Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Provider Forms: “Not a mandatory requirement for claimants to fill in or sign any provider forms or documents when participating in a provider led mandatory activity or programme.” Freedom of Information response from the DWP.

with 51 comments

This is important: Hat-Tip:  jj.joop.

We signal that we are only publishing the response, and this cannot be taken as in itself guidance for any form of action by claimants whatsoever.

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
Central Freedom of Information Team

[DWP request email]

Our reference: VTR FOI 152

Date:
 28 January 2015

HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request ‘Signing Provider Documentation‘ (see Here)

Dear Mr Allen 
 
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 14 January 2016. You asked

Please provide me with any recorded data held by the DWP stating it is a  mandatory requirement for claimants to fill in or sign any provider forms or documents when participating in a provider led mandatory activity or programme.

Also please provide me with any recorded data held by the DWP detailing exactly what action the DWP or a provider can take against a claimant who has agreed to participate in a provider led mandatory activity or programme but who has also declined to fill or sign any provider forms or documents. By forms and documents, I mean: Health and safety checklist, claimant code
of practice, action plans, timesheets, induction checklist sheets, data protection waivers, and so on.

It is not a mandatory requirement for claimants to fill in or sign any provider  forms or    documents when participating in a provider led mandatory activity or programme.

Because it is not mandatory, there is no recorded data held detailing any action DWP or a provider can take against those who have declined to sign
said forms or documents.

Participants are required to do all they reasonably can to give themselves the best chance of finding work.

Should a participant decline to sign the provider’s forms, this does not mean that they do not have to participate in the programme.

The referral letter given to a participant by Jobcentre Plus details the potential consequences for failing to participate as required.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

How to make a freedom of information (FOI) request.

Charges for Freedom of Information requests are being considered b.y commission reviewing laws

Body tasked with proposing changes to FoI laws could propose people pay a fee for requests, it has emerged as call for evidence issued.

Telegraph. October 2015. 

stop-foia-restrictionsThe government has set up a Commission to examine the Freedom of Information Act and consider what further restrictions should be imposed on the right to know.

In a letter co-ordinated by the Campaign, over 140 media bodies, campaign groups and others wrote to the Prime Minister in September 2015, expressing concern about the Commission’s composition and terms of reference.

Belatedly, the Commission issued a consultation paper which suggested it is considering sweeping restrictions to the legislation, including:

  • imposing charges for requests
  • making it easier to refuse requests on cost grounds
  • making it more difficult to obtain public authorities’ internal discussions, or excluding some from access altogether
  • strengthening ministers’ powers to veto disclosures
  • changing the way the Act is enforced.

The Campaign together with ARTICLE 19 held a briefing meeting on October 21 2015 for organisations proposing to respond to the consultation. The meeting was attended by nearly 60 organisations. The slides from the meeting are available here.

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

January 30, 2016 at 11:19 am

51 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The following link details how P Baker was sanctioned for non-participation because he declined to sign the provider’s paperwork, how he appealed – and had the decision overturned!

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cwp_participation#comment-65951

    jj joop

    January 30, 2016 at 11:32 am

    • As Andrew Coates states: We signal that we are only publishing the response, and this cannot be taken as in itself guidance for any form of action by claimants whatsoever.

      In other words: tread carefully.

      jj joop

      January 30, 2016 at 11:34 am

      • Oh, I dunno. Jimmy Stirling in Glasgow declined to sign the CWP induction docs at his apppointment at Learndirect Glasgow last year. He didn’t even get a sanction doubt letter. And Adam, one of our clients, did the same at his CWP Induction appointment in August last year at Learndirect Edinburgh. The DWP fast-tracked him – as is sanction doubt letter arrived just 4 days later. He also won – no sanction for not consenting to info sharing.

        https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3214/jimmy-stirling-s-dwp-diary-a-new-year-a-new-work-coach-and-partick-thistle

        But I suppose what you all want to know is what’s happening in England with your providers such as Seetec etc?. We we’re in contact with someone who also declined to sign – and thus consent to info sharing at his CWP induction at Seetec Manchester last week. If and when we hear the outcome of that we will let you know.

        ECAP

        January 31, 2016 at 12:02 am

      • Very interesting posting, ECAP, and very helpful too.

        jj joop

        January 31, 2016 at 11:20 am

      • JJ Joop

        I myself [my sanction] was unusual – no sanction asked for by CWP, it was DWP staff – and they stepped over the line in doing the sanction in doing it for no written/recorded reason. Basically because they could.

        Anyone doing this MUST make sure that they are able to prove what they say (submit prepared letters/have a witness etc etc) I myself ALWAYS record everything (most smartphones can).

        Gazza

        January 31, 2016 at 2:16 pm

  2. A refurbished volunteer-run library has officially opened following the loss of council funding due to budget cuts.

    Deeping Library in High Street, Market Deeping, was saved from closure after Lincolnshire County Council withdrew funding.

    It is to have one paid librarian along with a team of volunteers working on rota.

    Andrew Bowell, from Friends of Deeping Library, said the “entire community got behind the campaign”.

    The library is expected to open for three days a week at first, but the group hopes to extend that to six, said Mr Bowell

    “A library is a bedrock of civilisation,” he said.

    Lincolnshire County Council voted in 2015 to hand over 30 libraries to volunteers in order to save about £2m.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-35449733

    enigma

    January 30, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    • JJ Joop

      I myself [my sanction] was unusual – no sanction asked for by CWP, it was DWP staff – and they stepped over the line in doing the sanction in doing it for no written/recorded reason. Basically because they could.

      Anyone doing this MUST make sure that they are able to prove what they say (submit prepared letters/have a witness etc etc) I myself ALWAYS record everything (most smartphones can).

      I think theres a lot of this happening, people are simply targetted because there is a dislike combined with a nasty culture of hate and contempt in jobcentres this spreads to other staff that someone has never had any dealings trying to interfere sitting next making comments or creating a hostile atmosphere.

      Its common if someone has difficulties on these courses to have it thrown back at them at pointless appointments,its an excuse to have a go weekly and try to criminalize they will do anything to stop benefits.

      Good advice just keep evidence.

      ken

      January 31, 2016 at 3:45 pm

  3. Seems that the core message is workfare conscripts have to state or make clear they will fully participate in a mandatory Jobcentre scheme and the signing and filling in of provider forms is optional. ECAP often report on twitter that not signing works when backed up by clearly being willing to participate https://twitter.com/ecap_org

    do not sign info https://refutedarchive.wordpress.com/donotsign/

    DWP Providers say: “Sign here or face Benefit Sanctions” True or False? https://refutedarchive.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/signhere/

    Sometimes DWP providers do make bogus sanction referrals, there are a number of cases on http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/cwpp.html together with evidence sanctions are not implimented and template letters to challenge any related to signing.

    Confusion seems to stem from assumption not signing means you cannot be required to do mandatory jobcentre activity, this has always been untrue. What matters is being given a proper written notice of activity that must be done, that states the sanctions for not doing.

    Some people ask providers to give them a Mandatory Activity Notice to sign or fill in docs or say they want to show a law centre or solicitor any forms before they sign as they are unsure what they mean. This avoids getting into using comments about refusing to sign stuff, as that can annoy provider staff and provoke fake sanctions referrals. Plus claimants can printout out relevant FOI responses and show them to providers and ask them to explain, when asked to sign forms. All of these tactics shift the burden onto the provider to explain, rather than using the blunt ‘it’s might right not to sign’ or ‘I refuse to sign’ blah d blah

    CWP resistance

    Community Work Placement (CWP) Escape Referral leaflet
    Community Work Placement (CWP) insurance verification letters
    Community Work Placement (CWP) Protest Notification letter
    Community Work Placement (CWP) Your Rights leaflet
    http://edinburghagainstpoverty.org.uk/node/68

    Salter

    January 30, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    • Salter

      For those not knowledgable or not forthright in facing people, your last suggestion is best ones to follow.

      Gazza

      January 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

  4. “Poor workers are being denied tax credits for months on end – forcing some to go without food, a senior Labour MP has claimed.

    Frank Field blamed mammoth waiting times at HMRC and its private contractor for leaving some of Britain’s neediest in the breach.

    Bosses say tax credits are only stopped if a claimant takes more than 30 days to reply to a letter about a change of circumstances.

    But Mr Field, the chairman of the Commons Work and Pensions Committee, claims his constituents have waited up to 15 weeks without being told why they were cut off.

    Figures he obtained say HMRC takes 64 days – on average – to complete each “intervention” from the first letter to the final result.

    It takes longer – 91 days – for interventions to be processed by HMRC’S tax credits contractor Concentrix, which deals with different types of cases.”

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/poor-workers-denied-tax-credit-7272250

    enigma

    January 30, 2016 at 2:03 pm

  5. Nothing to stop a ‘provider’ raising a sanction and a DWP ‘decision maker’ applying. ‘Providers’, ‘decision makers’, and DWP staff in general are well known for “consciously avoiding” knowledge of relevant laws, regulations, and guidance which is in itself criminal behaviour and maladministration since they are charged with knowing the relevant laws, regulations, and guidance in the same way citizens are: Ignorance of the law (by consciously avoiding knowledge of the law is not an excuse).

    They do this in the fond hope that their victim will just roll over and accept the sanction. If the jobseeker challenges the ‘decision’ and ‘decision maker’ reckons that their victim is no push-over the ‘decision maker’ can easily back down and escape the consequences of their actions by saying: “After having sought and taken further advice I now realise I made a ‘mistake'”

    DWP is Corrupt

    January 30, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    • You are correct about the decision maker’s attitude. Check out this link detailing the experience of P Baker.

      https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cwp_participation#comment-65958

      And here is the link to a copy of the decision maker’s to letter P Baker in which the decision maker backs down. Interesting stuff.

      http://postimg.org/image/o55os0grh/

      jj joop

      January 30, 2016 at 5:01 pm

      • Jobseekers are still being sanctioned for shit like not providing the jobcentre with a contact number, not giving the DWP access to their universal jobmatch account despite a mountain of Freedom of Information requests, DWP ‘tool-kits’ etc. stating that jobseekers cannot be sanctioned in respect of these.

        The DWP/’providers’ will just deny point-blank that black is white, white is black.

        Take No Shit

        January 30, 2016 at 5:24 pm

  6. ‘Fit note’ scheme provokes data fears.

    DWP plan to examine GP statistics leads doctors’ group to warn over state snooping.

    Flagship Government plans to get sick people back to work are at the centre of a “state snooping” row.

    Stethoscope_and_Laptop_ComputerThe Family Doctor Association has attacked the revelation that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will be able to examine data from individual GP practices.

    From next month, officials will be authorised to take sick note statistics from each surgery to see how many patients are recorded as “unfit” or “maybe fit” for work.

    The data – which can be shared with other organisations – will include the number of fit notes issued, the length of time to which it applies and a record of the person’s health condition.

    http://www.ukauthority.com/news/5935/fit-note-scheme-provokes-data-fears#

    enigma

    January 30, 2016 at 5:00 pm

  7. Behind a dark doorway at the heart of one of Britain’s biggest conurbations lies a secret subterranean “cave” where homeless men are sleeping with rats in conditions that would have horrified Victorian social observers.

    The hidden lair stands within walking distance of the towering glass apartment blocks and brightly lit shops of Manchester city centre.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homeless-people-in-manchester-sleeping-in-victorian-style-secret-subterranean-cave-a6842501.html

    enigma

    January 30, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    • There is a programme called “Hidden and Homeless” been trailed on BBC3 at the moment. Can’t see when it’s on; might be after the fuckwit decision to move BBC3 to an online station on 16 February.

      Ex-Homeless

      January 30, 2016 at 5:33 pm

  8. Reblogged this on sdbast.

    sdbast

    January 30, 2016 at 6:33 pm

  9. Seems that the core message is workfare conscripts have to state or make clear they will fully participate in a mandatory Jobcentre scheme and the signing and filling in of provider forms is optional. ECAP often report on twitter that not signing works when backed up by clearly being willing to participate https://twitter.com/ecap_org

    do not sign info https://refutedarchive.wordpress.com/donotsign/

    DWP Providers say: “Sign here or face Benefit Sanctions” True or False? https://refutedarchive.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/signhere/

    Sometimes DWP providers do make bogus sanction referrals, there are a number of cases on http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/cwpp.html together with evidence sanctions are not implimented and template letters to challenge any related to signing.

    Confusion seems to stem from assumption not signing means you cannot be required to do mandatory jobcentre activity, this has always been untrue. What matters is being given a proper written notice of activity that must be done, that states the sanctions for not doing.

    Some people ask providers to give them a Mandatory Activity Notice to sign or fill in docs or say they want to show a law centre or solicitor any forms before they sign as they are unsure what they mean. This avoids getting into using comments about refusing to sign stuff, as that can annoy provider staff and provoke fake sanctions referrals. Plus claimants can printout out relevant FOI responses and show them to providers and ask them to explain, when asked to sign forms. All of these tactics shift the burden onto the provider to explain, rather than using the blunt ‘it’s might right not to sign’ or ‘I refuse to sign’ blah d blah

    CWP resistance

    Community Work Placement (CWP) Escape Referral leaflet
    Community Work Placement (CWP) insurance verification letters
    Community Work Placement (CWP) Protest Notification letter
    Community Work Placement (CWP) Your Rights leaflet
    http://edinburghagainstpoverty.org.uk/node/68

    saltnpeppry

    January 30, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    • Got caught up because of the number of links (Usually means Spam and filter works on that).

      Sorry….

      Andrew Coates

      January 31, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    • “On the advice of my lawyer I am unable to sign. I am no legal expert so I think it is best to leave it at that. Sorry about that 😦 I would have like to have been more helpful. I am, however still willing to participate in [insert scheme] 🙂 “

      Olive Oyl

      January 31, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    • “On the advice of my lawyer I am unable to sign or fill in any of your forms, not even the ‘health and safety’. I am no legal expert so I think it is best to leave it at that. Sorry about that 😦 I would have like to have been more helpful. I am, however, still willing to participate in [insert scheme] 🙂 “

      Olive Oyl

      January 31, 2016 at 5:30 pm

  10. Many will simply go along for fear of losing benefits,as mentioned in a previous blog subject people have had their benefits stopped for failing to participate,only later on appeal they didnt refuse only refused to sign documents’ and hence overturned,also many might not understand whats being placed in front of them and had it failed to be explaned.As usual with these things theres an expectation present at the time and rights are never mentioned.

    Many leaving the work programme will have been faced with this no doubt,I was told, “I would be turned away if these were not provided”.

    1. Claimants are not being allowed to sign on if they do not provide job search evidence in a particular way. This means the claim will be closed after 5 working days and the individual has no immediate right of appeal or access to Hardship.
    2. Claimants are being asked to provide evidence of emails they have sent to employers as proof they have applied for jobs.
    Both of these activities are unlawful.
    Jobcentre staff cannot refuse to sign you for this reason.

    Jobseekers directions misused to back this request up, also playing with words what/how is supplied.Jobcentreplus later tried to get back letters they handed over because of national insurance numbers to dispose of confidentially through their system.

    http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/jcp-help/9-jobseeker-help.html?limitstart=0

    http://unemploymentmovement.com/index.php/forum/jcp-help/21-job-seeker-help-letters.html#92

    Sadly some of the external links no longer work.

    ken

    January 31, 2016 at 2:00 pm

  11. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal to penalise firms who do not pay the Living Wage has been described as “unworkable” by his business spokesman.

    Angela Eagle told The Sunday Times the plan to ban such firms from paying dividends was “not a runner”.

    The idea was criticised as “silly” by Labour economic adviser David Blanchflower, in the New Statesman.

    Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the criticisms would be taken on board in the party’s policy review.

    Mr Corbyn floated the idea of banning profitable firms who “depend on cheap labour for those profits” from paying dividends to shareholders in a speech earlier this month.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35454109

    enigma

    January 31, 2016 at 10:42 pm

  12. OT: Number of Job Searches Needed by DWP

    Can’t sleep – a common problem for me.

    Hat-tip to Refuted

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/286969/response/733595/attach/html/3/IR596%20Response.pdf.html

    DWP Response to question about staff setting arbitrary number of jobs for claimants to apply for [dated 17Nov15]:

    “minimum number of JOBS”

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/decision-makers-guide-vols-4-5-
    6-and-7-jobseekers-allowance-and-income-support-staff-guide

    Additionally, paragraph 69 in the Claimant Commitment Guidance says:

    69. Claimants must not be set a minimum number of jobs to apply for each
    week as such a requirement is unenforceable. If a claimant is unable to find
    enough jobs to apply for this may be through no fault of their jobsearch, whilst
    if a claimant were to find more than the minimum number, specifying a lower
    number to apply for is actually unhelpful. It is reasonable to state ‘I will apply
    for all jobs that I find that I am capable of doing’

    This is supported by Section 7 of the Jobseekers Act 1995. The legislation is
    available via the DWP Website at the following internet address –
    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a11-0101.pdf

    Gazza

    February 1, 2016 at 2:26 am

    • This idea of a set number is, as you say, ridiculous.

      Often, if not always, I apply for far more than the number I’m meant to, but I can imagine that in some places with some qualifications and experience, you can come up against a brick wall.

      Andrew Coates

      February 1, 2016 at 5:44 pm

      • Andrew

        I agree – I await the first tribunal case for a UC claimant. I suspect the Tribunal wil be taking a dim view of all this. Can you imagine some DWP twit trying to explain how its proportionate for someone with a college degree in [insert your brand of poison here] and stuck in say the middle of Wales/Yorkshire/Cornwall etc.

        It’s almost as if they are setting people up to fail before they even start… hhhhhhmmmmm….. It Couldn’t possibly be could it?

        But I am sure they’ll give it the old college try.

        Gazza

        February 1, 2016 at 6:29 pm

  13. .

    February 1, 2016 at 10:56 am

  14. i have not signed a provider contract since 2008 lol all they try and do is sanction you for non attendance, because they cant sanction you for not signing it.

    i always say im willing to take part and could i have it in writing what i am taking part in and what it will involve me doing 🙂

    never got one ever pmsl, they also cant get there fee with out it from the dwp ,thus why first thing they will try do is get you to sign it.

    🙂

    superted

    February 1, 2016 at 6:13 pm

  15. The Welfare Trait: how state benefits affect personality

    Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science public lecture

    Date: Tuesday 9 February 2016
    Time: 6.30-8pm
    Venue: Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House
    Speaker: Dr Adam Perkins
    Chair: Dr Rosalind Arden

    In this talk Dr Perkins will talk about his new book The Welfare Trait which argues that the welfare state erodes work motivation generation by generation. Dr Perkins will argue that this phenomenon is the result of welfare-induced personality mis-development.

    Adam Perkins is a Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Personality at King’s College London.

    Dr Rosalind Arden is a Research Associate at CPNSS. Her research interests (PhD Institute of Psychiatry) are in individual differences in cognitive abilities (in people and other animals) and the links between intelligence and outcomes such as health.

    LSE’s Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science (CPNSS), established in 1990, promotes research into philosophical, methodological and foundational questions arising in the natural and the social sciences, and their application to practical problems. The Centre’s work is inherently interdisciplinary, and a full calendar of events contributes to a lively intellectual environment.

    Twitter Hashtag for this event: #LSEwelfare

    This event is free and open to all with no ticket or pre-registration required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis. For any queries see LSE Events FAQ or contact us at events@lse.ac.uk or 0207 955 6043.

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/02/20160209t1830vHKT.aspx?utm_campaign=LSE+home&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1453305107

    Andrew Coates

    February 2, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    • He’s so clueless I wouldn’t know where to start.
      His logic is sort of, ‘look 360 degrees around you, and anyone can see that the Earth is completely flat.

      http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/miscellaneous/a-review-of-adam-perkinss-the-welfare-trait

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welfare_Trait

      Another Fine Recession

      February 2, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    • What was i saying about eugenics post 1900 ?

      W. Duncan Mckim a Psychology physician wrote a book in 1900 called “Heredity and human progress”.

      See the simulatarities how we are setting the seeds of acceptance in society for such practices as was the case post 1900 which lead to countries such as America and even Great Britain, so not just Germany practicing eugenics to rid us for the better of hereditary inferiors.

      http://eugenics.us/w-duncan-mckim

      Still feel my view of PC eugenics in todays world is nothing more than a conspiracy, that I’m fear mongering ?

      How Adam Perkins view isn’t and cant be seen as an extremist view beggars belief.

      gaia

      February 3, 2016 at 11:53 am

      • Oh before I vanish again take serious heed of Cameron’s suggested welfare reforms to the EU that will include British born workers as try and get in todays climate 4 years of constant work in the UK if your already or recently unemployed.

        Their looking to take the taxes, take the NI contributions but under this system which is very grey in how that 4 years is controlled and decided upon (Remember how DWP decided which years counted towards contributory based welfare) have engineered how not to have to give out welfare at all under the new system even to British citizens.

        IE, if a British born worker has worked for 30 years paying tax and NI but after the change suffers 4 years of unemployment or a scattered work pattern where on occasion they lived for a while on what they managed to save while working but less than 16’000 instead of instantly signing onto UC, will they classify as not eligible for welfare ?

        If its 4 years accumulative, what if someone only finds work for 6 months in every year and didn’t sign on every time they became unemployed (having your stamp paid), wouldn’t that mean they wont be eligible for 8 years ?

        gaia

        February 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm

      • & so many people don’t know. while living in a very small bubble.

        enigma

        February 3, 2016 at 12:39 pm

      • It is 4 years continuous though of which holidays are not included. So since you will have the statutory minimum of 4 weeks holiday a year ‘imposed’ on you it is impossible to work for 4 years continuously!

        Mission: Impossible

        February 5, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    • Hat tip to refuted:

      Oooch this will hurt having to explain basic basic mistakes [destroys his whole argument]:

      Andy Fugard
      ‏@inductivestep
      “Are these % variance explained typos, @AdamPerkinsPhD? For example, 0.003 is 0.3%, not 3%”

      Gazza

      February 3, 2016 at 12:41 pm

  16. OT: Human Rights Act

    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/02/02/gove-has-basically-admitted-the-attack-on-human-rights-is-de

    “Gove has basically admitted the Tory attack on human rights is dead”

    For once, we learned something in a committee hearing. Firstly, that the consultation paper on the repeal of the Human Rights Act will be published soon. And secondly that it will be, to all intents and purposes, dead on arrival.

    [For Now at least]

    Gazza

    February 3, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    • The Tories don’t give up, you only have to look at how they state only they know the answers, that more experienced people and establishments are always wrong and how they consistently defy court rulings and waste tax payer money on appeals not to mention in one case, drawing up a law and back dating it just so they didn’t have to pay back money they took when illegally sanctioning people.

      doug

      February 3, 2016 at 2:11 pm

  17. OT: DWP caught Lying about Figures & Benefit payments under UC NOT directly to claimant – Parliamentary Evidence

    Hat-tip to Refuted

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmpubacc/601/60108.htm

    DWP Lying:
    —————-

    12.The Department told us that Universal Credit’s digital service will be rolled out in over one hundred local authority areas during 2016–17, and across all 381 local authorities by June 2018.33 However, the Department confirmed that it had not yet shared its digital service roll-out plans with local authorities or other delivery partners.

    SNIP

    13.The Department has an extensive evaluation programme.

    SNIP

    14.The Department was selective or even inaccurate when highlighting the findings of its evaluation to us.

    Nuff said

    Payments Not Directly to Claimant:
    ———————————————-

    15.The Department explained that Universal Credit is intended to remove direct payments to landlords by encouraging people to be sufficiently capable of managing their own budget.43 However, it confirmed that alternative payment arrangements would continue for people who struggle to manage rent payments. For example, the Department explained that it had started a new ‘trusted partners’ process with social landlords. This is intended to identify people who would struggle with taking responsibility for their own rent when they move onto Universal Credit and so should have their rent paid directly to landlords by the Department

    Gazza

    February 3, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    • If you rush people they don’t look hard before its to late, its a deliberate tactic often practiced in business.

      As for 15, why of all times have we suddenly decided people should manage themselves yet with the same breath insist the very same people are simply incapable of finding work by themselves so must be conditioned and dictated to by government approved others ?

      doug

      February 3, 2016 at 2:17 pm

  18. The introduction of Universal Credit (UC) will leave working families worse off on average, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said.

    UC, which combines six benefits into one monthly payment, was intended to be more generous than the current system but the IFS said cuts to the programme meant this would not be the case.

    According to the IFS research, an estimated 2.1 million families will face an average loss of £1,600 a year, while 1.8 million will gain an average of £1,500.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35475350

    enigma

    February 3, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    • People really need to stop getting hung up on money when considering welfare reform as none of the figures given take into account conditionality and sanctions not to mention none have factored in food bank use that would escalate the losses and lower to gains.

      I’m sorry but these figures are incomplete and IFS should be ashamed of itself as no doubt many a member of public will now seek to use them as some sort of positive evidence.

      doug

      February 3, 2016 at 2:24 pm

  19. From another forum:

    “Hi all

    After attending my CWP @ Seetec (Manchester) on the 22/01/2016 and was subjected to intimidation, bullying & threats by 3 members of staff because I refused to sign documents, I was threatened by them that they would deliberately/falsely tell the Jobcentre/DWP/Decision makers that I failed to attend the induction.

    Unbeleivably Seetec/the staff members fraudulently followed through with their threat as now 2 weeks later I have to explain to the decision maker(s) why I “failed to attend” despite

    1) I would be clearly seen on Seetec’s CCTV camera system recordings on the day
    2) I signed in physically, with my written signature upon entry
    3) I was signed in by a staff member on her computer which apparently notifies their head office in London that I was present
    4) I have 3 witnesses to the way I was treated over the space of the 1 hour & 45 minutes I was present/made to wait
    5) I was paid my travel expenses upon signing for them
    6) I signed the exit register upon leaving

    What steps should I take to absolutely take Seetec all the way for this

    Thanks”

    ….

    Seetec are fucking SCUM!!

    February 5, 2016 at 9:55 am

  20. Seetec do at least give “Clients” a letter saying what they are expected to do while on CWP even if the person does not sign they may well get one of those in mail anyway if they are not given a copy at the time they attend.

  21. […] have successfully pressured the charity Mustard Tree into pulling out of Mandatory Work Activity, Ipswich Unemployed report on a new FoI request confirming that you don’t have to sign any prov…, and Johnny Void exposes how Islington Council is bringing DWP staff into doctors’ surgeries, […]

  22. This is from ‘another’ forum:

    “So after sending them a letter using x’s post as a guide I finally heard back today. They are sanctioning me from the xxth of February to the xxth of March as my reason wasn’t sufficient for not complying with the requirements of the scheme to which I had been referred. I do not see how it wasn’t sufficient when I referenced the DWP guidelines that states it’s not a failure to participate to not sign forms.

    I have 1 month to appeal.”

    This is the problem inherent in dealing with these criminal, corrupt DWP/’provider’ bastards. They LIE! They IGNORE the Law, they IGNORE their own ‘guidelines’; they IGNORE Freedom of Information requests. They sanction ILLEGALLY!

    There really has to be some Day of Reckoning for these conundrums – A Nuremberg Trial!

    DWP are CORRUPT!!

    February 22, 2016 at 2:38 pm

  23. NO-ONE has mentioned or come across anything like this before – farcical excuse about ‘Do Not Sign’!

    I am submitting a JR as I was sanctioned for 34 weeks simultaneously for refusing to sign in on WP attendance due to ‘health & safety’ reasons despite attending for 19/24 months when suddenly the WP mandated me to sign in ever appointment. Failed lower tri-upper tribunal as judges said it WAS the LANDLORD of the building who made the rules about signing in NOT WP/Ingeus to comply with his building regulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so I was in wrong basically! OH! no, not falling for their SHITE!!!!!

    Comments ASAP please as JR submitted and I will fight this to the end I have been denied my legal rights despite being NEVER informed from the onset about the Landlord’s obligations and NEVER had a health & safety induction. Makes a laughing stock of Peter Baker’s upheld case!

    If you’re reading this Peter Baker please comment.

    Appreciate advise/comments anyone ASAP. Many thanks.

    YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP!

    February 25, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    • If it was the Landlord do you not think that the Landlord would have a sign-in book at the front door? The ‘sign-in’ book is at the ‘work programme’ front desk. Do you see the staff signing the book? And if you think about it how many buildings do you sign-in to and under what circumstances? The jobcentre? The tribunal? The shopping mall? You should have asked the tribunal judge why they don’t have a ‘fire register’. The ‘work programme’ seems to be the only place where the demand a sign-in signature (and it is not like anyone signs out). Generally the only circumstance you may be required to sign-in to a building is when it is not open to the public, where you have to sign-in as a guest, are issued with a security pass, and have to pass a security checkpoint.

      Anyway, we all know it’s a crock. As well as collecting a ‘signature’ The REAL purpose is probably to ‘loosen up’ the ‘customers’; get them into the habit of signing any old crap that is put in front of them.

      In hindsight, it may have been easier to make a ‘mark’ on the ‘fire register’, although the ‘work programme’ may have then moved on to what else you didn’t sign, but they couldn’t use the ‘health and safety’ pretext.

      It is hard not to hate these bastards!

      Good luck!

      CWP Slave

      February 25, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    • What evidence did the Tribunal have that signing-in was at the orders of the Landlord. Was anything put in writing or was it the usual some nameless person at Ingeus has spoken to a nameless person at the Landlord’s offices?

      CWP Slave

      February 25, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    • And if it was at the orders of the Landlord why didn’t Ingeus show you something to this effect? Or was it just the usual vague verbal statement? Why not put it in writing with supporting documentation. And if It was the case it would be written in Ingeus ‘rental agreement’. Do Ingeus ‘advisor’s have access to the ‘rental agreement’. Or is the tribunal judge just making unfounded assumptions?

      CWP Slave

      February 25, 2016 at 10:12 pm

      • CWP Slave

        I have just seen your replies. I can’t thank you enough for your brilliant responses. I TOTALLY agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve been saying the same things for long enough myself – on the same wave-length big time! I got NOTHING in writing at any time from WP and their appointment letters made no reference to any specific health & safety acts or statutes.

        I think the judge is in on it anyway as if you knew the whole story you’d suss it out straight away.

        I submitted the JR last week so the outcome is going to be very interesting! I am also being sent on another shite post WP long course soon and I will refuse to sign all paperwork again so this is going to start up all over again.

        Like I said: you couldn’t make it up as in the meantime, ironically of all things my first appeal in my next batch of a further 4 appeals – 2 of which are 26 wks for refusing to sign ‘health & safety’ sheets on arrival at the WP:

        My appeal was UPHELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! – this was for a month for refusing to sign ‘health & safety’ sheets
        on arrival at the WP. There was NO appeal pack or anything and it was upheld immediately!!!!!!!!

        I hope you don’t mind but I would like to include all your brilliant comments in my JR papers to support my case which I will submit shortly?

        For this reason, please keep any further ideas/comments that arise on this issue coming as I intend to fight to the bitter end over this especially on the next mandated course.

        Much appreciation and many, many thanks.

        YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP!

        February 29, 2016 at 2:59 pm

  24. Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.

    A6er

    May 1, 2016 at 7:43 pm


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: