Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Homeless People to be Fined for Sleeping Rough.

with 81 comments

Jo — a homeless boy who tries without much luck to make a living as a crossing sweeper - was one of Charles Dickens's many tragic portraits of children who suffered during Victorian times. In Bleak House, Jo dies from pneumonia. He is seen here with the oily preacher Mr Chadband. The caption reads: 'Peace be with us!'

Victorian Homeless is Back.

One of the consequences of benefit ‘reform’ is the vast increase in the numbers of people made homeless.

Some of these end up sleeping rough.

In Ipswich this report was made a few weeks ago,

Rough sleepers in Ipswich hits five-year high – councillor says numbers could rise.

The official totals cited in the article may seem small, “The figures, released under Freedom of Information laws, show last year Ipswich Borough Council (IBC) estimated there were eight people sleeping rough in the town, rising from five the previous year and seven in both 2012 and 2011, but a five person decrease on 2010.”

But anybody who lives in the Town Centre knows that there are far more people in this position, and a much greater number sleeping on friends sofas.

The number of people begging – something practically unknown twenty years ago – continues to rise.

This is not the ‘fault’ of the council but of government policy.

It is not just sky-high rents – with the Cabinet refusing any measures to control prices –  but people sanctioned, and deprived of benefit who end up in this position.

This happened at the end of March,

A homeless man caused Tesco staff to “run for their lives” as he hurled bottles of alcohol towards them because he wanted to return to prison, a court heard.”

The unprovoked attack ended when Steven Povey went behind the counter of Tesco in Bramford Road, Ipswich, opened a packet of cigarettes before lighting one and waited patiently for police to arrest him.

The 31-year-old got his wish to go back to jail after being remanded in custody following a hearing at South East Suffolk Magistrates’ Court.

March 31st Ipswich Star.

Welfare Weekly reports today:

Homeless people face fines of up to £1,000 for sleeping rough in public doorways, under a new asbo-style rule introduced by a London Council.

Homelessness charities have reacted angrily to Hackney Council’s ‘Public Space Protection Order’, which they say “criminalises homelessness”.

The new order bans homeless people from sleeping in public areas and doorways and can be legally enforced through a £100 on the spot fine.

This fine could quickly escalate to as much as £1,000, due to additional court costs. It remains unclear on how the Council will expect destitute homeless people to pay up.

Matt Downie, Director of Policy and External Affairs at the homelessness charity Crisis, said:

“While it’s right that the police have the power to tackle genuine criminals, covering a complex issue with a wide-ranging PSPO could lead to people in dire need of support facing a counterproductive arrest or fine.”

“Rough sleepers deserve better than to be treated as a nuisance – they may have suffered a relationship breakdown, a bereavement or domestic abuse. Instead, people need long-term, dedicated support to move away from the streets for good.”

Connor Johnston, a barrister specialising in homelessness, added: “The purpose of these orders is to clamp down on antisocial or nuisance behaviour that impacts on the quality of life of those in the locality.

“There is nothing inherently antisocial about a person being forced to sleep rough and we should not be criminalising it.”

Mark McPherson from Homeless Link said to “criminalise sleeping rough could simply create additional problems to be overcome”.

“If local authorities are concerned about people sleeping on their streets, we would urge them to work with local homelessness charities and authorities to connect people with the structured help they need to get off the streets for good.”

Deputy mayor, Sophie Linden, denied claims Hackney Council is trying to criminalise homelessness. “The welfare of every vulnerable person is of highest importance to us”, she said.

“We are trying to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour that is concentrated in specific areas and having an adverse effect on the lives of residents and visitors to the area”.

The Public Space Protection Order states: “Officers will put rough sleepers in contact with organisations that make sure they get the medical attention that they need, and help with housing.”

Connor Johnston said the Public Space Protection Order will simply “shunt homeless people to another borough”.

He added: “This won’t solve anything beyond making our streets a bit ‘shinier’ and will almost certainly just make it harder for those sleeping rough to access the support services they rely on.”

Oxford City Council has introduced a similar order. Homeless people were made exempt after a consultation found it would not be an effective way of tackling homelessness in the city. A petition against the order was signed by over 72,000 people.


Written by Andrew Coates

June 3, 2015 at 3:22 pm

81 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on sdbast.


    June 3, 2015 at 3:48 pm

  2. We’ve been lobbying Hackney councillors via twitter to condemn unlawful homeless fines @welfare_central …We encourage everyone to follow Ipswich Against Cuts and tell Hackney they are wrong.

    Hackney Council thinks it can put whatever it likes in its ‘Public Space Protection Order’ (PSPO) ….Wrong!

    Welfare Central

    June 3, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    • The absurdity of fining people who are so poor they sleep rough is beyond parody.

      Andrew Coates

      June 3, 2015 at 4:47 pm

      • It’s come to this. We’ve sunk this far that grubby councillors are so bereft of a soul they have to rifle though the pockets of the homeless – because they are all so wealthy.

        ghost whistler

        June 4, 2015 at 2:53 pm

  3. The next step is to abduct rough sleepers, then take them to bits to supply organs for the elite. “Organlegging” might be a sci-fi concept, but it’s already taking place in China, harvesting the organs of condemned criminals.


    June 3, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    • Not just China, there were reports of it happening in the Thailand/Philippines area a few years back. Me thinks it just went underground and is picking on the poor out there – oh, and Africa, Central America if the whispers I heard are true.


      June 5, 2015 at 5:38 pm

  4. Its a lot worse than the articles depict it.

    Basically these local boroughs are using the same scam as certain European countries have adopted. Basically they are insinuating these people are pretending to be homeless, that its a scam to commit crime on the public.

    Councils have a problem what with the sheer amount of people becoming homeless and its now at the point of no denial. London is the most effected and no one pulls the vagrancy act for arrests like the met.

    Councils are already well aware how judges are sympathetic towards homeless people starving on the street like the Iceland case last year and the husband and wife this year. This naturally foiled there plan not to move them on but to use prisons as hostels as you cant barter with people who have nothing so it would be only a matter of time despite help, there be back right on the street generally because either theres no housing for them or there put in areas they just don’t feel safe. Ive heard this from a few homeless people that sleeping in the public eye is the safest place to be as often they are savaged and beaten when sleeping in parks while the police bully them but don’t do nothing about the attack they suffered.

    This is all just another example of trying to ignore the problem in the cheapest way rather than attacking central government on why and how this is happening at an alarming rate this they took office back in 2010.

    For the record the on spot fine is highly laughable as no homeless person is going to have that kind of money, especially when you consider there the most sanctioned sector of welfare claimants.

    The situation is so prolific the courts nicknamed it survival crime, a term you wont even find on the internet.


    June 3, 2015 at 7:09 pm

    • As we know Gaia, there are those who don’t like the blunt truth which is why the truth, or how bad it really is, is not see in the above article or many others which we see.


      June 3, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    • I think the time will come when every homeless person will be taken from wherever they are and placed in camps, fenced in and made to work.


      June 3, 2015 at 9:43 pm

    • Just found a room for a homeless person, no deposit needed, which as we know is one of the problems homeless people face when looking for somewhere to live, so one less homeless person off the street, but still many to help.


      June 4, 2015 at 12:32 pm

      • On the street even!


        June 4, 2015 at 12:36 pm

      • One bedroom properties are still very much in short supply, you’ve only got to look at sheer numbers already still stuck in 2/3 bedroom properties looking for relocation because of the bedroom tax to see that.


        June 5, 2015 at 8:06 am

      • I cant remember if I already said it but where I am you cant walk from one end of the high street to the other without it being wall to wall in homeless people lately.


        June 5, 2015 at 8:07 am

      • There’s plenty of rooms available in this town, it’s getting the same here in this town, we see more and more homeless people in the high street every day.


        June 5, 2015 at 8:22 am

      • So from your perspective enigma, if theres plenty of one bedroom housing then why aren’t the homeless taking them in your area ?


        June 5, 2015 at 8:47 am

      • Well one reason is because there is only one landlord who doesn’t ask for a deposit because they know those on benefits have little chance of having a deposit, of course that’s no the only reason.


        June 5, 2015 at 8:53 am

      • Arrr, so its not social landlords then or DSS welfare welcome as they don’t ask for deposits. This means then that there aren’t plenty of one bedroom places for unemployed and or homeless people dew to as you said, deposits being required.

        I also know but only you can say for your area, that like jobs there’s more than one candidate applying for residency per house/flat so like employers landlords have the pick of the bunch. In my area and surrounding landlords are assessing applications on how a person is dressed, do they look like trouble and so forth. Also in my area private landlords are with drawing from taking people who are on housing benefits be they working or not.


        June 5, 2015 at 9:13 am

      • Yes, most landlords as we know expect a deposit – those on benefits or homeless need not apply. .


        June 5, 2015 at 9:41 am

  5. Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.


    June 4, 2015 at 10:22 am

  6. Council care bosses urge ‘sustained and substantial’ extra funds to help older and disabled people in England



    June 4, 2015 at 11:07 am

  7. Welfare reform impacts guide.

    Inclusion Scotland has released a guide to the impacts of welfare reform on disabled people.



    June 4, 2015 at 11:10 am

  8. Weakening workers’ rights in the EU is playing with fire, warns TUC

    Chancellor’s economic plan is failing on job quality and productivity



    June 4, 2015 at 11:14 am

  9. Government spending cuts will see unprotected parts of the social security budget fall to their lowest level for 25 years, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned.

    Unprotected welfare benefits include child benefit, housing and disability benefits and jobseekers’ allowance



    June 4, 2015 at 2:37 pm

  10. enigma

    June 4, 2015 at 2:48 pm

  11. Housing benefit could be cut by over 10% in George Osborne’s July Budget as the government attempts to deliver its commitment to reduce welfare spending by £12 billion in two years.

    So yet more homelessness.


    Andrew Coates

    June 4, 2015 at 3:21 pm

  12. Massive data breach pulled on USA government, will our government now recognise that they cant keep our data safe online or stubbornly muster ahead ?


    With our government placing the UKs public personal and or sensitive data into the hands of private companies online at an alarming rate, isn’t it time they took stock of the risks instead of ignoring the overwhelming evidence that proves the internet and cloud storage are the most unsafe place there is in the world.

    From tax data to NHS, they want all our wares online.


    June 5, 2015 at 8:19 am

  13. Teenagers’ ‘promising futures at risk’ from cuts


    They say there getting a drop in NEETS yet,

    Tricky GCSE maths exam sees pupils take to Twitter

    Already pupils are complaining about how hard new exams are after the tories last reform. Lets not also forget 40% of UK students fail there GCSEs.


    June 5, 2015 at 8:27 am

    • A common complaint from these pupils is one of topics that have not been covered in the syllabus appearing on the exam paper. Anyone who has studied at university level (Mr Coates?) will be able to tell you that this is a common occurrence and in the halls of academia considered perfectly legitimate. It goes without saying that is does makes things a lot more difficult, dare say traumatic especially if this circumstance is sprung upon you when you have been relying on mugging up on the ‘core’ syllabus and trying to pick out the ‘examinable topics’ to see you through the exam. Obviously those who succeed will be those who have been dedicated and studious enough to “read well around the subject”. It has to be said that this practice is more likely to be encountered the higher you climb the academic tree; more likely at post-graduate level and very unlikely at first year university level. Gove’s decision to introduce this practice at GCSE level is unwanton cruelty.

      University Lecturer

      June 5, 2015 at 9:38 am

      • Its more to do with world ranking on a certain table than the government actually caring about our youth.

        The problem with these not covered in a syllabus questions is, there robbing students of distinctions where such exists which is something employers consider these days when selecting employees.

        Its effectively a punishment for not being clever enough, not studying more topics than you are taught as though a child’s life should be totally education and nothing else.

        This tory idea that students study well beyond what there being taught in a lesson needs to stop as children have lives to so like workers don’t tend to do more than is asked of them.


        June 5, 2015 at 10:20 am

  14. Confirmation that you do not have to sign provider CWP/MWA documentation but you do have to be “willing to participate” though.


    June 5, 2015 at 9:05 am

    • Thanks hammerhead but we already knew that as it requires under law legal consent which cant be gained by force or threat.

      As long as the claimant maintains that they are willing to attend but do not and will not give consent, DWP cant do squat diddly about it as they must obey the law.

      Also with regards to skills conditionality and sector based learning schemes the providers need consent to apply for SFA funding for any course your on so not consenting to this will prevent them from gaining further funds not to mention will still you not being seen by these providers as there not getting paid.

      To air caution these providers are tricking claimants into walking out of said courses then reporting them so insist that your happy to leave if they want you to but they must in writing declare why they want you to leave so you can instantly take it to DWP as is procedure, or better put, so you don’t get sanctioned. If they pull the DWP call the police bit, explain the issue to the police as by law they must record every police visit in there little black book and thus becomes the evidence this provider refuses to give. You may want to mention that to them before calling the police as then they will know you have scuppered there plan.


      June 5, 2015 at 9:31 am

      • The trick is not to think that not signing these documents is a way of avoiding participation. You have to be of the mindset that you are eager and willing, in fact, champing at the bit to participate. You have to be adamant with the provider that you are willing to participate (the only issue is with signing their documents). And if they refuse to allow you to participate simply for not signing their documents (which they are not allowed to) you have to take it up with the jobcentre immediately. And if the provider doesn’t want you there because they wont get paid and chose to refer you back to the job centre and as a consequence you miss out on the ‘opportunity’ of cwp/mwa there is not a lot you can do about it.

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 9:52 am

      • If the provider won’t get paid or whatever because you haven’t signed their documents, it’s THEIR problem – not yours! There is not a lot you can do about it – unfortunately!

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 9:56 am

      • You can only try your best, try to help the provider out as mush as possible 😉

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 9:57 am

    • The trick is not to think that not signing these documents is a way of avoiding participation – because it’s not!

      Rebel with a Cause

      June 5, 2015 at 9:53 am

      • Again already known courtesy of the work programme. This however doesn’t apply to any scheme requiring the claimant to be educated and given a recognised qualification if successful.

        Its not a trick as that implies claimants aren’t willing which is simply untrue in most cases. We are tired of useless schemes that don’t as the data reflects really help the majority into work and are for the better part just a way for government to fudge statistics so as to give the illusion more people are off benefits and the reform is working.

        Taking the latest stats on the work programme for instance, 70% of claimants are still returning to the jobcentre without securing any gainful employment in the 2 year period proving not only does this not work but also the same with regards to placements, a tool often used with work programme claimants.

        The most effected are the long term unemployed so like the kids and disabled need assistance to but just aren’t getting it.

        Government needs to tackle the barrier we all suffer that is the employer who will dew to having thousands of CVs use the slightest imperfection to rule a candidate out. If your homeless, ill, old or incapacitated, you are the most effected.


        June 5, 2015 at 10:59 am

  15. Getting back to the homeless, they are so not recognised by this government that still to this date the online system of applying for benefits doesn’t take them into account properly and results in the homeless having to fraudulently enter a postcode in order to proceed as it clearly states if you check, IT MUST BE A POSTCODE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE YOU LIVE.

    On top of this they force homeless people to attend every day to sign on while others sign every 1 or 2 weeks at a time despite a homeless person having twice as much to do than the latter to turn there life around and gain work. The DWP excuse I’ve heard is so DWP can give them the notices they send other claimants yet I laugh as how often do you see that these days.

    also found from sanction data, homeless people are 11 times more likely to get sanctioned than a normal claimant with accommodation.

    So when you look at the evidence to date its pretty clear government doesn’t want homeless people on the dole, doesn’t want them appearing in front of there possible electorate (meaning in the public eye), they want them in prison (there’s no way a homeless person can afford fines especially when most are sanctioned already) which effectively amounts to an expensive hostel (it cost 464 pounds a week per prisoner currently).

    You hear the media talk about discrimination towards disabled claimants yet this is nothing when compared to being homeless.

    In short this means when Cameron said we are all in it together, they meant everyone but the absolute poorest in society.


    June 5, 2015 at 9:52 am

  16. Ok, so it’s not necessary to sign forms for Community Work Placements, as long as you are willing to attend. Does that mean you still have to fill-in all the forms with all your details, even if you do not consent to sign?


    June 5, 2015 at 9:55 am

    • No, you don’t have to lay a finger on their forms.

      Rebel with a Cause

      June 5, 2015 at 10:00 am

      • “Rebel with a cause”

        Do you know that for certain? Have you done that? How can you prove (to the Jobcentre) you actually attended the provider’s induction?


        June 5, 2015 at 10:05 am

      • Yes! What would filling in an unsigned form prove anyway? To be on the safe side you just have to gather as much evidence as possible to ‘prove’ you attended. Bus tickets, even taking the provider’s forms home with you would provide more proof of attendance than filling them in.

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 10:14 am

      • Anyway, filling in a form and not signing it doesn’t really make any sense anyway – they are mutually inclusive.

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 10:18 am

      • “Rebel without a cause”

        The Jobcentre will tend to interpret these conditions as “failing to complete provider interview”, then sanction the victim!

        So, presumably, anyone trying to challenge MWA/CWP will need to be able to cope with the sanction period – even if they know their appeal will ultimately be successful several months later.

        The CWP challenger will then likely be sentenced to seek work for 35 hours a week as punishment!


        June 5, 2015 at 10:23 am

      • The Jobcentre will interpret black as white if it suits their purposes. . Anyway, you haven’t “failed to complete a provider interview” any more than not signing/filling in the provider paperwork demonstrates that you are unwilling to participate. It is about your willingness to participate. As long as you are willing to participate. But you can never be sure how a particular provider/jobcentre will react.

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 10:35 am

      • Anyway, if you are not sure, have your doubts or are uncertain it might be the easiest (and safest) option to just go along with what the provider asks of you. Just sign!

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 10:38 am

      • Anyway, it is quite clear from the DWP letter that you do not have to sign the provider’s paperwork – it cannot be any more explicit! Whether or not this extends to actually filling it in can be left as a moot point until such times as it is further clarified.

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 10:41 am

      • You just fill in any old crap on the provider’s paperwork. Anyone could have filled it in though. It is not like you have put your signature to it accepting it is a ‘true and accurate’ statement. It is the act of signing the document that validates it. Without a valid signature it is just loo roll.

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 10:44 am

      • Once you start to fill out the provider’s paperwork you are beginning to acquiesce to their demands and once you have gone to the effort of filling out at lengthy form it is only a short step from actually signing it.

        Rebel with a Cause

        June 5, 2015 at 10:47 am

      • Even if you don’t touch the provider’s paperwork it still won’t stop you sending you on a placement. And you might still leave you on the placement. Just to punish you! At the end of the day is all these greedy providers are interested in is making as much money for themselves as possible so the idea is to frustrate their ability to obtain payments so that they don’t want you on their schemes because they can’t make any money of off your back. If you are a good little slave who does as you are told, doesn’t give them any hassle and serves as an easy cash-cow for these providers you are more likely to end up being re-referred to these types of schemes.

        J Dean

        June 5, 2015 at 11:03 am

      • For the record I to abstained and no I wasn’t sanctioned, even have it attempted once I outlined the legal definition of consent and a data subjects rights under law regarding personal and or sensitive data to DWP.

        If you fill out a form and don’t sign it, DWP/provider could claim this amounts to legal consent known as implied consent, you must not put anything down at all if you are not happy with them processing your personal and or sensitive data.


        June 5, 2015 at 11:18 am

      • Now then J Dean you bring up an interesting point.

        If you don’t consent to a placement employer processing said data, then its a breach of ICO for said employer to engage in any conversation with said provider where a data subjects personal and or sensitive data is passed.

        Now what makes that interesting is that providers would have to make personal visits everyday to each placement otherwise how do they prove you attended or not. BUT craftily providers are ringing said employer,



        June 5, 2015 at 12:16 pm

  17. Nothing unusual really.

    UK government took ‘unlawful and unacceptably long time’ to pay welfare benefits to two disabled people,



    June 5, 2015 at 10:54 am

    • Absolutely, and there’s all kinds of things like that for people who need money to help their children with disabilities of various types as well.

      Andrew Coates

      June 5, 2015 at 11:35 am

  18. “Rebel with a cause”

    What would you do if the provider asks you to sign the fire register in the reception area on your arrival?


    June 5, 2015 at 10:59 am

    • And so what if you do, what exactly are you implying Questioner ?


      June 5, 2015 at 11:20 am

      • “gaia”

        I’m not implying anything. I just asked a simple question – to “Rebel with a cause”, not you!

        Perhaps I can add two interesting questions here. What will happen if you do sign (the attendance/fire register), and what will happen if you don’t?


        June 5, 2015 at 11:27 am

      • “Questioner” is beginning to sound like s/he/they work for a provider? 😉


        June 5, 2015 at 11:35 am

      • I just wish someone would actually answer my questions, rather than changing the subject with unfounded speculation.


        June 5, 2015 at 11:41 am

      • Im not attacking or suggesting hence the flat why question dear questioner like for instance what super ted put forward.

        A fire register isn’t about names, its about the amount of people in a building, sure it can be used to call people out but even then all that would do is state who exactly is still in the building which is immaterial when considering injury and or possible death.

        Also if companies were that diligent and it was that important to them, then how comes they don’t know how many times you signed it. You see providers like DWP are lazy to say the least and use this register for proof of attendance despite as I have described it proves very little indeed and that’s assuming people don’t play around with it and thus make it worse.

        To get around this and to address super teds rightful claim is for the claimant to produce there own sheet when at providers and have whoever sees you sign to say you attended.

        They cant really refuse or would be ill advised to refrain as an employee has no reasonable right to expect privacy under law if the reason a claimant is with them is for commercial purposes (ie no company will be able to trade effectively if they are anonymous), so to refuse apart from demonstrating they clearly misunderstand the data protection act, demonstrates pettiness all because they cant have there cake and eat it.

        The data protection act does not protect nor give rights to companies, it is designed and implemented to protect a persons personal and or sensitive data. If your offering a service or product you cant expect to from a point of anonymity, that’s just plain common sense.


        June 5, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      • Oh while covering such, this applies to UJM also.

        It appears when you ring up for job details for the site, DWP are telling callers they have to register and apply online incases where a company has withheld there company name.

        WELL, as I have recently said, a companies name is not covered by the act so cannot really be withheld under the guise of quoting the DPA. While DWP can refrain from supplying an actual full name (ie, attached to an email address), they cant do the same in respect to the name of the company advertising for staff. DWP know this and like online registering for benefits are misleading people so as to force people to part with personal data.

        If the company withhold there name and DWP says they allow it then theres direct proof there not vetting these adverts as how do they explain there legit actual companies if they don’t check which they cant if they don’t ask for a company name.

        DWP lie through there teeth every chance they get so be aware, your being lied to a lot more than I think many realise.


        June 5, 2015 at 1:22 pm

      • I say this as DWP are data mining, that’s a fact so claimants so really DONT want to apply through a UJM account.

        If DWP cant tell you the companies name then they cannot state its actually a real job lead so cant realistically offer it to a claimant and threaten them with a sanction if they don’t apply.

        Remember this.


        June 5, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    • do not sign anything they use the sigs in the fire reg to forge there paperwork for payments, note that if you have not been shown the fire exits fire points ect then why would u sign it anyway?
      its all a scam to get your permission to let them process ur personnel information like gaia says so dont sign or fill in any forms from the providers as i have never had to stay and do any of it for the last 5 years plus.

      super ted

      June 5, 2015 at 11:32 am

      • Convicted fraudsters A£E had many cunning techniques to transpose signature from say the ‘fire register’ to the payment claim form, they even has some special ‘window’ technique. A£e offices were stuffed to the rafters with tracing paper 😀

        A£e are Fraudsters

        June 5, 2015 at 11:39 am

      • “super ted” provides a good answer to the fire register question – forgeries have happened before in the Welfare-to-Work industry!


        June 5, 2015 at 11:44 am

      • You cant photo copy a signature and expect it to be legit, if that were true explain the sign on pads that measure weight, speed, hand and so forth.

        Forging signatures is far from straight forward if presented physically and the correct checks are made.

        So if a provider does make a fraudulent claim in this said manner then it happened on DWPs watch proving yet again despite talking tough on fraud, there still failing to tackle it or at the very least have put in place a system biased to claimants when as we have seen, even DWP public servants are no strangers to committing it.


        June 5, 2015 at 1:05 pm

      • when i finished the wp i was told by a floor manager that i was to forget my time on the wp as i never went other than the day i was told to by letter.
        when i asked about the ref fee of 400 quid that was paid to the wp provider that never done 1 thing for that fee was not interested and told to forget about the wp.

        also my info was transfer to another provider as well with out my permission breaching the dpa during my wp slot and again was told to forget about it.

        if i took a fee for something then never bothered to do 1 thing for it id sure get a sanction but the providers can do it and the dwp let them get away with it.

        super ted

        June 5, 2015 at 1:26 pm

      • If you super ted or anyone else suspects DWP or provider has breached there data then you must in the first instance report it to ICO


        And in finishing please check out this ICO link on who and who commits the most data breaches as your be quite shocked on who the leaders are.


        So when your provider or DWP spin the you can trust them lark, just present the current version of this.

        And in parting for a break down of government data breaches, HMRC are todate the worst offender followed very very closely by the department of work and pensions.


        June 5, 2015 at 1:45 pm

      • the best bit is after i was sent from jhp to learn direct they then tried to sanction me for not going near a year n half later 3-4 times 1 them all then come the exit report review letter.

        i went sat in the dump then got called over and asked for my ni no ect and guess what the computer screen was blank, nothing on it bar my name and nothing else.

        so asked for my exit report and was told how can they do 1 with nothing on there system? not my fkn problem you are under contract from the dwp to provide a exit report from the wp for the jcp staff to then carry on with it ect.

        it never come and the jcp were fucked right up as i was mia for 2 years n told my then adviser you got what you paid for,ie nothing 😉

        and dont worry gaia i have kept every single letter for the last 5 years so they want to play games ill nail there ball to the wall 🙂

        super ted

        June 5, 2015 at 2:16 pm

      • In truth super ted im more than sure you know what your on with so saw it as more a chance to educate others.

        I went through the same crap with WP and PWPS and like you also found it a cake walk as im sure you agree, that once you realise the law, you suddenly realise how little power DWP actually have.

        Its no justification but goes a long way to explaining why they mislead so much.

        If claimants knew what we knew, the reform would have been tanked within 2 years of coming in.


        June 5, 2015 at 2:26 pm

      • I went through the same crap with WP and PWPS and like you also found it a cake walk as im sure you agree, that once you realise the law, you suddenly realise how little power DWP actually have.

        yeah and the look on the advisers face when they know they cant do jack shit to you mandatory my ass.

        i find it grate fun watching these plebs dictate to me what i can and cant do then smash um in to the floor with the dwp own rules tool kits and the law as they are not above it.

        prob why i got sent letters about my conduct in my dwp as if they want an hour argument about it im more than up for it every fkn 8hrs a day 5 days a week.

        think they have me down the jcp every day fkn no chance cant handle it as most times they did empty the office for um to have a pop at me even 2 3 advisers left centre right having a go and still kicked there ass 😉

        super ted

        June 5, 2015 at 2:46 pm

  19. Scottish government faces £177m spending cut

    “The Scottish Parliament has already agreed our budget for this year and that should be respected, not slashed as part of George Osborne and David Cameron’s ideological obsession with austerity.



    June 5, 2015 at 11:04 am

  20. I just want to highlight this common insistence to believe every FOI DWP reply to.

    Theres nothing to stop this response from misinforming you so if they said you had to sign, naturally you would assume this is law and comply if you knew no better. DWP have without doubt adapted to how they respond so rule nothing out. Im not saying they would lie but more so misrepresent the truth by using spin jargon.

    If claimants want to know what is and is not permissible then they need to know the act/s of law that pertain to it.

    So its not because DWP say you don’t have to give consent if we say in regards to processing data that you don’t, its because the data protection act says so.

    Dear claimants please start learning the law that governs DWP and any like me who know it already, please teach and explain as far as is necessary other claimants, as only by networking can we truly crack down on this illicit practice of misleading claimants by playing on there ignorance.


    June 5, 2015 at 2:20 pm

  21. I have been on a sanction since 29-01-14 and its still in effect now( i have no idea why, i cant get a straight answer from anyone at JC), I phoned welfare and spoke to CAB i got an appointment on thurs with The Advice shop. I have £0.36 in my bank i should have been paid 14-10-14 ( had to go and reaply for hardship which i did on the day i should have been paid. I called today and got told my hardship will be paid to me after my next sing on day (23-10-14) so i have no money for electricity or gas. I cant feed myself or my animals, welfare was no help as they cant help if im on sanction. My own government kicks me to the ground lets me go cold and hungry and wont give a hand to help me back on my feet and has the audacity to blame me for it, my hair is falling out by the handful due to the stress im losing weight that i cant afford to lose, im really not sure how much longer i can continue crying myself to sleep over this, its really dishearteing that im in this situation( i cant even go back to food bank because i have a gas cooker, so what good would it do me. My situation is pretty dire, i have had sanction on top of sanction since Jan, I’ve not been notified of any of my sanctions ( i find out about it when i have no payment and have to phone them). I have not failed in any of my job search’s (21 jobs per week), i have done everything they tell me to do including going to A4e (action 4 employment). Yet im still getting slowly starved to death. I spoke to CAB about it and they said the same thing as welfare said “they cant do nothing to help if ive been sanctioned” there words not mine, so i got sent to a food bank. My last option is the Advice Shop to try and fight the sanctions or go to doctor and get treated for depression,( i really dont want that, doctors answer will be anti-depressants) As it stands now my christmas list is only one thing…… a straight razor……update…… I had to cancel an appointment with A4e on the 20th oct so i could call my job centre and find out about my benifit not being paid again, I recieved a letter on the 21st oct saying i have once again been sanctioned, when i went in to sign on on 06 nov i reapplyed for hardship as i was due to be paid today (11 nov) my hardship has been granted but now i have 14 days to wait because ive been disallowed…. dont that just SUCK!!! so now i have to wait 14 days before i can get money for anything like gas electricity or even food…i have been on the phone getting refered to foodbank and welfare (Who according to them they cant help me get money because of the disallowed benifit) so what the hell am i going to do now…. i cant keep doing this anymore its starting to fracture me, my health is really starting to suffer, im getting headaches due to the stress, really bad period pain (ive had 3 periods in about 2 months i cant sleep my appetite is non existant. So i have reached the end of my rope. I really need help and there is none avalable to me.

    Gemma Spence

    June 5, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    • Gemma Spence, DWP must inform you of the nature of the sanction they no doubt claimed they sent you in the post if not homeless so ask for a copy.

      Next you will need them to expand on it meaning the event leading up to being sanctioned as you cant simply say your sanctioned and DWP know this very well. I suggest if your centre isn’t communicating that I would ask for the area managers office and write to them instead detailing how can you defend yourself against a sanction if they wont tell you what its for besides a generically used sentence like not available for work for instance.

      Its strange CAB say they cant help you with a sanction as there well aware of how around half are overturned and shouldn’t have been placed in the first place. None the less your at this point not asking for them to work on a sanction, your asking them to help you find out the nature of them that as you state todate DWP has refused to answer.

      When you can get this leading up to reason, then and only then can you tackle whether or not they have a point or not. Also DWP put a time frame on appealing so I hope you did so with every one you been given todate and have kept them open.

      Its a pity you didn’t come here or knew about this site on the first sanction as some of it I fear we can nolonger legally challenge but get back to us with what you do find out and will see what can be done. The next time you do comeback, click on the websites title as it will produce all pages. From there select the latest as people follow that and seldom return to old ones.


      June 5, 2015 at 5:39 pm

      • Oopps, gaia you beat me to replying.


        June 5, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    • Gemma,

      I feel for you and the predicament the C*&^s at DWP have put you in. When you see CAB, ask them to fax the jobcentre for them to fax back the letter [they’ll claim one was sent, but IT NEVER WAS – I talk to my postman on need so would do the same, if you can get confirmation that no letter was sent on the 2 days after the date on the letter, it becomes Defamation, and Maladministration on the part of the Civil Servant who states otherwise.].

      It might be an idea to also in writing request a complete copy of your claim information – DWP must provide this free of charge. maybe ask CAB to look through it – maybe even receive it? Your judgement here.

      Once you have the Sanction letter – if none is produced, Maladministration, if not – ask dWP what their computer records as to person who autherised stopping payment – time for an official complaint. Oh, and why was the hardship claim dissallowed?

      This all sounds like DWP is delibratley withholding paperwork from you.

      Find out via CAB – I cannot emphasis this enough – Paperwork Paperwork & Witnesses, [if you can record them as well] any meeeting with DWP have a friend, class them as a McKenzie friend [Courts accept them, if DWP turn them away they do not want them hearing something – have a prepapred letter stating that they are a Mckenzie Friend, to hand over and also send to the chain of command of the person you are speaking to – get the names at the end of talking to them – ALL Civil Servants MUST provide info on the chain of command & ANSWER questions put to them if it is of sufficient Gravity. This will put the chain of command on the same hook as to whoever you are talking to.

      With the advice of CAB on steps to take vist your local councileer and MP and point out what of the above is applicable.

      Finally another letter stating you require a phone call/text to your mobile phone about any out of the ordinary meetings or letters beng sent to you.

      That will put a stop to missing letters/not beng told of meetings in the future.

      In addition to CAB you might want to contact a group of ex-DWP civil servants who left and have set up a free help servive at :


      Be Strong, Good Luck



      June 5, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    • This Gemma post is just an old reposting from here: – fake.

      Another Fine Mess

      June 5, 2015 at 10:02 pm

  22. Fake job interviews are now made via probation service young offenders are sent to veola street cleansing for work at shakespear rd depo for sweeping only to be told that after they got there at 6am the offenders are not on the list.
    The whole of uk is mr camerons fake society not big society.

    Tony Montana

    October 17, 2015 at 11:04 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: