Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Employment Related Courses.

This is a guest post from BR.
I am a welfare & debt advisor. This info is to help those people on the Work Programme.

If you are on JSA or ESA [WRAG] then these rules below apply
Below are the regs for Employment Related Courses for anyone on the Work Programme. No WP Participant is allowed by the regulations to do more than one course in a year. I believe that most WP Providers are making claimants do more than one which are in breach of the regulations. There are no exceptions to these regulations once you have done one course [ a CV course for example] you CANNOT do anymore.
Hope this helps.
Kind Regards
Employment related course94. Claimants who are participating as a full time student in an employment related course can be treated as available and ASE for a maximum of up to 2 weeks and one such course in any period of 12 months. e.g. if claimant attends a course lasting 3 days, they do not have another 11 days banked to use within the 12 months. They can attend one course, up to two weeks within the 12 month period.95. A week in this case is a period of 7 consecutive days starting on the first day of the course. Attendance on the course must be agreed with an adviser before they start the course.

96. Jobcentre Plus employment or training programmes are not employment related courses.

97. If a claimant wishes to participate full-time in a longer employment-related course, eg 4 weeks, they can only be treated as available and ASE for the first 2 weeks. For the remainder of the course they will be a full-time student and therefore cannot be treated as available for work.

98. An employment related course is a course which will help a claimant acquire or enhance the skills needed for:

· employment; and/or

· seeking employment; and/or

· a particular occupation, for example:

o deep-sea diving course;

o large goods vehicle driving course; or

o a period of trial before employment begins.

99. For a course to be accepted as ‘employment related’ it is not necessary for it to be the type of work that is recorded on the claimant’s JSAg but it must improve their chances of getting a job. A CV writing course would be regarded as employment related if it improved the claimant’s employability.”

44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. A wee bit late now most are now coming off WP but none the less much appreciated as it all helps.

    I have to ask though what is the definition for Jobcentre Plus employment or training programmes as even though I might have a pretty good idea I would still like to hear it from the horses mouth as so to speak.

    Also which document did this get gained from ?


    August 16, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    • They are officially called “employment programmes” and are construed as follows:-

      1) the jobseeker is known to be as “employed” statistically
      2) the jobseeker is known to be as “employed” legally, but only in respect to the Courts Tribunal system
      3) the training course “provider” is your “employer” during such time
      4) the jobseeker isn’t entitled to national minimum wage

      Universal Jobmatch

      August 16, 2013 at 5:47 pm

      • Expand on this please UJ, I don’t know whether I have been spiked last night or im just plain sleepy but im not getting what your saying.


        August 17, 2013 at 8:37 am

  2. I’ve been sent on a dozen or so while at WP, and at each previous Work Scheme. So I guess all of them broke their own laws?
    As it was compulsory I had to do them, eg ‘how to fill in forms course’. But actually this broke another rule, because it would NOT make me even 1% more employable. In fact if I had to put it on CV’s it’d make me LESS employable. Employers will not realise it was a compulsory course for everyone, and would assume ‘if they needed/volunteered (sic) for this course, they must be seriously retarded, and probably can’t tie their shoelaces or wipe their bum’.
    (A description more properly applied to the staff who ‘work’ in Jobcentres)

    How it fails to make me more employable: All the ‘courses’ were in stuff I already know how to do. I have no problem writing a CV or filling in a form, or writing letters. I DO have a problem with lying to get a job. These DWP people are obsessed with ‘benefit fraud’ and catching people out as ‘liars’. Yet when they are ordering you to apply for jobs they tell you to lie, even to lie blatantly about things employers will always check. Making you look dishonest, and putting you at risk of arrest too. But there isn’t a police officer marching in to arrest DWP staff when they falsify all your personal information. It’s also fraud, at least to me, when they do a CV they have written and it’s not only completely wrong, full of invented jobs and wrong dates, it sounds completely unlike you. And mostly it is full of spelling mistakes, bad grammar, no punctuation, and of course written in English that would register as an automatic fail on any citizenship application. If you say ‘hang on, this is utter crap, I would never write this’, they try to sanction you for being ‘obstructive’. You wonder how they got their ‘job’, when they are apparently almost illiterate, and spend their ‘work’ day chatting/snoozing/playing computer games (or just sitting round doing nothing).

    The other point: It does not increase my chance of employment one iota, as I’m STILL disabled, longterm unemployed, etc. It doesn’t change my basic situation and (even with a CV that was the best it could be while sticking to the truth; or with a well-written fake CV that was a pack of lies) employers still don’t want me.

    A proper course in deep sea diving (for commercial use) as mentioned above, takes a lot longer than 4 weeks – and you can’t just go and do it, as there are strict legal and medical requirements and procedures: documents to fill in and send off, people/organisations to contact; a full medical; arranging medical and health insurance; fitness tests; drugs testing; psychiatric assessments; sessions with decompression chambers to make sure you can tolerate it; weights/gym sessions (ongoing, as you must maintain fitness); sorting out getting your commercial licence. I know some of the stuff about this, as one thing I used to do was supervising divers and steering boats (I’ve actually done quite a range of things), I also had to hold their medical forms etc. I didn’t get paid, but it overlaps so a lot of the knowledge is the same. Because I’m not allowed to dive, I was hired to do that job instead, with all the central admin and record-keeping. It was also my job to make sure people dived and resurfaced at the correct times. For work at greater depths and pressures there are many more requirements. In other words, if they think you can’t meet all the requirements, they don’t bother sending you on a course, as courses and training are very expensive. There isn’t much point going and getting a basic PADI or BSAC certificate, it might be a start if you are a beginner, but it doesn’t qualify you to work as a commercial or deep diver. Another point is that the training itself is longer than 4 weeks for each type, you can’t be a proper diver in less training time (including theory sessions in classrooms) – and that is just the course. (If done at least 48 hours after/before flying, there are places where you can do an ‘absolute beginners’ course while on holiday, lasting 1-3 days, but that only covers the basics and is not a full course.) As well as the course itself and taking the practical and written exams, which may be separate from the course, both types of course (scuba courses and deep/commercial courses) require many more months of experience at each level. You need logs of a large number of supervised dives. As there are times you need to wait between dives, you can’t do it in a month! That’s a bad example of courses you could do, as the DWP wouldn’t fund courses like that (or let you do the hours of study also required).

    An HGV course could also take time. A basic driving course (just to drive a car) is not only expensive, it includes theory lessons and exams, the driving test, time to practice, the driving lessons, applying for and getting a provisional licence (then if successful getting it changed to a full licence); and of course any retakes of the test if you fail. Then there is the Pass Plus course aimed at young people, and those at mandated to it (by a court) for bad driving. It costs a lot, but can (if a young person) reduce your insurance. You need money for the lessons and test etc., also for buying a car, MOT, insurance, tax, petrol, maintenance and repair, parking charges, congestion charge if in London, etc.
    The younger you are, the more the insurance costs.

    On courses you don’t want to do: It does not say (above) that the person agrees to do the course, so can include people sent on it against their will. Appropriateness is irrelevant – a graduate accountant could be sent on a bricklaying course, or a builder could be sent on one in hairdressing! If they were to apply their own rules and if WP lasted indefinitely, people would take years to get anywhere. Year 1) Writing Your Own Name Course. Year 2) Basic spelling course. Year 3) Personal Hygiene Course. Year 4) How to fill in a form course. Year 5) How to do Interviews course. Year 6) How to write a CV course.

    On courses you DO want to do: I posted last week or so about a course I found in Spain, lasting a week, in TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language), combined with working unpaid as a teacher and language assistant, to give Spanish people experience of real conversations with English speakers. They covered food and accommodation, but not travel there and back. I would have been up for it but at the JCP they said no.

    Well, this week the same thing happened. I found a course, half an hour away by bus, lasting 3 hours and on one day only. It was on voluntary sector admin and law. Aimed at not-for-profit organisations, charities and community groups; and to tackle the risks of being sued. A lot is stuff I know already, and a lot would bore me rigid, but in the end I decided I should probably go. After all, it was a qualification to put on my CV. But when I asked permission, Jobcentre said no. I couldn’t possibly lose 3 hours of vital jobseeking time to go on the (free!) course! If I’d gone and they’d found out (they would have as it was in an area close to their JCP), they’d have stopped my JSA and HB. I said I could volunteer to sleep 3 fewer hours and jobseek instead? They said no. HMMM! Do they want us to get jobs or not? Do they want us to get more employable or not?

    something survived...

    August 16, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    • Yeah spot on. But why would they care if you got a job or not? Or improving employability? Its all been a statistical juggling exercise from day 1. Don’t stick faith into the “system”. If the jobcentre cared about honest and keen unemployed people they would take proactive steps to put you into work… even if that meant them setting up an arms-length company and employing you indirectly.

      They ploughed billions into welfare to work; millions into a job site thats really worse than the one it replaced… and millions on legal teams and advisers; thats excluding the billions on the universal credit system!! That money could be used for job creation…

      Universal Jobmatch

      August 16, 2013 at 9:43 pm

      • These ’employment courses’ are pointless, and are invariably palmed off onto a third party (Colleges and Charities) so as to avoid the WP Provider being blamed when they go wrong. I have attended several in my two years punishment (9 weeks to go!).

        The first of these was ‘Employability Skills’ (Later renamed Employability Skills Level 1 to prepare for the inevitable sequel). This lasted for 6 hours a day every Wednesday for 10 weeks. One person turned up three times, at the beginning, middle and end of the course, to get all the paperwork signed by the tutor so the WP provider could claim their payment off the government. One other person showed up once and one didn’t bother at all. The Level 2 course was for 6 weeks but in the two sessions attempted all that took place was constant negative criticism of the tutor and failure of half the class to complete any paperwork. When the course was abandoned and finally restarted 6 weeks after its supposed finishing date I was somewhat suprised to say the least to find that apart from myself none of the original class had been put back on it. I found out three of them hadn’t even received a sanction for non-compliance.

        There was also a Customer Service course which I could not attend due to an emergency medical appointment (have currently been diagnosed with stress and diabetes). This was supposedly sorted out in July last year, but last week I found out the DWP have imposed a sanction for two weeks as a result of a doubt raised by my WP provider. To put the icing on the cake, my last advisor had no details of the Literacy and Numeracy test I took at the start of my two years with them, and I was forced to retake this. Bear in mind I have a Post-Graduate Research Diploma in Literature and History, so I falsely assumed my skills were beyond reproach.

        So there you have it. Poor communication between staff, courses designed to keep you occupied and make them money, attempts to make me apply for jobs despite my withdrawal of consent to share information, and to cap it all I can’t claim bus or rail fares off them, “until you agree to give consent”. And if I do get a job despite all this I could receive calls for some time to come so they can get outcome payments from the government. In any other sector of the economy a business run like this would go bankrupt pretty quickly, but in today’s Tory Britain there would always be others ready to step in and clean up financially.

        Jon Duffield

        August 19, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    • I have always failed to see the point of someone doing another persons CV, you learn nothing along this journey and will be straight back where you were the next time your unemployed.

      Don’t get me wrong, if someone understands the principles it will aid them even when transferring the skill to a physical interview but the problem is no one wants to teach it and teach it properly. It cant be done in no easy 30 minutes, I couldn’t even teach a claimant how to do a profile properly in that time in that if I ever asked again that they could do it in say 30 min (just a draft profile that is).

      As for lying on a CV, I to have had an advisor on the WP suggest that along with another suggest and even admitting they would do the same at an interview. If an advisor would switch off their morals all for the sake of a single job interview then it stands to reason that they would coheres others to act likewise, hardly a worthy attribute for someone who’s position is to help others get into work and stay their.
      This aside apart from being a criminal offence (intent to deceive) todays employers actually look out for such so further down the road when they need to cutback they simply bring it to the surface and goodbye costly redundancy.

      As for worthy courses that aid getting employment, the actual advisor sitting in front of you cant actually make that decision, instead you fill out a ES567SJP 10/12 ATTENDING A TRAINING OR EDUCATION COURSE FORM. After completing this it must be sent off to a decision maker who themselves decides and not your personal advisor.
      I think what the issue is here is this availability for work thing coupled with agreed availability for work on your agreement. Mine just seem to not want to enter in any times in the agreement, especially considering most courses even part time are DAY COURSES.

      Look heres a valid and reasonably logical argument ” first up we live employment wise in a 24hr society” , then ” in any week their are 168 hours”, meaning say we take a college course of say 7 hours once a week that the claimant would still be available for some 161 hours a week so at around a mere 4% reduction in availability but still making you 96% available for work. Now I know JCP will rush in with well you didn’t factor that most jobs are day jobs but even then if we triple this equation the claimant would still be available for work at 88%. Slice it how you will, the claimant will still be available for 80% of the 168 in any week.

      (3 one off hours is around 2% so available for 98% in that week and over a year that means you are not available for around 0.03% in any year, meaning your available for 99.97% in that year).

      As for this we will punish you business if you do, actually in your case they cant, sure their try but actually they cant, it wont stick and heres why. They claim you must actively seek work for 35 hours a week every week meaning 133 hours a week are yours. Also remember they DONT STIPULATE WHERE THOSE 35 HOURS FALL. This means you ARE STILL AVAILABLE FOR WORK YES, CAN STILL ACTIVELY SEEK WORK YES ?

      I urge you SOMETHING SURVIVED TO APPEAL, find out from them in writing exactly why you cant do it, then we can see if they have a case or not YES ?


      August 17, 2013 at 8:29 am



        The above link covers in detail the term BEING AVAILABLE.

        It appears logical argument how ever logical doesn’t come into the equation, that according to our individual agreements section availability for work is the set window of opportunity as regards availability and that any course undertaken is simply overlaid meaning that for me anyway, any time of the day or night puts me as not available for work seven days a week.

        The work around and yes it makes absolutely no difference whether or not you paid for the course or how much it costs, is to agree to the following

        1:Allow them to call you at any point while attending the course should a vacancy or interview arise.

        2: Are you willing and able to change the hours of the course so as to not overlap and or attend an interview should one arise.

        3:Willing to give up course regardless of personal cost or debt should a suitable paid job offer be offered.

        Well number 1 is no problem, just be sure to tell them however that some teachers which you cannot state yet as you do not know (only if unattend yet) may pose restrictions during tution times (class times). Irrespective of this they can still call you before college, during 3 mandatory breaks and after college. Basically any course is broken down into modules meaning class times average 1 and half hours, meaning they can quite easily contact you at 1.5 hour intervals if necessary. Do point out though that in a case of emergencies despite your request that they can contact you at any point but if possible would prefer to be contacted at a reasonable time so as to reduce the loss of education time.

        Number 2 is trickier as most courses are only ran on a certain day of the week and or time so in the case of able its really a no BUT willing should always be YES.

        Number 3 whether you mean it or not has to be a YES but worry not as employers fall into 2 distinct brackets regarding this question. Employers either like the idea of up skilling and the zero cost to themselves or plainly don’t so you are not helping your chances if you say at any point that it isn’t negotiable during application or interview.


        August 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm

  3. Apropos of nothing. Deep sea diving. A colleague found a shell WW1 under the sea. A friend put a piece of this string on the BBQ and there was a huge sheet of flame and it blew the BBQ to bits. It was cordite and still active, after all these years


    August 18, 2013 at 1:00 am

  4. I have asked this question before re Universal Jobmatch and have asked the question of JC+ to no avail. How can u append a covering letter to your CV? This is commonplace and standard for most jobsites. The explanation I received was the employer would ask for same is so required. This is patently complete rubbish. I told them this is so obvious and they need to alter the system. Fail.


    August 18, 2013 at 1:18 am

    • This is made even funnier as monsters own sight does.

      Where I think UJ and every single jobsite fails is that they don’t allow for encrypted and copyright protected CVs to be uploaded.

      Another growing issue I and others are experiencing is these recruitment agencies advertising are still asking you to send duplicate CVs despite already having one from the jobsite you applied through. Ive tried to converse with these agencies but as yet all have failed to give a plausible reason. If this is set to become the norm (currently 6 out of 10 ask for duplicates) then whats the point of uploading a CV at all ?


      August 19, 2013 at 6:10 am

      • Apart from anything else Gaia if you use a public – library – terminal you can’t usually upload CVs.

        I did mine with UJM once and I’m buggered if I’m going to traipse around trying to find a place again that lets you do this each time I apply for a job.

        Andrew Coates

        August 19, 2013 at 11:04 am


        NEW SYSTEM

        August 19, 2013 at 11:09 am

      • I totally agree

        Nick Weir

        August 19, 2013 at 2:45 pm

  5. So if you finish WP and the JCP turns around and throws you onto one of those 2 week courses what can you actually do about it? They seem exempt from their own rules here

    I am stuck in a room with alchoholics, druggies, homeless, ex-offenders and folk with learning difficulties until 5.30 because they refuse to let people go early even if your tasks are finished before midday and I still have to do all my jobsearch and other paperwork ontop of this

    Going to end up having a meltdown by the end of it

    random bloke

    August 18, 2013 at 1:23 am

  6. I would also point out I am gaining nothing from this course I did it right before finishing the WP and when I politely discussed this with an advisor they became hostile and confrontational towards me changing the topic to scrutinizing my cv and by extent personal circumstances asking how I would survive if sanctioned

    random bloke

    August 18, 2013 at 1:26 am

  7. “Re: Universal Jobmatch Mandatory?

    Postby assassin » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:45 am

    Had a case just this week where I represented someone none too bright, but a nice individual; it started:

    Hello, I’m John ****** are you Mr ******, no answer was given and we went and sat down, he asked who I was and I told him his lay adviser in such matters and he told me I couldn’t be there, I told him I could and would be, they asked me to leave so I refused and quoted a FOI request I submitted which stated clearly you can have representation and I was that representation.

    Round 1 to us.

    He went on to explain that a tough new regime was in place and he would be expected to do more to find work, I asked when his agreement changed and where was his signature was on such an agreement, he said he would have to sign a new jobseekers agreement and it was included in this, I asked under what law he HAD to sign any new agreement and to produce it. He said he didn’t have it to hand, so I said produce it, he couldn’t so I stated very clearly that I had a copy of a FOI request which clearly stated that nobody is required to sign any new agreement and their old one can remain in force indefinitely, and showed him.

    Round 2 to us.

    He said he would have to get advice and summoned a manager, the usual bullshit ensued and stated clearly they were saying something totally different to the hierarchy of the DWP who had sent the response to my FOI request, so I asked them both to put this in writing and sign it with their true signature to make them liable, they refused. I merely asked why they were making oral claims and were not prepared to back up their claims in writing bearing their signatures.

    Round 3 to us.

    They then went on to tell us he would have to sign up to UJM as it was compulsory, I asked them to prove jurisdiction to enforce this and show us the legislation, they couldn’t, but provided a document from management which proved it was not actually legislation, merely policy, so I asked how they could even enforce policy without jurisdiction, they claimed they had it. I asked them to prove it as jurisdiction could only be gained if he signed the new agreement and he hadn’t and wouldn’t as he wasn’t obliged to and this was confirmed by a FOI request from their upper echelons and not the muppets they were.
    I also told them to open a UJM account they had to open a Government gateway account and they cannot force anyone to open such an account and backed this up with another FOI request confirming this, so they could do nothing.

    Round 4 to us.

    They then went on to say they could use a jobseekers direction or mandate him to do this, I asked if they were aware they were operating under contract law and they cannot mandate anyone as this mandate under contract law is actually a judicial command or order, and they are neither a court, judge or magistrate, and no actual law exists, only their policy which is unenforceable as he hasn’t signed their new agreement, so no jurisdiction. I also informed them that impersonating a court, court official, judge, or magistrate carries up to 10 years in clink, were they aware of this, it went very quiet.

    Round 5 to us.

    At this point I went into full legal mode and said they were guilty of several civil and criminal offences and these included:

    Fraud by misrepresentation (Fraud Act)
    Fraud by false representation (Fraud Act)
    Fraud by failing to disclose information (Fraud Act)
    and by all the above they would make a gain for themselves and expose another to the risk of loss (benefits)

    Fraud by failing to disclose information (Fraud Act and Contract Legislation under full disclosure rules)

    Possession of articles for use in fraud, namely paperwork which purported to be legislation when it was only policy and they weren’t having it back as it was now evidence.

    Permanently depriving him of his property, tangible or intangible, i.e. personal information (Theft Act)
    Belonging to another – his personal information (Theft Act)
    Robbery by intentionally depriving him of his personal information (Theft Act)
    Blackmail by using menaces (threats to sanction him) to obtain his personal property (Theft Act)

    Failing to provide full disclosure
    Failing to ensure both parties are fully aware of all contractual conditions including all benefits, liabilities, and penalties.
    Making misleading statements in a contract.
    Using threats, intimidation, and coercing him into signing a contract.
    All covered by contract law.

    I went on to say I could go as far as intellectual property legislation, or even the Bill of Rights, or European Human Rights legislation article 6 or even Habeas Corpus.

    They relented.

    We won the war.”



    August 19, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    • Annos. Could you please provide links to the FOIs; 1) which stated that nobody is required to sign a new JSA and the old one can remain in force indefinitely ; 2) that you cannot force anyone to open a Government Gateway Account.
      As regards your legal arguments together with those of Gaia on these blogs, it is likely that those of us without a basic legal background will founder when entering into a “discussion” with our Jobcentre “adviser”.

      Richard Hunt

      August 29, 2013 at 2:21 pm

  8. Random Bloke,

    Sorry to hear of your predicament. This seems more like a course aimed more at breaking you than providing you with useful skills. Ennui comes naturally to most people in your situation and those in the DWP know this. Could you listen to music for some of the time? I remember reading about a kidnap victim who kept sane by reciting poetry to himself.


    August 19, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    • “Ennui” I did that as part of my dissertation a long time ago. These days I use English words like “angst” and “shadenfreude”..

      Nick Weir

      August 19, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    • You can’t do any of that in there I’m not even permitted to work on my jobsearch while we’re sitting around for an hour waiting for the tutor to help people that can’t keep up with the already painfully slow pace catch up
      We don’t even get refreshments i.e. tea/coffee etc its just water in a jug once in the AM, come PM it feels like a warm jug o piss if theres actually anything left because of the weather and I don’t even think they actually wash the glasses when everybodys gone! their always top down on the minging desks which is very unappetising
      I am a very outgoing and approachable person not afraid to mingle with others and dont consider myself above nobody and I can actually say several people here that have done years in prison have actually complained about the conditions and lack of respect they have been shown!
      By the end of this thing I am going to end up visiting my gp I get home feeling tired un-nourished because ive had feckall to drink during a bloody heatwave of all things and whatever ounce of self-confidence I entered this thing with has gone completely down the toilet as if its hard enough keeping your chin up when you are on the dole

      random bloke

      August 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm

      • I take your point entirely. You apply for work. You get knocked back so many times. I have also highlighted this. But what they know about getting work you can write on the back of a fag packet. We are all people and get treated like scum


        August 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm

  9. The course itself could be done in 2 days at a crawl they are stretching it to 80 hours over a 2 week period ontop of everything else the JSP want done and I can’t stick it on my CV because employers look at these things like “how do you wipe your arse and tie your shoes” courses

    random bloke

    August 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    • Brilliant reply.. very good


      August 19, 2013 at 5:45 pm

  10. Got my first threat yesterday, so much for the once every 6 months lark as my last (refusing to sign up to UJ) was if I remember less than 2 months ago. I didn’t think about it at the time but since leaving the work programme, JCP has issued a new jobseekers agreement every month so far.

    Now their picking on my job search evidence, it seems isn’t good enough, (my foot it isn’t).
    They’ve given me their NEW JOBSEARCH EVIDENCE SHEET which I said I wont be using to which this wasn’t a problem although the advisor did fail to understand ownership of property and copyright laws as regards medium (how and on what you submit, in this case job search evidence).

    On this NEW sheet it laughingly says WHO? , contact name,telephone and address. I tried to explain that sites such as monster, jobsite, even UJ when you apply via account only to, DO NOT DISPLAY SUCH DETAILS AND WITH GOOD REASON, the advisor refused to except this very important fact, even when I took out a few printouts to demonstrate to her my very point. I explained to her I do not have to do this as my evidence is evidence enough and is as follows.


    1: Date I searched
    2: Source, where I acquired vacancy from (i.e.,monster, jobsite, etc.).
    3: The actual vacancy/position and company/recruitment name only as address is never supplied when applying through a job site.
    4: Outcome, what I did (i.e., emailed CV, cover, etc.)
    5: Date of outcome

    Universal jobsite

    I always supply my information on paper I supply as follows

    1: Date I searched.
    2: JOB ID
    3: Vacancy applied for
    4: Outcome (pointless as you’ve only just applied so I put what next as in what I did after I saw the vacancy).
    5: Date of outcome

    I tried to explain that as all my jobs are through such sites excluding UJ that I couldn’t possibly supply anymore than I already have and that what I supply was enough for them to carryout a competent search if they disputed the evidence. The advisor went straight into defence made and shot of for the dear old manager. Sure enough this manager arrived and tried to peddle the same crap but again I wasn’t having it and told her to demonstrate HOW THIS WASNT ENOUGH, HOW SHE COULDNT USE THE INFORMATION I PRESENTED,SHE REFUSED and kept uttering “If you don’t it will have to be sent to a decision maker”. OK I said, lets do that right this very second, go on I said lets do that, why wait when Im disputing you to your own face right this very second. This manager kept saying “we wont this time” bull, to which I said “You must, I insist you must, its the right thing to do right, that’s what your telling me right, that’s what as you say the taxpayer wants right?”.

    This manager went on to say its not their place to make loads of phone calls to check someone’s evidence to which I replied “that its not my problem, im not the one asking for information on account of a suspicion of INTENT TO DEFRAUD”.
    She then said that’s not why we do it, really I said, so why do you do it then”, as you can imagine silence fell again.
    So I cranked it up by saying “look, fraud is a crime and as such must be reported to the law so I insist now that you must call the police if you believe a crime has been committed and in not doing so am committing another criminal offence of failure to report a crime you suspect has been perpetrated, theirs the phone, pick it up and call them now, I insist, please do”.

    She tried to say it wasn’t a crime and as you can imagine I laughed at her so she switched to the I DONT LIKE HOW YOUR SPEAKING TO ME, I CAN SUSPEND THE INTERVIEW TACTIC, so apart from laugh and smile even greater I said ” im sorry exactly how am I speaking to you, I don’t believe I have sworn or threatened you”.
    Now get this, the manager then said I kid you not “I believe you are stressed in your life and this is why you are acting out”.
    “So your a doctor now are you, how would you know if I was stressed, do you have a medical qualification, were you a nurse in a previous career, how exactly would you know my state of mind (Im really laughing now)”.

    They still didn’t get their wish but I did say I cant wait to see you next week, this is going to be fun, I look forward to talking to this decision maker if he’s as incompetent as you 2 are.


    August 20, 2013 at 7:41 am

  11. Important footnotes, DWP/JCP commissioned the UJ site, this site they have access to in or out of an account. This site gives a unique JOB ID number to each and every job. This alone will supply them full details of the job on their very website.

    So basically although taking the piss a little to much I reckon, you could just supply a date of when you applied and then just the JOB ID and tell them to look it up if they doubt your claim as the details are all there on their very site.

    DWPs idea is to basically get all to use UJ as effectively its a tunnel once cookies are loaded meaning they can know if they search the data what else you looked at like other jobsites or not to build a time profile. EVERYONE SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO STOP USING THERE UJ ACCOUNT NOW.

    If you have been put under JOBSEEKERS DIRECTION, you still have rights over your personal and sensitive data UNDER THE SATA PROTECTION ACT in that you can quite legally and reasonably at anytime withdraw such data and or disallow its transmission to any and all third parties.
    This means you can remove from the site your NAME,ADDRESS,PHONE NUMBER,EMAIL ADDRESS AND JOB TITLES.

    Your legal argument is your right under the DPA to control the flow of your (data holder/owner) personal and sensitive data in respect to third parties where no exception/s apply.


    Remember also to state your not saying that your not going to part with it to potential employers, just that you will be doing it in a manner you see fit as is your right under law so as to better protect its transmission. You DO NOT have to explain what this is or how you intend to do it, just that regardless they will still receive the jobsearch evidence required and that it in no way effects your ability to find and apply for work in any shape or any form.


    Your evidence must be such that if investigated would lead to the answer of DID YOU APPLY OR NOT FOR A SAID POSITION no matter what is involved on the investigators part in doing so. REMEMBER their the ones asking for it, your not their to make their life easier, your their to draw a benefit.


    August 20, 2013 at 8:24 am

    • An alternative to Universal Jobmatch


      Uses Universal Jobmatch (UJM) so with all the fake jobs and agency jobs, sort of pointless, but its zero tracking.

      Universal Jobmatch

      December 27, 2014 at 11:07 pm

      • In Belgium this year the bus workers and the main – socialist – unions went on strike against the ‘Sanctions regime’ on the dole.

        These[people come from Lille – probably the people closest to us in Ipswich that exist anywhere on the planet.

        Our friends in Europe are however a bit in advance of us:

        Andrew Coates

        December 28, 2014 at 10:47 am

      • This illstrates what Lille is like:

        Andrew Coates

        December 28, 2014 at 10:59 am

  12. Good advice, as ever. I am not a “techie” person or a lawyer. Just an average “Joe” trying to get by, like most of us. I will keep this info in mind.


    August 20, 2013 at 7:40 pm

  13. OK, lets talk UJ shall we.

    First off no doubt claimants were told that their personal and or sensitive information is safe, yet if you move to the sites own STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOUR, POINTS 5 AND 8 you get the following.

    5.2 We don’t accept liability for loss or damage incurred by users of the website, whether direct, indirect or consequential, whether caused by tort, breach of contract or otherwise. This includes loss of:
    – income or revenue
    – business
    – profits or contracts
    – anticipated savings
    – data
    – goodwill
    – tangible property
    or wasted management or office time in connection with our site or in connection with the use, inability to use, or results of the use of our site, any websites linked to it and any materials posted on it. This condition shall not prevent claims for loss of or damage to your tangible property or any other claims for direct financial loss that are not excluded by any of the categories set out above.

    8.2 We can’t accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or your computer system which may occur whilst using material derived from this website.

    You will notice next in point 6

    6.1 Any disputes relating to or arising from the Universal Jobmatch website shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

    Now a birdy from this site here told me that the storage servers are in Ireland but as you can see clearly that this if say in Northern Ireland isn’t covered under the above jurisdiction.

    So you can see that not only are you likely to NOT be protected under law but the GOVERNMENT themselves except zero liability for the loss of your data regardless of whether or not its personal and or sensitive data.

    Interestingly but stupidly done they state the following in point 7

    7.2 You should not be asked to reveal personal details such as bank account details, National Insurance number, date of birth, driving licence or utility bill information as these items are not relevant to an application process

    Yet in their privacy policy the following is written

    How DWP collects and uses information

    The Department for Work and Pensions collects information to deal with social security, child support, investigation and prosecution of tax credits, employment and training, council tax reduction, the Financial Assistance Scheme, promoting financial planning for retirement, and policy relating to occupational and personal pension schemes. The information we collect about you depends on the reason for your business with us, but we may use the information for any of these purposes.

    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.

    For customers who set up an account on Universal Jobmatch we gather your postcode for analytical and fraud prevention purposes. The IP address of your device is also gathered separately and used in preventing fraud, improving our services and troubleshooting problems.

    When setting up an account you may need to also provide some personal information that we collect in some areas of the site, depending on the services you use. Examples of this type of information are:

    – your name
    – address
    – email address
    – telephone number
    – contact information
    – information about third parties, such as references or contacts, that you provide to us if you have their express consent to do so.

    We may check information about you with other information we have. We may get information about you from other people and certain other organisations. We may give information to certain other organisations, as the law allows, to:

    – check the accuracy of information
    – prevent or detect crime
    – protect public funds in other ways
    – use in research or statistics.

    These other organisations include other government departments, local authorities, and private-sector bodies such as banks and organisations that may lend you money. We will not give information about you to anyone outside our Department unless the law allows us to.

    Now interestingly in the security section they state


    DWP takes reasonable steps to protect any information you submit via the website, in accordance with legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998.

    DWP takes reasonable steps to protect personal information that you place in this website from:

    – loss
    – misuse
    – unauthorised access
    – disclosure
    – alteration or
    – destruction.

    Yet as you just witnessed they except no liability in STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOUR and even though a contradiction at least puts them in the place of having to acknowledge THE DATA PROTECTION ACT.

    What this means is that unless the DWP/JCP can state the location of the storage servers and that they reside within England and wales, THAT ACTUALLY DATA PROTECTION IS NONE IN VOID AS REGARDS PROTECTING YOUR DATA AND PROSECTING ANY BREACHES.


    August 21, 2013 at 8:57 am

  14. Now we have all heard that if you don’t want to give JCP access that you don’t have to which is contrary to my claim which as they are the data controllers that in fact they DONT NEED YOUR PERMISSION, that the button is nothing more than a rue.


    As you can see yet again, you’ve been LIED TO.


    August 21, 2013 at 9:50 am

  15. Now as we all know not all criminals get punished for ever and only those that commit such a heinous crime even get life sentences.

    Now as we all can all deduce FAILING TO ACTIVELY PROVIDE SUFFICIENT JOBSEARCH EVIDENCE IS HARDLY COMPARABLE TO MURDERING CHILDREN OVER A DECADE OR TWO so it stands to reason that even a mandated action must have an end date.

    Never in any instance I have signed on have I ever witnessed someone being informed that their mandate was over meaning actively claimants are being handed what is for the duration of their claim a life sentence. To highlight this further if you were instantly handed a mandate and or sanction and that you signed off their and then, that when you signed on again that they would still be in place. This makes this a sentence as its time served related plain and simple.

    Now I haven’t looked this up but I would imagine that in the case of insufficient jobsearch evidence if after a period of time you could demonstrate the opposite that the original mandate must be reviewed and removed if the point is addressed.

    Now this mandating currently is all because the government (this includes your advisor) know they CANT LEGALLY MAKE YOU SIGN UP TO UNIVERSAL JOB MATCH so what with being desperate to get everyone online before UNIVERSAL CREDIT gets released have resorted to forcing claimants under the JOBSEEKER DIRECTION under the guise of NOT SUPPLYING SUFFICIENT JOBSEARCH EVIDENCE.



    August 21, 2013 at 11:43 am

  16. Do they know how many times u access the system( UJ)? And for how long? Obviously if u leave a comment it leaves an imprint? My “advisor” struggled with the system. Wot she saw and wot I did are different. Hence I kept a written commentary. Wot are your thoughts?


    August 21, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    • Yes windmill and a lot more.
      I can tell you when, how long and where from (IP address). I can go further with the IP address and with the aid of a nice bit of (cant name for legal reasons) software track you within 6 feet of where you entered it and yes it can be done in real time (ie, live, now, this second) or later on.

      I can tell you what sites you entered before, after, your favourites, your email, every key stroke you take including the time measured between each key stroke, their is absolutely no limit as to what I can do to a person the moment they click on allow cookies as what you did just their and then signed your death warrant by allowing me to enter your system as basically you were clicking a BIG YES YOU CAN. Infact I don’t even need you to click, I could program it for something as simple as if you move your mouse over a certain part or all of a given webpage that, that action alone represents this BIG YES YOU CAN. A prime example of this is current websites not under European rule who still now don’t ask for your consent and instead replace the yes/no question with are they on this page longer than 30 seconds or did they change the page, literally I could make the yes mean anything I want.

      Im not going to incriminate myself not that ive done anything wrong but their are a thousand and one ways to get into any system regardless of whether or not the user has admin privileges. Probably the most common recently is the exploitation of out of date software like java and flash which are amongst the most common pieces of software not updated.

      Like ive said already, UJ or any site can easily build a time profile for each and every account without breaking a sweat and that my friends is EXACTLY what they are intending to do hence why they’ve entered into this new UNIVERSAL CREDIT that all new claims must sign up to UJ if they want to be eligibly for benefit. I wouldn’t be at all surprized as I have no data on this yet that while applying that the original data you give during this claim is then used automatically to set up an account thereby circumnavigating the rocky road of legality like ones right to control the flow of their said personal and sensitive data in respect to third parties what with the fact people want the benefit so are unable to wait while having to write in to express this very legal point.

      Everyone who has a UJ account and applies through that said account and has proved to JCP that they have that account or supplied an email address that is also used in opening a UJ account HAS PUT A ROPE AROUND THEIR NECK. You see they don’t need to see your account actually, they can quite easily enter an email address to see if you registered or even an IP, this is all open to even the advisors. Now you know why despite the rule that yes they do know that their asking to see CVs (often always have email addresses on them) and or are asking for email addresses. Now im not saying that their doing this next part but I for one can take any smart phone number and in the space of a minute or two have its IP.
      Even in the case of dynamic IPs I can tell you the complete list of devices that used it and when and where and so on. I forgot to mention but cookies also take your devices details down like the mobos unique number so marrying an IP to a device is water off a ducks back.

      So clearly you can see that actually everything you do on the net does indeed constitute as personal and or sensitive data when you tie it back to a website account when they knowingly know whos account it is.

      Also remember that in respect to DPA that a second party is different to a third party so by using UJ you have surrendered under law your rights to DWP/JCP who are the data controllers so now they can legally deny your requests in respect to third parties by using exemption clauses under the SSA and also don’t forget the post earlier, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER OR NOT YOU GIVE THEM PERMISSION.


      August 22, 2013 at 11:45 am

      • Thanks for your response. I reread one of your previous postings regarding “that” interview, ie, not enough information.I will use that if so challenged.


        August 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm

  17. Windmill1 :
    Thanks for your response. I reread one of your previous postings regarding “that” interview, ie, not enough information.I will use that if so challenged.

    Actually don’t exactly follow it as all the rules are in my head so I quote them from memory which is why their is an actual second showdown. Had I had printed them out it would have never moved on to another occasion.


    The link supplied is the chapter 3 operational tookit for Universal jobmatch that was kindly applied for and uploaded by someone in the same position as us all claiming benefit.

    Now print all the pages ok, not just the ones that you need incase they claim that the document could have come from anywhere which they might. Do make sure to mask exactly which website it came from so they cant try and seek a court order to have it taken down which again I strongly think they would and would even goes as far as to say they will claim infringement so don’t mess up. The top and or bottoms of webpage printouts give these details but also remove the websites name from anywhere else.

    Now the bits concerning the argument are points 82, 83, 89 and 90. You will see above points 82 and 83 that they fall under the title of ACTIVELY SEEKING WORK and it is this that is your defence if their picking on your evidence as a whole. If however the issue relates to just UJ searches and you haven’t let them into your account then its points 89 and 90.

    Now point 82 is a bone crusher as if you read it you will see that it addresses all jobsearch evidence and ends in a manner that makes it quite clear that it isn’t purely in relation to UJ.

    82 We cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of
    their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this.

    I suspect that they will try and go for point 90 as in it its states the following

    90 If this is insufficient and you are not completely satisfied they have met the requirements to actively seek work, raise a labour market doubt in the usual way.

    I say this as their is no legal definition of the word insufficient but this also makes it a two street that benefits you and I will explain.

    The definition of EVIDENCE is Sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.

    The definition of insufficient is Inadequate: not enough in amount or quality to satisfy a purpose or standard.

    Now keeping this in mind the whole purpose of jobsearch evidence is to prove sufficiently that one has indeed done as required under jobseekers agreement. So as long as the data supplied could lead an individual to discover whether or not this is the case irrespective of cost or time (truly this is not your responsibility under any circumstance they might try and throw at you), it is quite sufficient enough. Also remember at this point its also not your problem that sites such as fish4jobs with hold the employers data however usually they do supply a agency/company name so DO put that down on your evidence unless you offer them a print out of the sites jobs you applied for as they all supply a function that groups your applied jobs together although be careful as sites like monster have different ways of applying and as such may not show up in the supplied applied for list, I believe UJ does this also but I cannot say for sure.

    Ironically as we are talking about fish4jobs if you have ever printed out that as evidence its funny how they will except that even though it doesn’t really prove anything at all bar the position AND EVEN THE DATE DOESNT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE YOU ACTUALLY APPLIED as all it says is date and time, for all they know it could have been the time I first looked at the vacancy yet its considered evidence of proof by JCP.

    Well I will leave it at that so if you have any further questions please ask away.


    August 22, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    • Thanks again. I reiterate my earlier comment. Given they spy on us anyway (of course I am not happy about it) is there a facility to do a covering letter on UJ, if not it is a fundamental flaw which goes to the heart of the system . All other jobsites require this (and I worry about their pop ups, eg, is your PC working etc,etc?)


      August 22, 2013 at 6:41 pm

      • Im afraid as yet their is no cover letter option available on UJ but their again their isn’t on fish4jobs either.

        The way to over come this is instead of applying through UJ instead ring UJ on the phone then use the details given to apply directly through your email account.

        To be honest im fifty fifty on cover letters as no letter means less work equals more time to look and or apply for other vacancies yet on the flipside I have had a few interviews brought about by the content of my cover letters.

        You shouldn’t be getting pop ups as the site doesn’t use them but if whats in the pop ups is pages of UJ then its liable that your PCs browser is possibly set to open all other pages in pop up fashion or they are pages but the size hasn’t been adjusted so the window remains small.

        If you could be specific about the content of these pop ups I could possibly confirm whether their the norm or infact an invasion not connected to the site per say.


        August 23, 2013 at 9:19 am

      • Thanks for the info again. I need to use a covering letter. My job history is quite specific to a particular role and industry and so need to demonstrate “transferable skills”.

        On the “Indeed” site (not UJ) I get “pop ups”, the usual is “make your PC work faster” even though MacAfee is set to no, as far as I know. I normally get alert messages. I delete cookies on a regular basis but they get through on that site. So I close down.

        Any advice would be welcome


        August 23, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    • You’re quite right Gaia, short of some kind of legal document certifying everything you’ve done to get a job everything is open to a query.

      I’ve applied for jobs which I’ve been told to do, and the rest, kept records, print-outs, and the what have you, but until they install a chip in our bodies to monitor our activity they can always quibble.

      Andrew Coates

      August 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm



        August 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm

  18. I think the answer is to be read the small print (as mentioned by our colleague ) And then get someone to interpret it. In law the basic constraint in contract is that the clause is construed against the party relying on it ,ie, who is more powerful?. The basic law provides, but you have to prove it in front of “some old darling’ who he/she thinks they are judge. Bin there…


    August 23, 2013 at 7:03 pm

  19. To any that come here I must come across as a right moaner, hell bent on the demise of DWP/JCP but as a default tax/NI payer (currently out of contract) I do expect more from my contributions as im sure all fellow payers do (this includes all claimants).

    I get it that their is an element who have made a career out of benefits and I would like them to see the error of their ways but I cannot tolerate these blanket cover laws purely designed because DWP/JCP cant even announce an actual figure of, let alone catch these so called people. I would suspect and this is just an educated guess but the figure of people doing this is more than likely to be around or less than one percent.

    To put perspective on this we have around 3232 cities, towns and villages in the UK so at 1% (15’800 claimants) that would mean an average of 4.9 people per city, town and village. So my point is that your local office spends HOW MUCH so called chasing 4.9 people?

    How much time and money is wasted alone having to ask and look at every claimants evidence, raise a doubt or sanction, maybe even involving the police (fraud) time to ?

    Theirs only 2 types of people in the UK with NO RIGHTS and that’s illegal immigrants and criminals but even in these cases your still INNOCENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY so I do question the legality of having any agreement with DWP/JCP what so ever.


    August 28, 2013 at 12:33 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: