DWP callcentre, a place incidentally lacking public transport or disability access. Or any amenities/infrastructure. A mile from it, on the same industrial estate, is a tiny, private creche. It is oversubscribed and expensive, and is not a creche that is covered by any of the voucher schemes for subsidised childcare that are aimed at single mothers. The jobcentre itself has been laying off staff, and cutting the hours and responsibilities of the remaining staff. The staff that are left, claim they do not have enough appointments to see everyone so there is a backlog.
    If you assume they work from 9-5 (they don’t) and that there are 4 of them in the JCP, and that they work for 6.5 hours (allowing 60min lunchbreak and 2 15min breaks) a day, and that they see one ‘client’ (sic) per 10 minutes: They could theoretically each see 39 ‘clients’
    per day per member of staff. With 4 staff that is 156 ‘clients’ per day. Over 5 weekdays, that is 780 ‘clients’. Per signing cycle, it is 1,560 ‘clients’. But applicants must sign on fortnightly.
    3,120 ‘clients’ could be seen a month. The backlog of 7,000 people would take over 2 months to clear, even if all 4 staff assigned to signing-on worked flat out, never got ill or late,
    never used the toilet, etc.

    Let’s say that of the 7,000 jobseekers, most are mandated to work programme or workfare. All are required to use UJM.
    If they have 1-hour booked sessions on the computer, 6 people per computer per day, gives 12 people that can use a computer per day if they go as fast as possible without breaks and if both computers are working. That is 60 jobseekers per week at top speed.
    In 2 weeks, 120 jobseekers could use a computer. In 1 month, 240 jobseekers.

    Let’s say that on 1st January 2013 (though New Year’s Day is currently a bank holiday and no jobcentre would be open or require jobseekers to attend and sign on), the first of our city’s 7,000 registered jobseekers goes for a session on the computer. Nothing ever malfunctions, and everyone gets their one hour slot and goes through seamlessly. By 31st January, 240 jobseekers have had their one hour. By 28th February, 480 people.
    At 31st March, 720 people have been seen. On 30th April, 960 people. By May 31st, 1,200 jobseekers; by 30th June, 1,440. By 31st July, 1,680. By 31st August, 1,920 people. On September 30th the total stands at 2,160. On October 31st it’s reached 2,400. On November 30th, 2,640. On December 31st, 2,880.

    At this rate, the 7,000th jobseeker gets their single, one-hour slot on the first of June 2015!
    This assumes that all people used are a different person each slot, and have one slot only, lasting one hour. UJM and UC requires everyone to look daily or weekly for jobs, for the rest of their lives,for 35 hours per week. This system gives person 7,000 their first slot two and a half years after joining the start of the queue. Another thing overlooked, is that if any jobseeker gains a spouse or partner, this person is required to look too as part of the conditions required for UC, adding to the 7,000 jobseekers. Also for anyone moving to the area, losing their job, or becoming old enough to sign on/leaving college. Of course none of them are dyslexic or need any other help, and none of them are blind or unable to operate a mouse or keyboard, and none of them have mental health conditions or learning disabilities that get in the way of using a computer. And all of them turn up on time for their allocated hour. And none of them are accompanied by a crying baby or child. None of them are in pain from cancer or a bad back. None of them have ME or other conditions that tire them out and make them twice as slow in using the computer. And there are never any closures for bank holidays, strikes, staff training, etc. There are no closures due to bad weather or floods, power cuts, etc.

    If looked at further, the 7,000 jobseekers are split between 4 advisers, meaning a caseload of 1,750 jobseekers per adviser. No wonder they regard you as if you are a tiny piece of navel-fluff. Looking at jobseekers per computer, there are 3,500 jobseekers per JCP computer in our city. With all the strain on the computers, it is even more likely they will crash or break. Screwing everything up for all subsequent people in the queue. (Maybe they will locate JCP computers on a metal plate and have an exciting lottery. Each time a computer goes wrong, the jobseeker sitting at it is electrocuted. To pass the time, all jobseekers waiting inside the JCP can be mandated to wheelbarrow duty, tipping the bodies out into the street.) On a sample day, there might be 8 jobs listed that day for this city. So as a ratio, there are 875 jobseekers per job on any given day. Regardless of the suitability of the job.

    2) On the way the Work Programme staff are getting people to set up UJM accounts
    by ‘walking them through it’:
    This is correct. Even though it might be necessary for some people to have help, doing so breaches privacy and data protection laws. To enter UJM a client must disclose personal information including their ethnicity and sexual orientation. Frequently WPP staff have been observed rapidly ‘blasting through’ these questions, guessing their client’s ethnic group and entering heterosexual as their orientation.

    3) On the request for people to use libraries and internet cafes to access the internet:
    Libraries, if you have a card and are not (as I am) banned, restrict who can use computers. They have limited opening hours and numbers of terminals, and usually are not accessible to some disabled people. They do not allow any devices to be connected, such as data with CVs. Many ban email and certain websites. A commonly banned website is UJM. Slots can be 30 minutes once per two or three months, with long waiting lists. Our library does not let you print from the internet now. Internet cafes are inaccessible, unaffordable, and/or nonexistent. They too have fixed hours of business.
    If you have home internet you could end up using the middle of the night to fit in your 35 hours of jobsearch, around all your other responsibilities. Or spend all your time jobsearching and none relaxing, sleeping or eating, and have no time to do any housework. Or any college work.

    4) WPP staff are falsely telling jobseekers that they must now tick the box giving all the DWP full access to monitor them and their account. ‘Consent’ through duress, is no consent at all.

    5) Advisers have no idea whatsoever about what is beneficial to the ‘client’. Any reasonable person would see that the whole DWP system is detrimental to the lives of the poor. Any reasonable person subjected to it, would be angry. Any reasonable person would not wish to work in the JCP, not least because of its artificial targets of people to sanction for no reason (as a means of gaining a promotion or bonus, or of keeping your job). For the one person that gets a job, there could be some positive feelings if they wanted the job and will be happy to do it. In the example of my city, there will be an additional 874 people that did not get the job. It could be their latest in 4 figures of rejections. This will not help their mental state, and if they actually wanted the job or felt they could do it, they will feel much worse. Older jobseekers will feel ‘tossed on the scrapheap’, and younger ones rejected will have the start of 50 years of rejections to look forward to. (What is the point of endlessly twisting the order of your CV to make it look ‘better’? What is ‘better’, particularly when the job in question is an unskilled McJob far below your skills and qualifications, and earning a wage you can’t live on?) WPP’s spend the whole of their ‘courses’ trying to get jobseekers to rewrite their CV. As soon as they do it, they are told to do it all over again. Repeat. Even watching paint dry, would be instructional about the nature of substances. To fulfil quotas of jobs to apply for, WPP’s are making people apply for ridiculous and undoable jobs on the opposite side of the country. They are also falsifying who is there and when, in order for the WPP to get paid.

    6) It does not or cannot, define what is an ‘unreasonable refusal’ to use UJM.
    “It’s shit!” could be one perfectly valid reason for declining to participate.

    something survived...

    March 3, 2013 at 4:31 pm

  6. jobseekers will feel ‘tossed on the scrapheap’

    im sat on top of it atm pmsl got no cv nothing to put on it apart from name addr and it says that on my action plan.from the jcp had 1 interview with the provider and that was that.

    so my action plan turns out to be fuck off n take the 400 quid and see you in 2 years time.

    super ted

    March 3, 2013 at 5:04 pm

  7. How does everyone hand their evidence in as that if you didnt know affords you further rights.

    Full ownership of property is when its from your ink,on your paper as anything less affords them certain rights. As ive already said put DPA on your CV,emails,cover letters and your have even more rights.

    As you already know signing up to this site is seriously iffy and has it been declared where this site is and to be run (as outside UK means, no DPA,no ICO,etc,etc),whos the data controller,where are they based?

    Its bad enough i cant get the data controller as it is now out of them, its this complete deniability thing, its so childish,our MPs are acting like children and it needs to stop,its embarrassing to see.

    What exactly is jobseekers direction,wheres its rules of operation,how is it assessed as to who qualifies?

    or should i say is this a ring fence without definition?

    Dont let them build that fence people,thats all i’ll say.


    March 3, 2013 at 7:12 pm

  8. the ujm website is hosted by Amazon and the particular server is located in Ireland

    super ted

    March 3, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    • Thanks Super ted, now do you know what this server does exactly and where amazon are to run it from (ie states,etc). Also can you please state how you know this (source),Theirs no mistrust,just that i need good solid info.

      The more info i have the more i can pour over laws to see exactly how protected we all are or not depending on what i find.


      March 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm

  9. I have been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.
    The cancer nurses are sending in my dla claim.
    Any bets on whether I get paid before I die?
    Me neither.


    March 4, 2013 at 12:40 am

  10. “Grantham Labour group calls for Thatcher statue in town”



    March 4, 2013 at 12:46 am

  11. gaia :
    Thanks Super ted, now do you know what this server does exactly and where amazon are to run it from (ie states,etc). Also can you please state how you know this (source),Theirs no mistrust,just that i need good solid info.
    The more info i have the more i can pour over laws to see exactly how protected we all are or not depending on what i find.

    id say its run/managed from the usa got a m8 on a tech forum to find it so should be legit lead cant see they have a hope in hell at this working now haha

    got a link for the foi office in the us ask them pmsl http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/

    super ted

    March 4, 2013 at 12:40 pm

  12. Universal Jobmatch – Privacy Policy – Update:

    Privacy policy as of March 1st 2013


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    March 4, 2013 at 12:56 pm

  13. We collect information about how you use this website, the areas of the site that you visit and what services you access. We use this information for analysing the use of the service resources and to improve the service. The site also gathers information about your computer hardware and software including browser and operating system type. This ensures the services work on the device you are using. This information is also needed in troubleshooting problems. We also collect the domain names, access times and referring website addresses. We use this data in preventing fraud, improving our services and troubleshooting problems.

    they can jog on they take the piss

    super ted

    March 4, 2013 at 1:09 pm

  14. “Government plans to clamp down on “benefit tourism” could see both Britons and immigrants affected by changes to the rules on entitlement.”


    The BBC article doesn’t tell us how “Britons” are going to be “affected”, I wonder if it means “Britons” who have been unemployed for more then six months will be treated the same as “immigrants”, sounds something along those lines to me!!!.


    March 4, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    • It could mean that those that have been living abroad and have come back to the UK.

      Habitual Residency Test Etc

      No Name

      March 4, 2013 at 5:38 pm

  15. Universal Jobmatch – DWP – Update:

    4 March 2013 – Jobseekers required to use Universal Jobmatch

    Jobseekers Allowance claimants can now be required to look for work using the government’s new Universal Jobmatch website, or risk losing their benefit.

    Universal Jobmatch revolutionises the process of looking for work by automatically matching jobseekers to jobs based on their skills and CV. Because the service is operational 24/7 jobseekers’ CVs are working for them – even when they’re asleep.

    Jobseekers have been quick to recognise the benefits and embrace the service, with almost two million already registered.

    The speed and convenience of the service, which jobseekers can access from their own homes, means that those who are serious about finding a job are better enabled to take control of their lives. The service is currently seeing an average of six million daily job searches, which is double the number carried out under the previous system.

    Until now its use has been entirely voluntary, but it has now been made possible for advisers to require Jobseekers Allowance claimants to use it where appropriate. Advisers will take into account the jobseekers’ circumstances and whether they have access to the internet. If a jobseeker refuses to use it without good reason, the adviser will be able to recommend they lose their benefits.

    Where possible, those who do not have internet access in their own homes will be able to access Universal Jobmatch in their Jobcentre.

    Minister for Employment, Mark Hoban, said:

    “Jobseekers who are serious about looking for work will get all the support they need from us. But in return for receiving Jobseekers Allowance they must prove they are doing everything they can to find a job.

    “Universal Jobmatch has already proved a big success in getting people get off benefits and into work, and people are flocking to use it.

    “If someone refuses to use a service that already has 460,000 employers posting jobs, you have to ask why – which is why we are now saying claimants must use it.”

    Notes to Editors:

    Universal Jobmatch was launched last year.

    It is open to all jobseekers, regardless of whether or not they are claiming a benefit.

    The service is free to use for employers as well as jobseekers. More than 460,000 employers have already registered to use it.

    All the data that jobseekers and employers enter onto Universal Jobmatch will be covered under the Data Protection Act.

    The website was designed using technology developed by Monster.com

    From March 1 Jobcentre advisers can require Jobseekers Allowance claimants to use the site through a Jobseeker Direction.

    If they refuse to comply, they can be recommended for a benefit sanction. A decision-maker takes the final decision over whether benefit should be removed.

    Media enquiries: 0203 267 5137
    Out of hours: 07659 108 883
    Website: http://www.dwp.gov.uk
    Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dwppressoffice


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    March 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm

  16. “If someone refuses to use a service that already has 460,000 employers posting jobs, you have to ask why – which is why we are now saying claimants must use it

    its shit its as simple as that and only 460.000 employers got a few more to add then lol


    super ted

    March 4, 2013 at 5:51 pm

  17. I really hope IDS, Freud and Hoban are a position one day where they are the one’s being told:

    Do it or Else.

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    March 4, 2013 at 6:48 pm

  18. “In order for a person to be eligible for unemployment benefits in Bulgaria they must have been working and making social insurance contributions for at least 9 out of the last 15 months”.

    A vision of the future?



    March 4, 2013 at 6:59 pm

  19. Revealed: Tory scheme to get disabled back to work finds places for just TEN people.

    The project which found work for only 10 people out of 1520 has been given a damning assessment by the Commons Public Accounts committee.


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    March 5, 2013 at 10:53 am

  20. I took a print out of this PCS update to the job centre, highlighting especially this section:

    “management have acknowledged that mandatory sign up to UJ will not be a blanket approach;Mandatory sign up will be on an individual basis, if the FLA feels that UJ would be beneficial to the claimant, and they have ‘unreasonably refused”.

    My advisor had already admitted that I would find nothing beneficial or relevant to my skills on UJM. Even so, he ignored the above and told me that it is mandatory and he would have to issue a Jobseeker Direction if I refused. He went on to say that the “PCS always twist things the way they want,” and that they were wrong.

    I also highlighted this section:

    “EU cookie legislation prevents mandatory sign up requiring customers to use their home computers to register for, or use UJ. This is because the choice to accept cookies on your computer has to be made ‘freely’, under the EU legislation.”

    I suggested that if I sign up on my home computer, I would be effectively giving my permission for the state to spy on me. His response to this was, “some people need to be spied on.”

    I would like to see some official document that states whether sign up to UJ is to be a “blanket approach” or not.

    “Jobseekers who are serious about looking for work will get all the support they need from us.”

    As someone else has said, this is very Orwellian language: ‘you could just imagine being told that whilst being interrogated in a dingy basement by a few heavies whilst sitting, tied up, in a chair’.

    Unfortunately, Orwell was right about something else too: “the proles will never rebel”.
    Are there enough of us prepared to say “No”?


    March 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm

  21. Obi Wan Kenobi

    March 5, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    • Ask your advisor for the operation manual on JOBSEEKERS DIRECTION, ask for written proof (operation manual,rules of engagement) as you are in an uniformed position so seek legal and reasonable argument from their part. Verbal is not proof,neither is cut sections from an unkown document ( even if DWP is on it)in that it cannot be proved to be a part of a said regulation.

      People have to start getting into the habit of thinking and asking the right questions like why do we have a jobseekers agreement in the first place as the only answer is its a blanket approach like criminal law because of a minority that as yet cannot be counted in any significant numbers. As a result they doubt the veracity of the individuals claim in respect to search for work and if untrue is under civil law liable for deformation

      This is the reason why you get the non response answer of it invalidates the job seekers agreement followed by a threat of sanction.


      March 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm

  22. Ok, under the DPA, DWP/JCP argument in legal terms will be in reference to the new UJ site and its operator.


    Like i said in an earlier post who is THE DATA CONTROLLER for the UJ site,where do they reside?

    Again as said in an earlier post their are absolutely no laws governing what consitutes a CV
    This means you are quite free to put what you want or not on your CV.Their is also no law that states you must have a CV in order to apply for work like that of a passport or licence.

    Now it will quite reasonable and legally be argued that No CV is effecting your chances for employment so regardless of above comment,have a CV.

    Start putting data protection to all your work in respect to finding work (ie,CVs,cover letters,job search evidence,the lot,all of it). The government may claim exemption but third parties cant, meaning you can set your own third party conditions as some do now in respect to work program providers. By placing DPA on a CV, it means that the prospective employer cannot engage in comment as regards any data it holds on you to anyone including government otherwise they are in breach of the DPA.

    In respect to the UJ site, its stated that Jobs relating to your CV entries will be posted to you, this means a search program will hunt for i would suspect certain words.
    So try using a thersaurs to change them,heres an example

    Change METHODICAL for the word EXACTING.

    Also a CV must be an accurate description of yourself so why say i quote “HONEST AND RELIABLE” if infact you are say a liar. Its not criminal to be honest,you cannot be sanctioned for being honest even if it effects your chances of employment.

    Also its not illegal to use a false online name for security purposes and like i already said the personal and sensitive data you enter onto this site is your legal choice, not the governments no matter what they say currently.Also never,ever enter your NI NUMBER

    So you can see now the double edge sword as regards your rights in conjunction with the jobseeker agreement so how you implement this must be handled carefully.

    If as is stated that it will improve your chances of employment then do yourself a favour now and register with a larger group such as monster.com or a few smaller ones such as this derbyshire.co.uk for instance.Then you can argue that you are already doing this,just somewhere else.They cant track you on someone elses site. As long as you can produce jobsearch evidence (ie in manual form) The arguement is mute. Joining up to even UJ site yourself can be done,just because they dont know what account that is doesnt mean you are not complying with the agreement if you can as i said produce evidence of your jobsearches manually even if you dont do it through your UJ account.

    The nut and bolt of it is that it has nothing to do with your jobseekers agreement, it has to do with the notion that they doubt the veracity of your claim of said search so by following the advice given you have indeed conformed to the jobseekers agreement so they would have no reason to use jobseekers direction as the cause of making you sign up to UJ on a mandatory basis.

    One word of advice is if your agreement says eight jobs a week then produce 4 times as much evidence even if the jobs you apply for are unlikely to offer employment (make sure you are capable or at least believe so that you could do the job applyed for).

    Hope this helps.


    March 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm

  23. signed on no mention of ujm, tried to change my signing time again but i refused to sign the bit of paper this time so its stayed the same and never even put up a fight to make me sign it either?.
    was not ask any other question other than sign for my money and fuck off asap:)

    looks like the jcp where i go has the the providers to dole out ujm as there is no pcs to use at the jcp and way to many ppl to deal with, spent 20mins waiting to hand my book in dunno why i cant just walk down and put it in the box myself i know where it is lol.

    super ted

    March 5, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    • JCP staff have more to lose if they supported this mandatory UJ idea as what would be the point of offices remaining open if everyones online,you could with an agreed window of opportunity say 24hrs sign on online aswell.

      Your be surprized to know but some JCP staff are well aware of this and wont support it while it isnt mandatory so mention the above in their presence and you might find you have more allies than you think or at the very least would have turned their light bulb on if it hadnt already occurred to them.


      March 5, 2013 at 3:22 pm

      • They are worried where I sign on too

        no name

        March 6, 2013 at 9:39 am


        Obi Wan Kenobi

        March 6, 2013 at 10:22 am

      • To Gaia And Obi Wan Kenobi
        Do you think with the upcoming or proposed industrial action by the PCS, IF UJM were to be an issue for the PCS regarding work conditions pensions etc, that they would get ”support” from those of us that are required to use ujm

        no name

        March 6, 2013 at 10:59 am

  24. I realise that this is off-topic, but has anyone had a look at Chapter 3a of the DWP’s Work Programme Provider Guidance lately?


    On 12 February 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011:


    Later that same day the DWP rushed into force emergency regulations, namely The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013. However, paragraph 34 of Chapter 3a still states that every Mandatory Activity Notification issued to a JSA claimant must contain the following text:

    “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.”

    Does this mean that all Mandatory Activity Notifications issued to JSA claimants since 12 February 2013 are invalid, because they refer to a scheme which no longer exists and to regulations quashed by the Court of Appeal?

    Still looking in, Seetec? What’s your take on this?


    March 5, 2013 at 4:51 pm

  25. Iain Duncan Smith has been given two weeks to demonstrate why the bedroom tax should not be subject to a judicial review.

    The work and pensions secretary is facing a legal challenge against the government’s ‘under-occupancy’ charge by law firm Hopkin Murray Beskine on behalf of 10 disabled children.


    looks like its going all tits up for ids 🙂

    super ted

    March 5, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    • About time IDS got his put in his place, but the UJM still has to be tackled, hopefully in court too.

      Obi Wan Kenobi

      March 6, 2013 at 9:22 am

    • I think you have a good point JBS! Surely it’s not enough to refer to the regulations – they have to be the right regulations and not those which have been ruled unlawful!


      March 6, 2013 at 9:32 am

      • Of course what counts is the wording that’s actually in each MAN. If that’s correct then it doesn’t matter if the DWP guidance hasn’t been updated.


        March 6, 2013 at 10:36 am

      • Agreed, but my point is that the WP Providers have to abide by current guidance when issuing Mandatory Activity Notifications. If WP Providers, in an effort to make their MANs valid, are replacing the out-of-date references to the ESE and the 2011 regulations with a reference to The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013 then they are flouting the guidance.


        March 6, 2013 at 11:51 am

      • Sorry – sloppy writing. I wrote ‘agreed’ in my last comment when it’s clear that I’m actually disagreeing with what you say. My bad.


        March 6, 2013 at 12:10 pm

  26. DWP press release: “Jobseekers required to use Universal Jobmatch”

    “From March 1 Jobcentre advisers can require Jobseekers Allowance claimants to use the site through a Jobseeker Direction”

    Crucially it only says “use” of Universal Jobmatch, which could suggest that registration/account creation has not been mandated, awaiting for copies of an actual Jobseeker’s Direction to understand what is or is not mandatory.


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    March 6, 2013 at 11:18 am

  27. UniversalJobmatch:

    DWP now seem keen to hide away URL that allows you to search site without login here it is:


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    March 6, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    • I’m getting a “this page cannot be displayed” message.


      March 6, 2013 at 3:29 pm


        I AM A USER OF UJM

        March 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      • Here’s an idea topless Jobcentre babes on page 3 of the UJM – just a whimzie lads and lasses – no offence mean’t.

        Obi Wan Kenobi

        March 9, 2013 at 6:45 pm

      • There’s a few ladies I wouldn’t mind seeing topless – or more!

        Obi Wan Kenobi

        March 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm



        March 9, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      • Workshy:

        Take your childish mouth and adolesant attitude somewhere else – somewhere like the Jobcentre.

        Obi Wan Kenobi

        March 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm



        March 11, 2013 at 2:26 pm



    March 7, 2013 at 11:43 am

    • Get her on the Work Programme.

      Obi Wan Kenobi

      March 7, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    • No I didn’t know that Wayne thank you for pointing that out. I am a lone parent who is forced to look for work regardless of my circumastances. I am seen by this government and to narrow minded members of society as a scrounger, yet Ian Duncan Smiths wife and other married women who chose not to work are seen as home makers. It’s one rule for one and one for the other. I thought what was good for the goose was good for the gander. x

      Goose and gander

      April 22, 2013 at 8:32 am

      • So true goose and gander one rule shoul fit all . I just been sanctioned as had new jobseekers agreement done but when was done was told sing back of agreement you can go but failed to see on front they had put I do 30 things a week to look for work so people please look before you sign anything at dwp to do with JOBSEEKERS AGREEMENT


        April 22, 2013 at 10:29 am



    March 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm

  30. Money Mules is a subject which has been in the news recently, although it has not been mentioned before on this page.

    Have a look at this report:


    How long will it take before bogus job adverts for Money Mules appear in Universal Jobmatch?

    Mind you, it’s likely to be the hapless Jobseeker who gets prosecuted rather than the scam gangs behind it all. Yet another pitfall facing desperate Jobseekers using Universal Jobmatch!


    March 11, 2013 at 1:42 pm

  31. Surely it is an abuse of process to mandate when they haven’t even finalised their own policy and its legality, Are they allowed to stop people’s benefit when they haven’t even established a legal basis themselves



    March 17, 2013 at 12:44 pm

  32. I was asked to create a UJ account a few weeks ago.

    I simply said that didn’t feel I could do that as it would mean I had to give up my right under the DPA. I stated that I wasn’t refusing to but simply wanted documentary evidence proving that I was no longer entitled to protection under DPA (before I did so) as I believed that as the DPA is primary legislation it could only be superseded by additional primary legislation it being a fundamental principle of English law that all citizens have an equal right to protection under the law.

    I also asked for confirmation that my data would not be stored on any servers outside the UK as I felt this would effectively negate my rights under DPA. (as far as I can work out monster.com a USA company hosts UJ for the DWP)

    Signed on a few times since and UJ hasn’t been mentioned since

    Link to this


    March 17, 2013 at 2:22 pm



      August 19, 2013 at 10:15 am

  33. Hi Wayne. Than kyou for your reply. Sneeky aren’t they. The trick is to be 10 steps a head of them at all times. They are doing all they can to trick the vulnerable into sanctions. However I firmly believe that what goes around comes around. xx

    Goose and gander

    April 22, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    • Am quite up on the law how she tricked me was talking and arguing with me had security man standing next to me talking to me but best trick was to just have back page showing and in all that went on said sign here and you can go was an over sight on my part ain’t ever happen again and as said before there is there nine to five and a jobseekers five pm to nine am and they going upset wrong one and they going seek revenge and for record I don’t suggest any body take that step as I dont condone that but its coming to that trust me people are saying it won’t take lot to tip a jsa over the top I say eat what you sow if you get my drift dont complain when sumbody dose just that takes revenge


      April 22, 2013 at 1:21 pm

  34. Just told today that I must sign up to Universal Job Match or risk sanction. They have me over a barrel and tomorrow they are going to lay down the law in interview. Bollox! I will NOT be signing or agreeing. I have a good understanding of my digital rights….they cannot insist. The site strips individuals of their rights, it is insecure (your CV will be on the street), open to identity fraud and completely irrespsonible: it is an infringement on democracy & conservative values and if enforced will be in violation of UK & Eupopean Law of a free-market (requiring Monopolies Commission involvement) and it is simply ill-concieved and half-assed. Secure 3rd party recrutiment agency companies which I am already registered with and use reguarly supply everything I require. I WILL NOT BE SIGNING OR REGISTERING> DO NOT ALLOW THIS ON YOUR JOB SEEKERS AGREEMENT. IDS is a pomopus, overpaid toffee nosed tosser who needs himself to do a fair days ethical work instead of blighting the lives of peole down on their luck seeking work. The UJM system is simply a vehicle to persecute, erode your rights and steal your entitlement as a citizen !! DO NOT AGREE
    WE_are_Spartus !!


    April 23, 2013 at 1:47 am

  35. how will they enforce the 35 hr rule
    after universal credit starts if the
    snoop box is unticked?
    strong suggestion that they can
    monitor uj usage..despite the
    snoop box being unticked…


    July 31, 2013 at 12:44 am

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: