Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Universal Credit Failures: the main issue, “the government’s attitude to managing IT projects.”

with 451 comments

Image result for universal credit

IT Failure After Failure. 

It has long been the view of this Blog that, aside from the mean-spirited government approach to claimants, its unleashing of lawless ‘sanctions’, miserable benefit cuts, the pandering to a growing group of “outsourced” parasitical companies running ‘programmes’ for the out-of-work and testing the disabled, who make a pretty penny out of people’s suffering, there is something wrong with Universal Credit’s computer boffin side.

The Civil Service News (which is a serious and respected  journal, despite its Alternative Fact sounding name) agrees.

Or rather it reports his Lordship Freud saying “it’s not my fault gov,  it’s them there Government’s way of dealing with them IT projects.”

The minister tasked with overseeing the creation of the Universal Credit programme has admitted Whitehall’s outsourcing of IT was a “fundamental mistake” and that government needs to work to attract more digital talent.

Giving evidence to MPs on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, Conservative peer Lord Freud – who resigned from his position as minister for welfare reform in December last year – said that government “has to bring IT back in”.

The introduction of Universal Credit, the brainchild of Iain Duncan Smith, has been beset with problems and has repeatedly seen target implementation dates pushed back.

The programme’s aim was to combine six in-work and out-of-work benefits into a single, simpler system, but poor planning, repeated changes of senior civil servant leadership and a lack of understanding of the underlying IT requirements led to it running years behind its initial schedule.

Freud has previously said that both his team and the Government Digital Service team that was later helicoptered in to assist were “naïve” about the complexities of building the service.

In his evidence to MPs, however, Freud indicated that the main issue was the government’s attitude to managing IT projects.

“What I didn’t know, and I don’t think anyone knew, was how bad a mistake it had been for all of government to have sent out its IT,” Freud said.

“It happened in the 1990s and early 2000s. You went to these big firms to build your IT. And I think that was a most fundamental mistake, right across government and probably across governments in the western world.”

He said it had resulted in the Department for Work and Pensions having not an IT department, but an “IT commissioning department” that didn’t know how to do the work required for the project.

“The civil service thought it had the capacity because it could commission the big firms to do it. They didn’t see it as a problem – government as a whole didn’t see it as a problem,” Freud said. “It’s only when you get into it that you realise what a big problem it was.”

Freud added that the DWP had worked to bring that knowledge back in-house, and urged other departments to do the same.

However, he said it was hard to do this because the “image of government with the IT industry is not great”, particularly with uncompetitive pay scales. This, he said, was something that IT has in common with the specialisms of running contracts and project management.

“We need, in government, to be able to pay for those specialisms if we are to pay for those projects.”

After the 2013 reset of the Universal Credit programme, the department took a “twin-track” approach.

This involved rolling out the “live service” – a programme that allowed people to register online but with all further transactions being done over the phone or by post – while continuing to develop the ‘digital’ service that would allow all interaction online.

In his evidence, Freud said that he would have built something smaller, earlier so the team had something to test and learn from.

“It’s impossible to envisage how it will work, something as big as that,” he said, adding that it was very difficult to manage something that was “just conceptual”.

Instead, Freud said, organisations need something to coalesce around and start progressing – even if it isn’t perfect at the start.

Another issue Freud identified in his evidence was a lack of continuity on the civil service side, with six senior responsible officers and six project managers in his first five years on Universal Credit.

About the author

Rebecca Hill is the online editor of PublicTechnology, where a version of this story first appear.

While Freud says “it wasn’t me!” this is happening:

Universal Credit “serious risk” to West Dunbartonshire tenants

A council officer made the claim last week as councillors agreed to purchase software, which will predict which tenants will struggle to settle their bills

Fears have been raised over the “serious risk” Universal Credit poses to tenants’ ability to pay their rent.

West Dunbartonshire Council’s Strategic Lead for Housing and Communities, Peter Barry made the frightening claim last week as councillors agreed to go ahead with the purchase of software which, it is hoped, will predict which tenants will struggle to settle their bills.

Members of the authority’s housing and communities committee gave the green light to officers to spend £50,000 on RentSense which analyses two years worth of data identifying tenants who may be liable to default on payments.

Council officers stressed that this will allow support to be given to tenants in financial need at an early stage.

Mr Barry said: “The biggest risk for us is Universal Credit. The risk to council tax and rent collection rates are a serious risk.

“To be able to address that before it becomes a problem is critical for us.

“The software is directed at contacting people who are in rent arrears.

“We still need to make better analysis rather than waiting on rent issues becoming a problem. We have got to get into these households when they are in week one or week two to get a payment plan in place. The software allows us to do it.”

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

February 10, 2017 at 4:19 pm

451 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on michaelsnaith.

    snaithmagmailcom

    February 10, 2017 at 4:22 pm

  2. The problem with Universal Credit has nothing to do with IT intrinsically, nor whether private contractors or government employees are the ones developing and trying vaingloriously to implement it, but the fact that Universal Credit itself is something that cannot be digitised because the ever changing complexity of people’s lives, which it seeks to police, manage and interfere with, cannot themselves be digitised.

    In the beginning “agile computing” was the thing that dicks like IDS and Freud lauded as the magic which would lead to quick and efficient development of IT associated with UC.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/universal_credit_a_timeline_of_ids_legacy/

    Obviously neither of these plonkers had a clue as per what “agile computing” actually was, i.e., an evolutionary, co-operative and iterative software development methodology, which can deliver certain kinds of projects faster than the waterfall model, but cannot make things that are impossible under waterfall (and other forms of project management) suddenly miraculously realisable and/or possible when they weren’t before.

    The UC project has in fact been in house for a long time now and things haven’t improved one whit.

    No IT system will ever make UC fit for purpose because UC itself is inherently mistaken and impossible.

    How anybody designing UC could ever have thought that denying essential support to applicants with no back pay, assets, or savings to support themselves, for six week to several months, could have anything but the most terrible effect on the lives of such people as far as rent arrears and debt are concerned makes the mind boggle. Inherent lunacy such as this, rolled into the kernel and heart of the design of UC itself, will not and cannot be made better by making software better. The cruelty and nastiness lying at the core of UC is not really connected with IT, and cannot be improved by means of IT, but has everything to do with the vile, stupid and completely pernicious design of UC itself which Freud himself is largely responsible for.

    Freud is, honestly, obviously absolutely fucking clueless.

    This man should never have been given such influence over the project.

    Siegrune

    February 10, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    • I reckon your right. You can’t polish a turd as they say.

      Marty

      February 10, 2017 at 6:01 pm

  3. OT: ‘Plumber was getting £80k a year’

    dougs link to original story:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38931211

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38929117
    new video interview about £80K

    Excuse used by owner of firm fighting against workers rights.
    Problems:

    a] say have choice as company employed/or self employed : Reality no job offer unless accept being self-employed as then can shaft you with external company that charges you to process your wage payments. But the upside is you can claim back expense. Reality – said company take a cut out of that claim back as well.
    So double-shafted

    b] what has getting £80K a year got to do with reducing hours, as this guy wanted due to a heart attack? [overwork perhaps?]

    I look forward to this tool stepping into court and instructing his reps to tell judges that the reason why cannot reduce his working hours is because he was pulling in £80K wages [me I’d like to see the wage slips myself before i believed anything the owner says]

    Gazza

    February 10, 2017 at 7:37 pm

    • Gazza

      Sorry for not getting back to you yesterday.

      Its not straightforward to discuss as each case or offer of work if you like can be different. When discussing this matter the person has to take into account not just employment law but also tax law as well.

      The best advice i can give anyone is to go research these topics to gain an understanding as to what each one means in both employment and tax law. Your be pleased to know its not overly complicated and there are some good websites.
      Then while at an interview (usually not obvious in job ads), listen carefully and ask the questions necessary to ascertain what it is your actually being offered. Now employers even agencies can be crafty so rather than under any offer of work verbally, ask the potential employer or agency to put in writing the conditions under which their offering you employment (what they offer you and what they require from you). I say this as they do like to offer work prior to asking for a contract to be filled out and agreed upon which must outline these things.
      BE CAREFUL : Registration with an agency can form a contract or sort of. Also and unless you security guard your CVs, have online taken your data to fill out registration on their systems through whats termed as IMPLIED CONSENT (ie sending CV, you have indicated consent). Now this online one is tricky and often the agencies haven’t managed to cover their bases as so to speak so are easy to legally dismiss if you know what your on with. This is still small scale but none the less happening.

      Heres some to kick this off

      http://steenandco.co.uk/difference-in-rights-between-employees-workers-and-the-genuinely-self-employed-_49/

      https://www.gov.uk/employment-status

      doug

      February 11, 2017 at 11:22 am

      • Covering obligations under benefits conditions

        Now anyone claiming benefits in order to receive such must be willing to accept any offer of work.

        An offer of work is not the same thing as accepting any contract.

        Any offer of work is always subject to contract (ie conditions) be it verbal or written and is known as mutual remuneration which means is reasonable,fair and proportional to need to both parties. If either party disputes a point/s as not mutually beneficial and that dispute cannot be sorted for one reason or another, you have no contract and so no offer of work.

        This applies not only to employers but also agencies where registration involves setting employment conditions be it for yourself or the agency.

        doug

        February 11, 2017 at 12:03 pm

      • Well, according to the jobcentre someone(s) telling you to jump off a cliff would constitute an offer of “work”. Those someone(s) would be your “employer” and your “work” would be jumping of a cliff. So can a jobseeker be made to take any “work”/”job”, and what exactly is “work”/” a job” under pain of destitution? And what exactly is “work”/”a job”? A task?, One for the employment law expert(s)… ‘doug’ 🙂

        Shitzhe

        February 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      • Or put another way, can a jobseeker can be made to perform ANY task whatsoever under pain of destitution that someone(s) calling themselves and “employer” deem to be “work”/”a job”?

        Shitzhe

        February 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm

      • Shitzhe

        Heres an idea, why don’t you actually go read the UC regulations that now even existing benefit titles fall under as regards conditonality as its even clear enough for you to grasp.

        If you chose to believe every bit of drivel that comes out of a work coaches mouth then you only have yourself to blame for it. One of the governments premise for the great welfare reform is that claimants take responsibility so its yours and not the work coaches responsibility to understand welfare law just like it is your responsibility to understand criminal law that you were never taught either.

        But as your clearly one of those that would or is in the throws of considering to jump off a cliff evidently which must be the case as why come here mentioning it, it plainly states under law, paid work.
        Now any voluntary work no matter circumstance is sidebar to the condition of securing paid work so one regardless of doing voluntary work must still seek paid employment. Worthy of note here is even voluntary work when offered is also subject to conditions so again can be treated in much the same context as my posts regarding paid work.

        doug

        February 11, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      • If you read your “Claimant Commitment*”, doug it states:

        “I will be available for all types of work, and
        i will seek and apply for all types of work that give me the best chance of securing employment.”

        What if it’s not the line of work you are interested in though?

        Commitment

        *I understand that this is general information and not a full statement of the law.

        Clay Mant Commitment

        February 11, 2017 at 2:52 pm

      • Clay Mant Commitment

        your question “What if it’s not the line of work you are interested in though”.

        Go look up the universal credit regulations.

        http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-workrelated-requirements

        Locate the title – Work search requirement and work availability requirement – limitations.

        Then read 97. directly underneath it, then read paragraph 4 and 5.

        This will answer you question clearly.

        doug

        February 11, 2017 at 3:44 pm

      • It is just the same thirteen week restriction to your “usual work” as under JSA but at the discretion of the Secretary of State i.e. cock roach under Universal Credit, then this:

        “Where a claimant has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out work of a particular nature, or in particular locations, a work search or work availability requirement must not relate to work of such a nature or in such locations.”

        How can you prove you physically can’t do something? Climbing, swimming underwater,… and does mental impairment include phobias, what about a fear of heights, say you get sent to a job painting the antenna at the top of masts?, what a vegetarian being sent to an abattoir?, what if you have a fear of snakes and are sent to work in the snake-house at the zoo?

        Indiana Jones

        February 11, 2017 at 7:12 pm

      • Conveniently missing of the of the quote:

        “… or it is not the line of work the claimant is interested in” Eh, Indy 😉

        Henry Jones Senior

        February 11, 2017 at 7:23 pm

      • Indiana Jones a vegan!

        For a man that wears a leather jacket, footwear, carries a satchel and uses a whip, i would imagine he would be sanctioned but hey that’s just my opinion.

        Agreeable to have slaughtered animal on you but not in you would be a hard one to defend.

        I prescribe going full on Transsexual, calling yourself Lara Croft and hope the judge is too busy staring at your breasts to notice your footwear.

        doug

        February 12, 2017 at 9:45 am

      • Have you taken your vitamin B12 today, doug?.

        The Vegans

        February 12, 2017 at 12:02 pm

  4. I just read the quote from Civil Service News and started laughing. More Alternate News Facts on offer.

    Real Reality Fact Checks:

    a] cannot attract talent with low wages. Good luck with that one.
    b] if do not allow staff to train up in work time [but work to make up hours missed], how going grow internal talent?
    c] refuse to fund outside training as not directly relevant to current job/work.

    Now i will not even address here the problems of senior civil servants not having a clue about if a project is possible or even needed, let alone the skills to guide a project to a successful conclusion – i have no desire to keep writing to the heat death of the universe…

    Gazza

    February 10, 2017 at 7:44 pm

  5. and from Lord Fraud the most telling statement yet:

    “In his evidence, Freud said that he would have built something smaller, earlier so the team had something to test and learn from.”

    ME: So it was never stress tested or anything at all? I am surprised, nay astonished – I and everyone else would never have guessed seeing as how crap it is and always will be….

    But it is a success….

    Gazza

    February 10, 2017 at 7:48 pm

    • Nothing was properly piloted properly just rolled out piecemeal. Delays were not caused because the DWP was responsible and being careful not to harm people but because the project was impossible and out of control – IDS used to try to turn the disaster from a negative into a positive by claiming that the project was being rolled out very slowly because “We want to do it right rather than quickly” which was bullshit. (This kind of lie became the norm for IDS and Freud, e.g., when challenged about people having trouble with the “digital by default” shite IDS would spin that making people claim and manage their benefits online forced them to learn simple IT which made them more employable and more likely to get jobs. Obvious twaddle of the highest order but there you go!) Originally some eight million benefit claimants were supposed to be on Universal Credit by May of this year when in fact only about 420,000 are on the benefit, most of them single with no children or other dependants, i.e., the simplest possible claims made by people with the simplest possible circumstances.

      I can’t think of any government balls up quite as bad or as nasty as Universal Credit.

      And yet on we go with it because, eventually, when people get paid less and treated much more harshly the government saves money and looks as if it is being tough on Universal Credit claimants which, these days, is a positive politically in itself no matter how much harm and distress results.

      Marty

      February 11, 2017 at 9:09 am

  6. DWP kills men, women & children. Slavery results in death. UC results in slavery. Brexit kills – Jo Cox. Blood on the Tories hands aka Tory Deaths failing care of duty.

    Trump & May will not be here in June !!! Terrorists !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:40 pm

  7. Trump runs Maximus – Concentrix & The UKs Civil Service contracts to USA Corporations. NHS Death & DWP Death !!! DWP Assisted Suicide is the Tory Policy.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:42 pm

  8. Donald Duck Trump & Theresa May arrested for a criminal offence. Forget poll a tricks !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:44 pm

  9. Who is suicidal Trump & May !!! Losers. Trump will have to buy twitter because Trump needs to get banned of Twitter for racial incitement.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:46 pm

  10. Theresa May has now been blackmailed by Trump because the Russians are blackmailing Trump.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:47 pm

  11. Theresa May is a terrorist on Disabled People, Hard Working families, kids, the poor, the unemployed, single parents.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:49 pm

  12. IRA – Independent Rasta Army.

    MI5 fuck off !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:50 pm

  13. Talking about Theresa May & The PPK !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:51 pm

  14. The CIA are thinking how to kill Trump !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:51 pm

    • Fuck off UK none of your business !!!

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      February 10, 2017 at 8:52 pm

  15. Allah is a banned word in the UK. Terrorists. The Disabled are already under the anti terrorists bill so what the fuck can the UK Government do. Genocide !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:53 pm

  16. Suck my DWP Assisted Suicide !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 10, 2017 at 8:54 pm

  17. It’s an old truism among journalists that if a headline ends in a question mark (“Is this the answer to the Bermuda Triangle?” “Did aliens build the Pyramids?”, “Is the Moon made of green cheese?”, “Will Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election?”, “Will Donald Trump be elected President of the USA?”, “Will the UK vote for Brexit?”, “Is Nicola Sturgeon really a woman?”, “Will Universal Credit be a success?”… etc etc) there’s no need to read further. The answer is always “No”.

    The Hacks

    February 11, 2017 at 10:10 am

  18. ?????????????????

    @@@@@

    February 11, 2017 at 10:21 am

  19. If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention

    A BBC host just tried to bully award-winning film director Ken Loach into accepting austerity. In a discussion focused on his fierce opposition to the Conservative government’s benefit sanctions, the host suggested he might just be one of those ‘angry men’.

    http://www.thecanary.co/2017/02/10/bbc-host-just-tried-bully-ken-loach-accepting-austerity-lived-regret-video/

    news seeker

    February 11, 2017 at 4:19 pm

    • https://www.the guardian.com/film/2017/Feb/10/i-daniel-blake-doesnt-represent-reality-says-jobcentre-manager

      Well he would say that wouldn’t he…..

      foxglove

      February 11, 2017 at 7:43 pm

  20. ‘Well-BEHAVED’ pupils get to leave school early.

    A school is letting pupils who behave well during the day go home before those who do not, it has emerged.

    Castle View School on Canvey Island, Essex, said some pupils could finish at 14:50 if they had made “the right decisions, every lesson of the day”.

    Others finish 10 minutes later in what the school calls a “second dismissal”.

    An NUT official said he had not heard of a school doing this before, but that it was “not that innovative” if it was just another way of giving detentions.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38898841

    news seeker

    February 11, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    • Oh wow, ten mins earlier, they do push out the boat don’t they.

      If i was their parents i would teach the child to hold out for a better offer. That way when they retract the offer all together then the child can see a real authoritarian dictatorship in action.

      Get a load of the parents view everybody

      Click on the questions and you get percentages of whether or not the parents agree with the ofsted and schools claims.

      https://parentview.ofsted.gov.uk/parent-view-results/survey/result/129333/current

      It does not tally with the ofsted report.

      doug

      February 11, 2017 at 6:39 pm

  21. it seeks to police, manage and interfere

    Isn’t that whats happening in the Jobcentre.There is abuse of electronic stock signatures to sign claimant commitments also email addresses and mobile numbers are being seized as they seek to bypass universal jobmatch non access.Anyone reading the terms will be struck by the end user having to manage and police the content of that “Jobmatch” site and to report.It clearly gives the impression that anything can be put on there there doesn’t appear to be any trip wires to stop that occurring. Its gotten so bad the the spam.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/are_there_any_circumstances_when

    ken

    February 11, 2017 at 5:52 pm

  22. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/
    feb/10/i-daniel-blake-doesnt-represent-reality-says-jobcentre-manager

    Well he would say that wouldn’t he…

    foxglove

    February 11, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    • Don`t you mean G4s & Capita says because they run the jobcentre & is your boss bully for you !!! SACKED !!!

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      February 11, 2017 at 8:00 pm

  23. Theresa May in hiding after meeting Donald Trump. Theresa May backs Donald trumps American Civil War 2017. The UK is a rogue State just like the USA !!! The USA can`t save the UK in war & Trade deals. May BOW to Trump & get in line as a weak PM with a weak country. The USA & UK promoting slavery once again !!! Genocide delays the American Civil War 2017. So the UK is on Trumps side !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 11, 2017 at 7:58 pm

  24. The fear imposed on the UK by being trumps racist puppet aka Tory Government sees they fear as UKIP !!!
    The fear imposed by the USA on the UK is called held for ransom controlled by Trump because trump is being blackmailed by the Russians. Weak weak May jumping the fear gun to be implemented in trumps impeachment & Mrs May`s Not Fit To Govern aka sacked. 40,000 people killed by the Tories since 2010. The UK Death Squad wants more & more deaths to make Syria look like a little war with a lot less victims in 6 years. In context the UK kills more UK people than ISIS kills world wide in 10 years. IDS – Cameron – Lord fraud genocide plan of the disabled.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 11, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    • FACT

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      February 11, 2017 at 8:07 pm

  25. Since there are a lot of UK people in the USA illegally, Why doesn’t Trump throw out UK people from the USA !!! UK war – USA war – USA Vs UK WAR. Get the MI5 agent & support him you Tory Scum. Let`s re write American History – USA at war with the UK #theamericancivilwar2017 #twittersclosingdown2017

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 11, 2017 at 8:10 pm

  26. May you follow Trump being a criminal. That is why Theresa May is in hiding trying to distance herself from Trump. Too Late May you criminal.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 11, 2017 at 8:12 pm

  27. A lot bigger business than the DWP now !!! IRA – Independent Rasta Army.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 11, 2017 at 8:14 pm

  28. doug

    February 12, 2017 at 10:22 am

    • As long as the employees turn up for work and get treated like slaves their personal information is not important, who cares who gets hold of it, that’s always the way isn’t it.

      news seeker

      February 12, 2017 at 11:21 am

  29. Cyber security lessons offered to schools in England

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38938519

    Not content with calling any disruptive kids terrorists, now government wants to brainwash kids Orwellian style to weed out any Snowdens or should i say that disease known as a conscience.

    Not really being profiled are they ?

    doug

    February 12, 2017 at 10:34 am

  30. Google coding champion whose Cameroon hometown is cut off from the internet

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38922819

    Would have been worse if he was British, unemployed and claiming, then he could have added starvation and possible homelessness to that as well. See the irony, the hypocrisy here ?

    doug

    February 12, 2017 at 10:55 am

  31. Universal Credit Advice For Landlords

    The first of these cases relates to the often too familiar issues of direct payments to landlords. What should be a straightforward process can become tortuously complex when LHA staff fail to adhere to regulations, DWP guidance and Upper-tier Tribunal judgements, binding on council’s and tribunals alike. Landlords have rights and Sherrelle guarantees to help you to make sure they’re exercised.

    https://www.property118.com/universal-credit-advice-landlords/94294/

    ken

    February 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm

    • Yeah, ken, but back in the day the landlord would chase up the council for the unpaid rent. Under this universal credit malarkey the dwp can just piss the claimant around and not pay the rent, and the claimant ends up out on the street. No small coincidence that since universal credit kicked in you can’t get a shop doorway for love nor money.

      Living in a Cardboard Box

      February 12, 2017 at 8:02 pm

  32. Theresa May is going to follow the USA into a Iran – North Korea – Russia – China war !!! Support the USA Theresa May & go to war in these countries with the USA !!!! Theresa May sacked before that happens. Still paying the USA back for WWII. Theresa May still in hiding after meeting Donald Duck Trump.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 1:02 am

    • Forget the NHS – DWP – Brexit !!!! The UK is now a bankrupt 3 world country with 10th class citizens !!!

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      February 13, 2017 at 1:04 am

  33. Everything is not politics !!! Is being stupid political !!! Or is being stupid called political !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 1:06 am

  34. Is DWP Assisted Suicide political !!! Political Prisoner or political death !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 1:07 am

    • How about taking out the DWP bit !!!

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      February 13, 2017 at 1:08 am

  35. Political farting !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 1:09 am

  36. Theresa May & The PPK run by Donald Trump run by the Russians pissing on the west.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 1:10 am

  37. Ken Loach has launched an uncompromising attack on the UK government at the 70th British Academy Film Awards.

    Loach thanked his cast and crew, the people of Newcastle and the academy for “endorsing the truth of that this film says, which is that hundreds of thousands of people – the vulnerable and the poorest people – are treated by the this government with a callousness and brutality that is disgraceful.”

    Speaking at the press conference afterwards, Loach went further, saying that the government “have to be removed”. He hoped that voters would see his film, but there was little point politicians doing so as “the people actually implementing these decisions know what they’re doing. It’s conscious.”

    Their welfare policies, he said, harked back to the Victorian workhouse ethos of telling people that poverty was their fault. “They know they’re doing. We have to change them; they have to be removed.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/12/ken-loach-governments-treatment-of-refugee-children-callous-brutal-and-disgraceful

    news seeker

    February 13, 2017 at 4:58 am

    • Andrew Coates

      February 13, 2017 at 11:14 am

      • Andrew Coates

        February 13, 2017 at 12:37 pm

      • Teresaw

        44 minutes ago

        Yes, there are no such people as bed blockers, they have criminalised people who can’t leave hospital because there are no care packages because of cuts to social care. Yes, they have criminalised people for living longer, they may still legislate to kill people over sixty because they don’t want to pay pensions. We could be tripping over corpses in the gutter, in the future.

        news seeker

        February 13, 2017 at 1:24 pm

      • The State can KILL any of its citizens it wants. The State can KILL its citizens over sixty if it so choose, Poly Toynbee wring her hands in the Guardian until they dropped of but it wouldn’t stop the State in its tracks. And, as usual nobody would give a flying sausage it it didn’t affect them. It would be a case of crossing that bridge when they came to it.

        When the State KILLS

        February 13, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    • Discoid Lupus Erythematosus

      February 13, 2017 at 9:37 am

      • wtf has this got to do with uc cock ups? more to the point, mr coates – i’m still waiting for you to send me an audit on how much you paid for jimmy choo shoes for your mail order bride. a 6 pack of hyniken for the any1 who can get right anser.

        WAYNE SCARFACE

        February 13, 2017 at 10:43 am

      • Tory Troll working with the PPK.

        Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

        February 13, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      • Wayne IDS Scarface – Sock up to Trump.

        Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

        February 13, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      • Stick a pencil up your arse & press a button – WCA outcome.

        Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

        February 13, 2017 at 3:22 pm

  38. The Resolution Foundation says..

    Typical pensioner incomes after housing costs now outstrip those of working-age people, a new report suggests.

    pensioners are more likely than their predecessors to be working, own a home and have generous private pensions.

    The think tank says growth in pensioner incomes has been coupled with weak income growth for working-age people.

    Pensioner households are now £20 a week better off than working age households, but were £70 a week worse off in 2001.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38948369

    news seeker

    February 13, 2017 at 11:48 am

  39. Chaos in prisons, chaos in the NHS, chaos in many more things inc chaos in many peoples lives,
    with the current system we find ourselves in..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38931580

    news seeker

    February 13, 2017 at 11:53 am

  40. Radio 4’s Your and Yours are reporting that 800 Motability cars are being stolen from disabled people EVERY SINGLE WEEK because they no longer quality for Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

    You and Yours

    February 13, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    • Also saying that previously disability cars were awarded when just ONE member of a HOUSEHOLD* was classed as disabled and according to the DWP in the current financial climate that is no longer affordable, and those who are losing their cars will receive a on-off payment of £2,000 to help.

      *All you needed was one of your children to have ‘asthma’ to qualify, maybe that was a benefit too far.

      You and Yours

      February 13, 2017 at 12:27 pm

  41. DWP admits it hasn’t assessed impact of closing 78 local jobcentres despite announcing policy last month

    Ministers also admitted they do not know how many disabled people are affected

    Unions said the plan would make life harder for claimants and that the policy would undermine the support that jobcentres provided. The Government has admitted that compulsory redundancies could be unavoidable in the closures, though it says it will try to relocate some staff to other offices.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jobcentre-closing-dwp-impact-assessment-louise-haigh-a7575061.html

    news seeker

    February 13, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    • news seeker

      doesn’t this all fall fowl of the Equality act?

      Oh dearie me – how long I wonder before Black Triangle etc approach the Equality commission – As they say only fools rush in…

      Gazza

      February 13, 2017 at 4:25 pm

      • doesn’t this all fall fowl of the Equality act?

        Thats printed on their toilet roll!

        They just ignore it.

        ken

        February 13, 2017 at 4:34 pm

  42. More than nine in 10 UK universities are restrictive of free speech, according to a new report that raises concerns over the issue of censorship on campuses.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nine-10-uk-universities-free-speech-restrict-rankings-joseph-rowntree-cardiff-ediburgh-newcastle-a7577381.html

    news seeker

    February 13, 2017 at 12:35 pm

  43. Universal Credit tenants in arrears increases to 86%

    InsideHousing – 16th Jan 2017

    The percentage of council tenants on Universal Credit in rent arrears has increased to a “critically high” 86% over the past year, sparking “extreme concern” among councils.

    http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/universal-credit-tenants-in-arrears-increases-to-86/7018394.article

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    • Hard Working families evicted !!! Tory Voters evicted !!!

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      February 13, 2017 at 2:34 pm

  44. OT: WorkProg Fares – The Cranky story

    JJ joop, i hope you’re okay – you’ll like this.

    Read no further if intend to EAT.

    Today, i am cranky. No sleep thanks to gangbanger upstairs playing music from 12 till 3 in morning and arthritis acting up, plus the occasional feeling of bile rising in throat all night. Joy.

    Got called to WP to this morning and as you can imagine after a two hour journey and as how cranky i felt it was interesting.

    Background: Person, lets call him Mr R., called me before and asked when I would be well enough to attend WP – this was during and he was well aware of me being signed off sick, he let that slip receipt of DWP emails during the conversation – as you can imagine added to my crankyiness it was like petrol to a fire, plus saying would not be refunding travel costs. It it confirmed shortly after above call that WP ‘Has to refund’.

    Meeting starts: So Mr G how are you.
    Me – not well, explain issues
    Me – So before we get started I’d like Travel claim forms
    [JJ joop you’ll like this reply]
    Mr R – nope don’t have to give it to you as you never signed contract at beginning last year
    Me [Red Alert: Sheilds up, power Phasers, Ready Photon Torpedoes – backstabbing Romulans are about]
    Me: Really? Well you can put that in writing then.
    Mr R. Nope – i don’t have to my area manager told me [note not office manager], but you can speak to her
    Me; No – you or her can put that in writing. If i don’t get it I am not moving.
    Mr R’s fellow helper, I will call Turncoat piped up
    Turncoat: Call the police.
    Me [relaxing back as best I could]: Do it
    We then have a repeat of are you going to leave? No, we’ll call the police. Me saying do it.
    Building manager – supposedly no connected pops up, butts in says no they do not have to put anything in writing [er, he does not even work for them – or so he says…] Turncoat begging to call police and me saying do it – wait all day if needed during all this.
    This goes around and around for an hour – all the while mobile texts between Mr R. and Area manager flying back and forth – suddenly
    Mr R: Well if you’ll sign for your tickets you can be on your way
    Me; I pointed out that that was the exact opposite of what was said on phone and continuely up till then. i was happy to sign for travel but nothing else. I still required the letter though.
    Mr R asked for tickets and i handed over receipt – £14 – he wasn’t happy, suddenly He did not have the money to pay for the tickets [strange that, it comes out of the office petty cash, whats going on here I wonder] Puts on coat and has word with building manager and office manager and leaves with phone.
    Building manager sits near and we wait.
    Mr R Comes back pays me – I request and get copies of course of everything
    Me: I explain a little of my background [warning to them not to mess me about]
    Mr R angled to see about getting me transfered to WP office closer – closed that dowb as pointed out sign locally to him and postal address is round corner. Mr R not happy.
    Mr R : I think we’ll do phone interviews for the future
    Me; okay
    Me thinking to myself – never heard of them doing that though: Ah, cost is suddenly an issue now….
    Mr R gave spiel that WP can get council to get homeless housed like myself.
    Me: I asked how and pointed out no one can but council has power in that area.
    Mr R droppedthat line of approach.
    Texted a relative and was advised to retreat while ascertain what exactly is the period one can claim back travel expenses for, they are aware of going back only three months.
    Mr R when I said i’d rece9ived advice asked what it was? I just looked at him and he looked away.
    This all took 2 hours of my life I will never get back.

    So all in all a fun filled day

    Gazza

    February 13, 2017 at 4:15 pm

  45. The Police are getting pissed off with the DWP & Jobcentres always calling the police on people that give them trouble. The DWP & Jobcentres are wasting police time which is a criminal offence. The DWP & Jobcentre hide behind suicide & gets the police to break down the door if your not in when they call. The police are really pissed off with the DWP crying wolf all the time. Being sectioned is cheaper for the DWP but £2,000 a week for the tax payer. You are difficult which means one has a suicide case to deal with. The DWP guidance handbook for DWP employers is a weapon the DWP need to combat doing their job.

    DWP Assisted Suicide.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:23 pm

  46. I can say suicide because I am untouchable unless the DWP want to be charged for wasting police time.

    SUICIDE DWP SUICIDE – DWP ASSISTED SUICIDE. TORY SUICIDE.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:25 pm

  47. Does the DWP workers think about suicide all the time ? Yes being in a shitty job bullied by their bosses.

    Suicide DWP Bomber – Is that political or the Anti Terrorist Squad – The DWP have now got promoted to talking about suicide bombers who have a suicide at the Jobcentre.

    What we are talking about is a heart attack at the jobcentre & the jobcentre blowing it out of proportion.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:30 pm

  48. I have a new job working at the PPK. I have a new job working with ISIS. I have a new job as a British political prisoner in Britain. I thought that was the job of Theresa May.

    I got these jobs at the jobcentre so blame the DWP & Theresa May for promoting the PPK & ISIS

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm

    • Since disabled people are already under the anti terrorist bill.

      Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

      February 13, 2017 at 5:35 pm

  49. DWP Violence Means Death – DWP Assisted Suicide.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:36 pm

  50. Stop scaring the Tories & their trolls. When act then you useless bullies. Thought not !!!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:37 pm

  51. We are getting worried over your mental State called the UK. It is not my mental state but the Tories mental State that Lord Fraud now says it was all made up & it won`t work after killing 40,000 people in the UK since 2010.

    Perhaps the UN lives in a mental state !!!! Damming UN report on the UK human rights breaches of UK people & the disabled.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:40 pm

  52. It`s too dangerous like watch my side I`m dangerous for disabled killers !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:42 pm

  53. My job CV written by the jobcentre is full of suicide. Are there many jobs for people with suicide !!! ISIS – PPK perhaps – Can the DWP & Tories think of any others !!!

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 13, 2017 at 5:44 pm

  54. G4S are not fit for the job of looking after children in immigration detention centres

    G4S have a history of claims of abuse, neglect and even a death in their custody. Far from guaranteeing welfare, will the new providers expose children and their families to an environment whose safety is routinely questioned?

    G4S are not fit for the job

    Anyone attending the Jobcentre can quickly conclude that.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/g4s-immigration-removal-centres-detention-tinsley-house-not-fit-for-the-job-a7573916.html

    ken

    February 13, 2017 at 7:16 pm

  55. Encouraging “employers to work with their employees with long-term health conditions to stop them from falling out of work”.

    Yet the DWP is finding them fit.Evidence that this isn’t working in the workplace.

    http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/fit-notes-occupational-health-practitioners-respond-government-proposals-reform/

    http://www.personneltoday.com/occupational-health/return-to-work-rehabilitation/fit-for-work/

    ken

    February 13, 2017 at 7:33 pm

  56. get this shit signed on and said i now have a reply from a decision maker that i did fail to participate that course b4 Christmas ie i would not enter a contract with a 3rd party private company but was willing to participate and are now trying unlawfully to sanction me for it and i have not even had a letter stating this and was only told buy the adviser,

    mandatory reconsideration sent.

    next was another sanction for my work search evidence as i now dont have to use ujm and list all the other sites i use to find work and as i had only use ujm to apply for 50 jobs in 2 weeks now have a sanction for not adding other sites like monster reed ect on my job search evidence wtf.

    mandatory reconsideration sent.

    yet the guy b4 me had done 5 jobs in 2 weeks and had barley nothing on his work search and was even using the old sheets they used to use and was signed on as normal.

    so i have applied for 50 jobs in 2 weeks yet am getting a sanction for not listing other sites on my job search wtf they on.

    Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

    is it mandatory that any one sent to a 3rd party provider must sign there paper work ie contracts between a claimant and a 3rd party private company and failing to sign such paper work would result in a benefit sanction if the claimant is still willing to take part.

    there four is it unlawful that a jcp adviser can issue a sanction doubt for not signing 3rd party paper work if the claimant is still willing to take part.

    as under contract law it states any contract must be entered in to voluntary buy both parties and any threat of a sanction doubt or being forced to sign them with threats of a sanction is unlawful.

    Yours faithfully,

    Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
    Can a Work Coach demand i present my work search evidence in a pacific way that they demand it in, ie web sites that the jobs was found on and failing to right this information in the my work plan book ws1 will result in a benefit sanction even tho i have met the required jobs to apply for in the claimant commitment, just not have listed the web sites the jobs was applied on in my work plan ws1 booklet.

    as my adviser is now demanding this yet have not had a problem with any other adviser in the last year.

    my claimant commitment states.

    use job sites and employer websites to find and apply for jobs i can do.

    it does not state that i have to provide every web site i use to look for work and give it to them in writing each time i sign on.

    the work coach also now says not to use the ujm web site which has jobs from sites all over the internet job recruitment sites anyway and has cost the dwp millions of pounds to create.

    as a result of not providing the other web sites i use on my work search activity ws1 other than the ujm site i have now got a sanction for this even tho i have applied for 25 jobs a week on the ujm web site and have done so for the last year with no problems from the 7 other work coaches i have had at this office.

    “Actively Seeking Employment
    76. We cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of their
    jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this – it is not therefore
    possible to require JSA claimants to give DWP access to their Universal
    Jobmatch account.”

    yet my work coach is doing the complete opposite to this and now demanding i hand it in in a pacific way that they want it in writing in my work plan book ws1 even tho i have applied for 25 jobs a week failing now to provide all the other sites i use to apply for work on my work plan book resulted in a sanction doubt.

    Yours faithfully,

    Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
    1 is it mandatory that a work coach can ask to retain a paper copy of my cv under threat of sanction if i dont give it to them.

    2 is a screen shot of a cv on my smart phone evidence enough that i have a cv and proof of this via a screen shot is enough evidence to present a work coach that this has taken place via a job seekers direction.

    3 can a sanction doubt be raised if i dont give a cv in paper format to a work coach.

    Yours faithfully,

    i will be going to the law centre tomorrow and when the above gets a reply ill nail the fookers to the wall.

    if they think ill lie down a take that shit they are well wrong ;0

    superted

    February 13, 2017 at 9:22 pm

  57. right it says on this letter i have they have done a ase doubt and says if we decide you have not done whats required we wont pay jsa for the time it was stopped and your claim will close.

    this just looks like a total setup to me as the only thing i have done is not put the web sites of all the job sites on my job search and was just not interested in looking on my phone for the jobs i had applied for on ujm yet it states this.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant using Universal Jobmatch (DWP
    has access to their account)
    80. You will look at any number or all of the following screens/pages from the
    claimant’s Universal Jobmatch account:
    • Activity History.
    • Application History.
    • Alerts.
    • Messages.
    • Saved Jobs.
    • Recommended Jobs.
    • Saved Searches.
    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant using Universal Jobmatch (No
    DWP access to their account)
    81. To help assess that a claimant is actively seeking work you may suggest that
    they show you:
    • prints of any number or all of the screens/pages detailed in paragraph 80 from
    their Universal Jobmatch account. However, this will not be possible for
    claimants who do not have access to a printer or cannot afford to print out
    copies of these pages; or
    • any number or all of the screens/pages detailed in paragraph 80 from their
    Universal Jobmatch account if they have access to the internet on a
    smartphone. Districts will need to consider the guidance on Restricted Use of
    Electronic Media in Jobcentres although paragraph 7 in this guidance enables
    offices to allow claimants to use their mobiles for this purpose.
    82. If it is not possible for the claimant to do any of the above, or the claimant does
    not wish to accept cookies and so needs to use a DWP IAD, advise the claimant
    that they can login to their UJ account and print off copies of the relevant
    screens/pages from an available IAD in your office.
    83. However, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence of their jobsearch
    activity (by whatever means they choose).
    84. Therefore if a claimant does not wish to do this, you will need to base your
    assessment on the evidence they have provided. 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.

    so if they stop my claim what are my options? i have put in a mandatory reconsideration as i have 1000 job application in ujm and showed the adviser this but was not interested at looking at it and from the foi request that is all i need show them anyway yet have a sanction for ase for not using other job sites and not putting it on my work search ws1?

    the same adviser has marked my work search for the last 8 weeks and since i claimed jsa again has been marked buy 7 advisers over a year with no problems as i fill the page with job apps every week from ujm.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant not using Universal Jobmatch
    85. In cases where a claimant is not using Universal Jobmatch, they will show the
    steps they can be reasonably expected to take to actively seek work that can give
    them the best prospects of employment, through other means.
    86. In these cases, you will review a claimant’s jobsearch activity using the evidence
    they provide as described in paragraph 77.

    77. Work Coaches and Assistant Work Coaches will continue to review jobsearch
    activity and record the outcome on LMS in the usual way for JSA claimants and
    look at all the evidence provided by claimants to determine if there is an ASE
    doubt. This may be in various forms and these are explained in the Labour
    Market Conditions Guide.

    http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/labour-market-conditions-and-jobseeker%E2%80%99s-allowance

    The labour market conditions

    These require the claimant to:

    be available for work as agreed;
    be actively seeking work as agreed;
    have a current jobseeker’s agreement which reflects the availability and actively seeking work conditions imposed or negotiated.
    It is important to note that these are conditions of entitlement. If the claimant fails to meet them, s/he will not be entitled to benefit rather than be subject to a sanction. At the point of claim, if a person fails to satisfy these conditions, s/he will not receive benefit; if there is doubt about her/his continuing entitlement, her/his benefit is suspended. S/he may then have to claim hardship payments.

    i just cant see why they have done this only to target me for a sanction and stop my claim as i have never not done enough to find work and apply for jobs.

    superted

    February 14, 2017 at 12:40 am

    • superted

      February 14, 2017 at 12:54 am

      • superted

        I thik its time for you to take a trip over to unemploymentmovement and seek help – i suspect you’re on the right trrack but i urge you to seek help from there so you can nail his f&^%$£s to the wall. I want to hear of screams of pain from them from the butt F&^% you’re about to deliver.

        Gazza

        February 14, 2017 at 5:02 am

      • Superted

        1: Did you sign the My Work Plan booklet ?

        If you did then we must work with what you consented to along with regulation as signing that booklet adds conditions that weren’t originally enforceable but now are dew to your consent.

        OK, for now UJM has little to no direct employers and is a mixture of agencies and other websites, its the same as indeed for example. NOW, has any of your applied jobs directed you to another website whereby you registered ?

        With regards to agencies and jobsites some will take your application and register you via whats termed as implied consent also.

        You walk into any business these days,sainsbury,boots,hm samuels jewelers,National Tyres and Autocare and on and on all advertise there websites on jobsites as its the fastest way to hit the biggest audience. 101 business,marketing practice.

        So if yes (not to question 1 but what i wrote underneath) irrespective of not writing it down are effectively visiting other websites. Retracing these jobs on UJM and going through your emails will help.

        The legal argument is by using UJM you are like indeeds job website, pooling many other websites and agencies into a central hub. Many a job website, not just indeed act as a central hub and even the likes of jobsite and monster have began doing this pooling method so as to produce a one stop shop.

        When we consider what makes a person the right person to hire, effective time management, being logical, practical,methodical is right up there. So effectively if DWP wanted to sanction you they would be sanctioning you for using your initiative, the same initiative used by the companies your applying to.

        An even bigger slap in DWPs face is WHY exactly are they combining their systems ?

        Get back to me on question 1 and we can work if you like on the rest of what DWP are throwing at you.

        doug

        February 14, 2017 at 11:50 am

      • Super ted (part 2)

        Had a chance to look at your picture of evidence and i can find no thought with it. I had to zoom it im afraid so i could read your I will section and work with the question the I will section poses.

        Where is sadly for DWP generic, meaning they cant dictate its meaning without supplying regulation to legally define it which we know they cant. Their only way round this is if you consented to something that would outline this in part or all.

        So in your my work plan booklet under my search journey what did you tick if and agree to ?

        Further more in the examples they give, they aren’t exactly clinical in their fake entries but none the less acts as clarity so again muddies their waters as so to speak.

        Check your CC to see if it says you will or have agreed to to itemize all your job search entries.

        ANOTHER QUESTION

        2: Have you in the past registered and still hold accounts with other jobsites and recruitment agencies, it matters not if you declare them on your jobsearch booklet evidence. Do you currently use them and is there evidence of you applying for work through them at least once a week ?

        BE CAREFUL

        Now its just a suspicion but as DWPs basis is flawed, i have the concern that possibly your being led into what i call a box question. Now its to late to deal with what you have sent for the RM but a copy for inspection would help BUT you must be careful in any further admissions with DWP. Basically and importantly address their issue without opening another can of worms that allows them within the same question to come at you from another angle and make it hold.

        doug

        February 14, 2017 at 12:41 pm

      • @ ‘doug’, there is no where to sign the ‘My Work Plan’ booklet, just saying… 😉

        WS1

        February 14, 2017 at 1:26 pm

      • WS1

        Its at the front of the booklet.

        http://welfare.povertyalliance.org/userfiles/files/Copy%20of%20JSA%20workplan_Diary.pdf

        Now at hand, i cant print/upload what i have personally as their claimants actually booklets (photocopies) but the latest one i have is WS1 2016. I mention this as clearly you can see from the PDF link next to the WS1 – the date of print/issue. This tells me this particular type of booklet was still in circulation last year.

        doug

        February 14, 2017 at 1:37 pm

      • Holy Smoke, doug! Hiding in plain site! Signing it may have has been overlooked 😉 Cockroaches aren’t perfect 😀

        – I have read and understood my Claimant Commitment

        – I will do everything I reasonably can to get work

        – Getting work is my responsibility and taking the actions in my Claimant Commitment will help me
        find work sooner

        – I understand Jobcentre Plus will give me help and support and
        advice to do the things set out in my Claimant Commitment

        – I understand I must attend the Jobcentre when
        required to do so

        – I understand that my Coach may require me to take other specific actions to improve my chances of finding work

        WS1

        February 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm

      • my work plan book is signed at the front and dated last year when i had a new one that was also dated and signed. it was also full and most pages signed buy 8 different advisers over the 2 books.

        this is my cc and there is nothing on it specific to certen sites i must use other than ujm.

        i also take a screen shots on my phone of the ujm site with the last 10 jobs i have applied for as that is all it shows and also show this as evidence when i sign on but last 2 times was not interested in looking at it.

        the adviser has also signed off my job search that is now sanctioning me and i have had no js direction from them stating i must provide my work search now with a list of other web sites i use to apply for work.

        it has just decided now it is not good enough with out a list of these other sites on my work search.?

        i have had no warnings or directions about anything regarding my work search evidence.

        which makes no sense at all as some jobs go to external sites that then get to send on my cv tho this does not show on the ujm site. but i can near enough find enough jobs on ujm to send my cv to anyway that i could get 2 why i have 200 pages of jobs and 1000 applications on my ujm account, i will not count any higher than this tho.

        as for the other sanction i have not received anything in writing about it and was only told when i signed on about it.

        and that sanction is now 2 months old.

        i have put in 2 mandatory reconsideration and stated the fact from foi that i dont have to sign 3rd party contracts.

        and
        they cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of their
        jobsearch activity.

        i have also put in for hard ship and just had a call from the local office about it and said yeah i done that yesterday lol.

        superted

        February 14, 2017 at 3:20 pm

      • and that is my work search evidence that i am being sanctioned for and i can not see any reason to change it as that is more than enough proof and adding other web sites to it is pointless it is what i did 10 years ago.

        like id go on the web sites find local work in my area for that week and wright the job down and the web site it was on on my work search sheet.

        i never applied for any off them and done it for years pmsl
        Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant not using Universal Jobmatch
        85. In cases where a claimant is not using Universal Jobmatch, they will show the
        steps they can be reasonably expected to take to actively seek work that can give
        them the best prospects of employment, through other means.

        superted

        February 14, 2017 at 3:54 pm

      • If the DWP won’t budge, let them fuck off and appeal it. Just going by the amount of evidence posted here would be enough to “satisfy” a Tribunal Judge that you were ASE. And when this cockroaches “doubt” is overturned they should be out on their arse. This is malicious maladministration – these fucking cockroaches and the DWP shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this crap. And where is that fucking jobcentre manager who had the brass-necked audacity to tell Ken Loach that I, Daniel Blake, winner of the Palme d’Or and a Bafta for Best Film was a “work of fiction”. What a fucking cheeky. THIS is the REALITY of the bastard DWP/Jobcentre!

        We Are All Daniel Blake

        February 14, 2017 at 4:10 pm

      • superted

        what has happened to yuo is similar to what happened to me over xmas 2015/16 – I went further in in addition to supplying date/job type/advertiser-employer i also supplied area and contact details for same.

        When I appealed via phone [never got call from joke centre when i requested it – strange that…], i listed the above individually, when I got to the third job person said what was going on and declared sanction overturned – each point is a step in finding a job [looking for job, finding, is it worth doing, construction of cv, applying, recording info, checking for response]. You must do a bare minimum of 4 steps per week [due to tribunal decision a year or so ago as to what is reasonable] I had 13 job x 7 = 91, obviously just a little bit above the required 4…

        I order for the sanction DWP has to SHOW/EVIDENCE that you failed. You have not. This is deliberate, targeted and malicious – you should treat it a as such, and its not just the advisor but also the section head as the advisor cannot act on own but must do so under the instruction of the section head [who should have spotted that this was wrong as they are there to error check and clearly has not done so here].

        In addition to doug giving real time help, unemploymentmovement has most excellent appeal letters and advice.

        Gazza

        February 14, 2017 at 5:01 pm

      • Superted

        In your CC it states: use other websites and employer websites to find and apply for jobs i can do.

        I state this one as its the only thing they can throw at you as regards the charge of not using other websites.

        Now like you state and is clearly visible to all, theres absolutely no reference made in the terminology of i quote, “use other websites and employer websites”, meaning it does not specifically state how you are going to achieve that or as importantly, how that will be achieved.

        What i mean is if a job on UJM takes you to another website to apply for said vacancy, that indeed is still using another website as how you got there or achieved it is neither here nor there.

        Now they will try and argue that’s not what it meant, its obvious what it meant, well actually NO as it does not stipulate anywhere that , that is only achieved by you directly typing in a website to get to said website.
        As i said most jobsites now are job pooling which goes by the names portal, hub,central point,etc and this does indeed include UJM which is right up there with indeed for using jobs from other jobsites.
        A job on UJM that does this is effectively a link which is a micro command to save on manually doing the same thing via manual typing.

        So for instance with reference to GAP personnel, if say upon applying through UJM, it takes you automatically to GAPs website (different URL), you have just visited another website which is is it not the charge DWP are leveling at you ?

        This is why i said trace and record the jobs that transported you in the week being disputed to another website. UJM is DWPs baby so why do they need evidence when they can go get off their lazy backside and easily verify this. In other words, their already holding the proof.

        doug

        February 14, 2017 at 7:10 pm

      • yeah i can see that but why now sanction me for it as the old cc was the same and nothing has changed its clear as day i am applying for work and to sanction me for not adding web sites to my job search is a total cheap shot to raise a sanction doubt.

        id bet id not have had a sanction if they had access to my ujm account but then again could still say im not using other sites to apply for work as there would be nothing on the ujm site as there external links.

        do you still have to fill in a ws1 if they have access to ur ujm account?

        superted

        February 14, 2017 at 7:41 pm

      • well they will not get me on that one again EVER 😉

        superted

        February 14, 2017 at 7:57 pm

      • Superted

        1: With regards to the failure to participate , to view a contract, to consider a contract is participating but whether you consent to said contract or not cannot legally form a part of participating as if you because of threat of sanction so against your will consented, the consent is by law, unlawful and the consent dissolved, meaning its the same as not consenting.

        2: With regards this sanction on work search evidence let us begin again so i am clear as to what your saying.

        2(a) What dates are you being sanctioned for ?
        2(b) What is the date you have been issued the sanction on ?
        2(c) Was either by written on computer record or paper for DWP purposes and record of an adviser asking you to change how you search, a doubt raised,etc irrespective of whether or not you received anything verbal or other wise for the dates in question 2(a). If you don’t know, go find out.
        2(d) Why are you not being sanctioned for all evidence after that date if unchanged, why just that period. Again if unsure, go find out.

        When you get back to me please answer each question exactly as i have numbered and alpha’ed so i can form a clear pattern of what you are saying.

        doug

        February 15, 2017 at 12:08 am

      • READ ALL ABOUT IT!

        JOBSEEKER APPLIES FOR OVER ONE THOUSAND JOBS IN A SINGLE FORTNIGHT YET IS STILL SANCTIONED!

        READ ALL ABOUT IT!, READ ALL ABOUT IT!, READ ALL ABOUT IT!…

        The Ipswich Star

        February 15, 2017 at 12:37 am

      • 1: With regards to the failure to participate , to view a contract, to consider a contract is participating but whether you consent to said contract or not cannot legally form a part of participating as if you because of threat of sanction so against your will consented, the consent is by law, unlawful and the consent dissolved, meaning its the same as not consenting.

        not sure what you are saying if i am right or wrong? but this is the foi.
        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.
        https://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/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-info/

        2: With regards this sanction on work search evidence let us begin again so i am clear as to what your saying.

        2(a) What dates are you being sanctioned for ?
        31.01.2017-13.2.2017 my ws1 was signed buy the adviser on the 30.1.2017

        2(b) What is the date you have been issued the sanction on ?
        13.2.2017 its a ase doubt.
        https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/132667/response/336473/attach/7/13e%20Guidance.pdf

        2(c) Was either by written on computer record or paper for DWP purposes and record of an adviser asking you to change how you search, a doubt raised,etc irrespective of whether or not you received anything verbal or other wise for the dates in question 2(a). If you don’t know, go find out.
        2(d) Why are you not being sanctioned for all evidence after that date if unchanged, why just that period. Again if unsure, go find out.

        the adviser said to add other web sites to my work search to which i said as i use ujm and have applied for some jobs with external links anyway as i can not see the point writing this in my ws1 as i have never had a problem with my work search evidence with 7 other advisers signing it off as complete over the last 13 months so why now is there a problem?

        i was given nothing in writing to change my work search evidence only now the adviser is dictating what i put on it.

        i also over heard the adviser with the person b4 me telling them there work search evidence that consisted of just 5 jobs applied for over the 2 week period and gave it in the form of the old single sheet work evidence sheet.

        so 1 rule for me and another for everyone else so as no one will employ me are just targeting me for any way they can get a sanction to stick imo they want 3 in a row so to stop my benefit for 3 years.

        total jobs i have applied for over the years must be over 20.000 now

        superted

        February 15, 2017 at 4:05 pm

      • i will also add that the enrolment form for the provider said i failed to complete it is not true, it was a sfa contract form that i had to fill in so they could get there fee from them for the course and i refused to fill it in or sign it. and showed them the foi on my phone.

        they also had another member off staff going round and filling in the forms and then getting them signed by the people there.

        i also dont mind doing a coarse if it means i get accredited skills to add to my cv but this was just a racket and at the end you got a sheet of paper with a celebration in learning? they even have the balls to take photos off ppl with it and post it on there face book page.

        i have also asked the adviser for a FLT course but was told no one does it anymore.

        superted

        February 15, 2017 at 4:18 pm

      • Superted

        Firstly thanks for getting back to me, especially so swiftly.

        With regards to the failure to participate part i wrote – A legally binding lawful consent must be given freely by the person consenting. If consent is obtained by force, threat or deception, that consent is deemed unlawful and dissolved in the eyes of the law.
        So with that legal requirement at the forefront how is it that DWP are insisting it forms a part of participating as in only the consent part ?
        If you read the form first,then decided for what ever reason to not consent, you would logically conclude it would be pointless to fill out said form only to not consent.
        Now the provider cannot train you without funds so needs to apply to SFA for said funding but under SFA rules/guidelines, the provider must seek your lawful consent. Also you did not approach this place off your own back but was officially directed by DWP to do so. At this stage DWP made you go otherwise they would sanction you and the provider refuses to train you unless you lawfully consent to them gaining funding. Now the providers funding problem is their affair as its their business/operation and not yours to help them acquire monies for said business/operation. Now both government and or DWP could make arrangements with SFA (another public department) but for whatever reason chose not to. That is their affair and again not your responsibility to assist in.
        Hopefully you get it now.

        As for the jobsearch i hate to say it but you’ve created a rod for your own back here and i will explain.
        No matter how reasonable what you have said regarding you prior worksearch is, the question is, is the work coach being unreasonable in asking you to modify your work search from the date you gave onward.
        That is what the DM will consider sadly so i suspect a sanction will probably follow.
        Now you could argue this out and you may find a sympathetic judge but in this instance i would honestly say you would be better of accepting the change and avoiding a sanction while not knowing how this will play out in the long run.
        To be honest i find UJM sucks, i prefer using other jobsites as they are better than UJM, that’s for sure. Your further away from DWPs prying eyes and once you register can again show evidence on your phone or do printouts. Me aside i get the impression you want the shortest route so placated DWP through your current practice and while i personally don’t have a problem with it as i assume neither did previous workcoaches you say, there’s always one who will look to bust your chops and pick faults.

        So what they will i suspect level at you is, is what this work coach asking unreasonable, forget about the past work coaches,forget about what you have on DWP and FOI paper and concentrate on is it unreasonable, not unjust, just the word unreasonable.

        Think it over and decide how you wish to proceed as regards the worksearch evidence saga.

        doug

        February 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm

      • yeah i guess i will get a sanction for my job search but says on the back of the letter they will close my claim if it is passed so what should i do then?

        claim hardship or re apply for jsa or will this now be uc under a new claim or my old jsa started again?

        i was meant to go today for the hard ship but says i need to wait 7 days anyway so never bothered.

        i have changed my work search now and have applied for 13 jobs over 3 different job sites and have email receipts for them all.

        i will take the other sanction to tribunal as i have put in my own foi request about it as well 😉

        superted

        February 15, 2017 at 6:18 pm

      • Superted

        You said your coach raised a doubt so if they asked you to do something on the same day it was raised and you said no for whatever reason, you haven’t really been given time to consider there proposal.

        Now did they whether you were aware of it or not at the time log anywhere that they asked you prior to adopt the practice you say they want you to do now or expected you to have – very important ?

        I ask as if the same day they raised the doubt was the first time they logged that they asked you to do something different and now you have decided its not a bad idea and now wish to comply then that makes the doubt null and void. I say this as you cant change the two weeks priors evidence if they have just only brought the matter so really this matter can only apply to the weeks ahead which wont be handed in till your next signing date.

        Get back to me superted on this as if it was logged prior to the doubt, we have to then approach this differently.

        doug

        February 15, 2017 at 9:05 pm

      • i signed on as normal and gave over my ws1 book and after looking at it said is all the same? so i said what do you mean there are over 20 jobs on each page but said i am not using other sites to look for work.

        so i said yes i am just ujm does not keep a record of those jobs as they are external links and to make sure i have enough proof i am applying for work wright the first ten jobs from the ujm on my ws1 and then any other external jobs i had applied for after that and take a screen shot of my phone like above pics so it matches what i have written on the ws1 book.

        then coach said but i want you to put the web sites of the other web sites i am using to apply for work.

        so i said the ujm site is a job pool of all the other job sites anyway and i am applying for them and written on my job search so i just cant see the point in doing it as i have more than enough proof with the job search i have and screen shots on my phone to back this up.

        but still said i want the other sites listed on my work search next time i sign on.

        i said i cant see the point as i am doing more than enough that i am seeking employment and can prove it just you dont want to look at my screen shots and take it as evidence with my ws1 and 7 advisers have had no problem with it until i have seen you.

        and said again i want it on the next work search and i said i will change nothing it is fine as it is.

        no jc direction was given or stated if i did not do this i would be sanctioned for it.

        if they asked for a screen shot of the receipts in my email for the job sites then not a problem just writing all that and the web sites will take for ever and not even fit in the ws1. i have no printer.

        but they dont even want that much info just the web sites i had been on why i said what is the point.

        and well you know the rest.

        superted

        February 15, 2017 at 9:34 pm

      • You will get some cockroaches who will try it on and tell you to write out the full web url of each and every vacancy you apply for, e.g.

        httxs://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=40609853&JobTitle=Cleaner&rad=20&rad_units=miles&pp=25&sort=rv.dt.di&vw=b&re=134&setype=2&tjt=cleaner&where=london&q=&AVSDM=2017-02-15T03%3a30%3a00-05%3a00

        Now, that is REALLY taking the proverbial!

        Rentokil (Cockroaches)

        February 15, 2017 at 10:47 pm

      • well yeah but that link does not have a external link to another web site as that is the ujm site and that is now not good enough for me anyway and must provide other web sites i use to look for work and put this in my ws1 book as evidence i am seeking work.

        i could put 5000 jobs a week yet unless i provide proof i am using other sites to apply for work i will get a sanction doubt which is a total joke tbh

        superted

        February 15, 2017 at 11:57 pm

      • Superted

        If they only just asked you and raised the doubt the same day then you can effective null in void the doubt by reporting your after consideration going to take the advice of the work coach and produce in future evidence of other jobsites. That will put that possible sanction to bed as you haven’t committed an offense until you sign on next time. Make sure you report it both to your work search provider and especially the DM.

        Its no hardship using other jobsites that are infact better than UJM and distance DWP if you feel they are snooping on you. All sites like jobsite,fish4jobs, monster,etc all once registered supply a list of applied vacancies so you can remain showing them on your phone or get a printout which is faster than writing them in that stupid booklet. You could simply replace that bottom section of the booklet with see photo/printout evidence and simply put in the above section checked and applied on UJM,fish4jobs,monster,etc (sites you actually applied through.
        You also have not that you couldnt have done it with UJM, the chance to make up your profile so it does not portray your really personal data (ie, full name,etc). You should also consider my old post on protecting your CV by removing for instance your full name,home address,etc and simply put just your first name, only the area where you live (ie birmingham,manchester,ipswich,etc) and a email address not given to DWP. You also add a small footnote explaining its only a preliminary CV for the purpose of combating cybercrime and the misuse of personal data, that a full CV will be once confidence is established be sent either by personal email or in person at an interview. With this all in place, no one could violate your right to privacy nor misuse you personal data. Just remember when showing evidence not to uncover the name of any of the accounts (ie superted) as its more than clear where it comes from and what and when you applied for work.

        This should just leave the failure to participate which is a road you have already been down so i assume you know what your on with there so shall say no more on that topic unless you bring it up again.

        As i said before, its all up to you as regards this jobsearch doubt so let us all know how you got on.

        doug

        February 16, 2017 at 9:31 am

      • the sanction doubt was given to me 2 weeks later the next time i signed on tho it was all ready printed out i was told to change it on the 23.1 and got the sanction on the 13.2 when it was raised.

        superted

        February 16, 2017 at 10:06 am

      • Superted

        In that case do you have evidence of visiting other jobsites,with the date/s in question as in the case of adview for example, you have to register to apply for the job despite going through UJM.

        Just because you may not have produced it on the day, does not mean you didn’t do it on the days in question. You just need time and dated evidence that can be either say for example be the jobsite you registered to (application history) or an email reply from an employer who registered through that site.

        You could also email the employer to ask as you have forgotten what jobsite they received your application from/through as then the employer is confirming they advertised it on for example adview.

        This would demonstrate that despite not writing it down, or producing it that you did indeed take such a reasonable step to secure or enhance your chances of finding work.
        It would indeed be petty for DWP to sanction you for a task you did carryout despite not demonstrating it when the doubt was raised as you did fulfill the request to use other jobsites as i suspect they didn’t stipulate how many, just that you should.

        As you know they cant stipulate how a claimant presents their evidence but they can ask a claimant to take reasonable steps to secure work.

        You may on that be able to cancel out the doubt if time is permitting.

        doug

        February 16, 2017 at 11:58 am

      • Yup! You are allowed to provide ‘evidence’ ‘after the fact’, right the way up to the door of the Appeal Tribunal.

        Poiroit

        February 16, 2017 at 12:45 pm

      • not for that 2 weeks as i managed to find enough jobs on the ujm site to send off my cv but tbh i dont tend to apply for them as most are skilled work and in the past have never had a reply from them anyway, not that i get a reply from any jobs i have apply for anyway as nothing on my cv is check able i have no work history or cover letters or references.

        superted

        February 16, 2017 at 4:10 pm

      • Superted

        Then your only defense in that case is other jobsites already advertise on UJM. Make a list of them, its irrelevant whether or not they had a job for you to apply to. The argument is, “How is manually going to a jobsite different to apply through UJM to be take to that jobsite”, answer none.

        Now i suspect DWP may come back with jobsites that don’t advertise on UJM like say indeed for example. Well why would they when they do precisely the same thing as UJM because they dont have many of their own real employer clients. Take CIRCLE and ADVIEW, you will go through UJM, then through one of them then onto say CV library. Do you get the point im making ?

        Go check it out for yourself, i even did a post on it on this very website a while back.Everybody is tripping over everybody and why your see the same vacancies again and again and again loads of time on most of the jobsites.

        Hence the phrases i used, pooling,hub, etc.

        You just have to be able to prove the fruitlessness of their argument with evidence of such cases, the more the better as i guarantee you right about now, they have done zero research as if they did they would know what im saying is quite right.

        Remember also they said other jobsites (that’s what you said they said) so dont let them switch the argument to employer websites, get a printout of the doubt raised as proof incase they do.

        doug

        February 17, 2017 at 12:04 am

      • Then your only defense in that case is other jobsites already advertise on UJM.

        and that is exactly what i said to the adviser it is clear to everybody that a job on ujm is also posted on other sites and thus there argument is neither here or there as i am actively seeking employment no matter how they say i am not doing so.

        like how can the same job be on the reed web site and on ujm yet as i used ujm to apply for that job other than reed not be seeking employment it dont does it.

        what there saying is as i never used reed to apply for that job and put that site in my ws1 im not seeking employment?

        but each job has the employer that is advertising that job on ujm and is in my ws1 or it is a agency like chase associates total recruitment ltd beavers-recruitment list recruitment ltd ect ect post the jobs on ujm anyway and written in my job search.

        so like i said what is the point going to those sites and applying for the same job, there just is no point as on the ujm site anyway to apply for and give a active record of the jobs i have applied for.

        and if it is the case i must use other sites to apply for work why give a jsd to open a account in the first place and pay monster jobs millions of pounds to keep it going?

        take this for a example i go to the jcp and only use external web sites to look for work but as the system is locked down told to use ujm to look for work as i cant send the application over there locked down system.

        then get a sanction for not using other sites for work on my ws1.

        or just use monster jobs to apply for work and not ujm and get a sanction for that?

        you could just go on forever tbh

        superted

        February 17, 2017 at 12:39 am

      • Superted

        Im trying to help you to overturn this doubt, not discuss the morality of this as ive already written about this before on this site in various posts.

        Its not enough to tap your screen infront of a work coach, and say see. Build a case load of examples with printouts (makes copies incase it goes to court at a later date) to prove your point exactly and send it to the DM. By case load i mean a proper one and not just a few examples.

        doug

        February 17, 2017 at 1:09 am

      • i sent my mandatory reconsideration over the phone as it seems the dm is now doing this in house at my jcp i still have no paper work for the fail to participate on that course.

        i did ask but still dont have it and just got the bus fair back yesterday ?

        superted

        February 17, 2017 at 1:43 am

      • Superted

        Well you know what your on with in both cases in regards to providing evidence for both cases.

        Failure to participate – was you or not asked to consent to the provider seeking SFA funding, why is your consent warranted in this matter and are DWP say you have no legal right to consent of free will with force threat or deception.

        Worksearch – You have no prior personal evidence of going to other jobsites whether or not you applied for anything. So can you produce evidence to substantiate that by using UJM that you are actually performing the same function as manually typing and going to another jobsite (ie, does or does not UJM hold tons of vacancies that come from other jobsites,recruitment sites. Does in the case of jobsites when you apply not take you to that other jobsite (some recruitment agencies do this also or register you via implied consent and register you on that basis). How is a link different to manually searching and going to the same site.

        This is your defense basically outlined so you know what your on with and only now by DWP replying can we again look at this matter on how to proceed.

        doug

        February 17, 2017 at 11:49 am

      • got this today and dated the 13.2

        also my ase doubt is dated 31.1-13.2 but last time i was paid was on the 2.2.

        so it say we can not pay my jsa from the 31.1 but i have been paid on the 2.2 so im a bit confused now???

        so for both sanctions i now have a 2 week sanction and will be paid again on the 27.2 in 2 weeks time then?

        superted

        February 17, 2017 at 4:02 pm

      • doug could you or anyone else point out where it says on the sfa rules and regs that a contract can not be forced signed via threat of a sanction doubt as i cant seem to find it or im looking in the wrong place?

        https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533870/SFA_common_and_performance_management_funding_rules_2016_to_2017_V3.pdf

        superted

        February 17, 2017 at 5:02 pm

      • Superted.

        They’ve made their position clear so you now need to get from the DM what is the actual (as they have written it) charges they have used to sanction you, what supporting evidence was used to secure their charges.

        doug

        February 17, 2017 at 5:24 pm

      • when i rang and put in my MR they said it was for failing to participate so why i stated what it said on the foi about signing 3rd party paperwork/contracts.

        they even said on the phone did i show them the foi stating this and said yes but was not interested in looking at it on my phone or just did not believe me?

        im not letting them get away with it as it is out right unlawful sanction plane and simple.

        superted

        February 17, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      • superted

        February 17, 2017 at 5:41 pm

      • Superted

        Do us a favour and post this FOI you have or if possible give me the link from where you got it from so i can have a look at it.
        Also with regards the DM, did you give the DM a copy of this FOI when appealing the doubt ?

        I assume this FOI is from DWP so if the case and as you say you mentioned it to the DM, why are they unaware of that rule if i may call it that and even if they are, what is it they are saying over rides it in this particular case ?

        doug

        February 17, 2017 at 5:57 pm

      • https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/signing_provider_documentation#incoming-760040

        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.

        superted

        February 17, 2017 at 6:05 pm

      • so as you can see i never failed to participate as i was asked to leave under the grounds of health and safety which is total rubbish and also it was not an embroilment form it was a sfa contract to get there money.

        there 4 it is a contract and i cant be forced to sign it under threat of sanction but there still trying it anyway?

        superted

        February 17, 2017 at 6:09 pm

      • Superted

        Thanks for the reply with the link, much appreciated as i can see what your working with.

        With regards the failure to participate case against you , have you entered into evidence that document in your RM ?

        If the RM has yet to be looked at by the DM then you have to wait for the verdict. Now in order to dismiss said admission (document) by DWP via FOI, we need to know what it is that DWP states overrides it (their angle legal or otherwise). If their contacting you by phone, get them to convey it in writing but just to be sure i would recommend recording said phone calls if you can.

        Now with regards to SFA paperwork, its an obligation that the provider has to forfill with the SFA for financial reasons, NOT YOURS. Now the reason they have you fill in and sign such paperwork is so they can prove they are not falsely claiming a student to justify cost that does not exist among other things (gaining money under false pretenses). It also acts to state you willingly entered into the course, that you weren’t deceived,threatened or forced for the purposes of lining the providers pockets unnecessarily and contrary to conditions.

        How said provider secures funds/assets is of no legal concern/responsibility of yours whats so ever as is neither DWPs. Your not the owner,manager or any person in any position of employ or employer of said provider and or investor. You are at best, a visitor,guest,potential learner,off street public at this current juncture.

        Look, i have my suspicions on what DWP may argue but rather than speculate we need to know DWPs counter legal argument that makes it stand assuming they don’t reverse it.

        doug

        February 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm

      • yes i gave them the foi over the phone when i done my mr and also read out the letter from the provider as well and they even said did i show the foi to my adviser and said yes but was not interested in looking at it like it never existed and i guess they seem to think they are above there own rules and regs and above the law.

        i have not signed any provider contract since the work programme tho i have had sanction doubts raised for it but every time it was for non attendance and won them all. nothing has changed as far as i can see as they can only do non attendance or not participating, like ill never get a doubt saying i failed to enter in to a contract with a 3rd party as it is contract law and can not be forced like you said, IT IS THE LAW.

        also every doubt i have had has come from the dwp not the local jcp in the form of a good reason letter and never lost any of them tho this time got the form to fill in from my adviser so looks like the dm is now doing it at the local office.?

        tbh i think my adviser thinks ill just give up and not sign on as im booked in at the same time as the person b4 me and well thats not going to happen.

        superted

        February 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      • had my mr back and says this but all i was given to sign was the sfa contract.

        superted

        February 22, 2017 at 2:40 pm

      • Superted

        Because this post has gone on a long time i have grown tired retracing the reply area.

        WITH THIS IN MIND I HAVE BEGAN ANOTHER POST IN RELATION TO RESPONDING TO YOU AND THIS MATTER AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE

        IT WILL BE MARKED “SUPERTED (PART2)

        doug

        February 22, 2017 at 4:09 pm

      • The DWP and these ‘decision maker’ bastards know damned fine you don’t have to sign or fill in these ‘provider’ forms. And that’s the whole bang shoot, even any Health and Safety bollocks. It even says so in the DWP response to the FOI that “there is no requirement to fill in or sign any ‘provider’ forms and benefits must not be affected as a result.” It is not like the ‘decision maker’ doesn’t know this, they will have received a “Memorandum” and in any case their attention has been drawn to the DWP. And in any case ignorance of the Law is no excuse!

        Anyway, It is not YOUR responsibility if a ‘provider’ cannot obtain funding or an employer is unable to start you on a slave labour ‘placement’. It is YOUR problem though and YOURS alone when the bastards stop your money.

        This is nowt but malicious maladministration, misconduct in a public office which is a criminal offence for which severe penalties can be imposed upon conviction as well as being a breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct which can result in instant dismissal. This malfeasance in public office has being going on for far too long – it is time these bastards were brought to book,

        Yorkshire Pudding

        February 22, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    • That is a veritable mountain of job-seeking evidence you have there, ted 🙂

      Hercules

      February 14, 2017 at 4:26 pm

      • superted

        February 14, 2017 at 4:55 pm

      • 201 pages of application history on universal jobmatch! Strewth! Even Atlas would be weighed down with that 😀 That must be over a couple of thousand job applications! Crikey!

        Hydra

        February 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm

      • superted

        February 14, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    • What sort of only fit for arse-wiping balderdash is this?

      “You refused to sign the enrolment forms disbelieving that you were required to sign by law”. But you are NOT required to sign enrolment forms by law, so what are the DWP twittering on about?

      “You were shown the data protection form from the provider but did not trust that your details would not be shared with third parties”. By tacking this “did not trust that your details would be shared with third parties” [putting words in the mouth?] DWP are attempting to change the subject and skirt the issue. They are attempting to ‘re frame’ the argument and put you in a position so that you feel like you have to explain your concerns. When you don’t have to explain anything. You do not have to sign the data protection act waiver. And that’s the LAW! End of!

      “You did not have any evidence to warrant your actions in failing to participate or sign the enrolment* form.”

      You don’t have to provide evidence, or justify in any way why you didn’t do something you are not required to do in the first place. And why is “failing to participate” being conflated with “sign the enrolment form”?

      Complete and utter load of DWP balderdash.

      Where is that Jobcentre manager in Newcastle who stated that I, Daniel Blake is a work of fiction when you need him?

      Damian Green

      February 22, 2017 at 4:33 pm

      • it was not an enrolment form it was a sfa contract so they could get there fee and that is not my problem to sort out and i sure as hell dont have to sign it under threat of a sanction.

        i was given no other form other than this to sign or any other form to look at.

        the provider is a 3rd party.

        Complete and utter load of DWP balderdash.

        looks like it lol 😉

        superted

        February 22, 2017 at 4:45 pm

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

    Unfortunately the attitudes in Jobcentre plus exceed their boundaries the only way to defend this is through the appeals system.Booklets like WS1 carry a lot of waffle that carries no legal weight either but gives the impression of overall compliance and control however that isn’t mandatory either.

    9. There may be times when the claimant has recorded their activities to the same standard in a different format. In cases like theses, the Work Coach and Assistant Work Coach should then encourage the claimant to revert to use of the My Work Plan booklet. However, this booklet is not a mandatory product for demonstrating evidence of work search and claimants have the right to demonstrate what they have done to look for work through whichever means they deem suitable and most effective.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/253978/response/627660/attach/html/4/Annex%201%20My%20Work%20Plan%20Guidance%2009.03.15.doc.html

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/my_work_plan_booklet_replacing_e

    The plus side is such a robust form of jobsearch evidence is very hard for them to counterclaim against and works against them.the slightest evidence of a disability that’s against them too.

    Its a case of Britannia waves the rules.

    The reason they behave like this is they are in a weak legal position in any argument hence the firewall and bombastic steamroller attitudes.They will try and use your own words or actions against you and should never to be trusted.

    ken

    February 14, 2017 at 2:51 am

    • Availability or Actively Seeking Employment Doubt
      identified

      215. When an Availability or ASE doubt is identified the case must be referred to a
      LMDM, the following action must be taken

      217. If the doubt is because the claimant:
       has been placed on the nature of or terms and conditions of employment the
      claimant is prepared to accept, the suspension begins on the date the restriction
      is imposed from.
       is unavailable for a specific period, input a suspension from the start of the
      benefit week in which the doubt arises to the end of the benefit week in which
      the doubt ends.
       is unavailable for an indefinite period, input a suspension from the start of the
      benefit week in which the doubt arises but do not input an end date.
       is not ASE, input a suspension for the benefit weeks in which the claimant
      failed to take sufficient steps to find work.
       is placing a restriction on the type of work or locality, the suspension would
      take effect from the day the restriction is imposed.

      https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/132667/response/336473/attach/7/13e%20Guidance.pdf

      so if that is the guidance for a esa doubt wtf are they doing it for as i have not failed to do any off that?

      not writing a web site on my ws1 is not failing to ASE is it?

      also if you have, you will check the ujm web site on ur cc and then dont use it for job application would it be the same case and get a sanction doubt raised?

      superted

      February 14, 2017 at 9:48 pm

  59. OT: UK now in New Reality Life Show called “How Poor can Workers Get – All Citizens Have a Chance to Win”

    As they say Truth will out.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38963653
    “Self-employment ‘reduces tax take’ as firms avoid (tax paying) responsibilities”

    “The head of Theresa May’s inquiry into the way millions of people work has said there is evidence businesses are using self-employment laws to avoid tax.”

    ME: Well the canary in the mine is screaming and finally the danger is penetrating foolish heads – but no lets go full speed ahead as we have backhanders to earn.
    So – tax receipts are falling any surprise there due to tax evasion? What a surprise.
    Tax evasion – is now at a level causing serious concern and forseen to become a bigger and bigger problem – solution. Do nothing – that is what will come out of this.
    It’s effecting millions – do nothing.
    So I wonder what will happen when we have a future financial shock.
    As the prefered solution to all future employment ill’s thsi will be the perfect solution imposed on all Jobs – wonderful. I am sure everyone in the jobs market cannot wait…
    Tax Credits/low wages/insecure jobs/chaotic financial personal and national situations – what’s not to like.
    And the final kicker is this is forseen as the solution to unemployment – I await the headlines that it will cure the problem of automation.

    We are living in truly mad times.

    Gazza

    February 14, 2017 at 4:57 am

    • And to show just how extreme automations impact can be [its bankers & we don’t care, but still]:

      http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/goldman-sachs-automated-99-of-their.html
      February 10, 2017

      Goldman Sachs automated 99% of their equity trading jobs over the last 16 years but there is still 34% staffing with mostly computer engineers

      In 2000, the U.S. cash equities trading desk at Goldman Sachs’s New York headquarters employed 600 traders, but today there are only two equity traders left. Automated trading programs have taken over the rest of the work, supported by 200 computer engineers.

      ME: So basically a 66% reduction in staff. So if unable to retrain, stuffed. If particular sector you retrain in is flooded with applicants, stuffed by low wages – if you can get the job. If do unable to adapt to new industry – stuffed. If… you get the idea I am sure…

      Gazza

      February 14, 2017 at 5:23 am

      • We are touring Scotchland at the moment and saw a news item on, think it was called Reporting Scotchland. It was about some bloke who was made redundant from his job in the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen over four years ago. Since then he had applied for thousands of jobs and received not one reply. He has since discovered that employers don’t want to take on ex-employees from the oil and gas industry since they think they will up-sticks when the downturn is over. BBC Scotchland had obtained documented evidence of this.

        And while we are on, can nobody in Scotchland speak out loud? We have been listening to their radio programmes and not one newsreader has got through a bulletin without stumbling and stammering – they are appalling, and we thought Radio 4 was bad – with the one exception of Zeebeedee Soanes. And the TV announcers are even worse, they can’t even read a five second script without stuttering and stammering, some sound as if they are drunk, one even announced the time as six o-clock when the time was in actual fact 10 o’clock, you can some poor soul thinking they had missed an appointment or something. Why are these incompetents in these no doubt well-paid jobs when they are so many unemployed. Or is it as my grandfather (RIP) used to say: “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”

        The Yorkshire Tourists

        February 14, 2017 at 8:48 am

      • Stuttering, stammering BBC Scotchland daytime announcer swears

        Jockina Strap

        February 14, 2017 at 8:56 am

      • “Take your prick”, fucking hell!

        Ant Middleton

        February 14, 2017 at 10:42 am

      • It could be worse, one of Channel 4’s continuity announcers – Jess Thom – has Tourettes Syndrome – she keeps saying “biscuit”. It’s political correct, equability opportunities, yuman rights gone mad, we tell ya, innit!

        The Cookies

        February 14, 2017 at 10:51 am

      • In Channel 4’s case at least it appears to be some sort of ‘disability initiative’.

        http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/disabled-guest-announcers-take-control-of-channel-4s-continuity-mics

        Corie Brown one of Channel 4’s continuity announcers looks as blind as a bat, and she had been telling us what is coming up next on our TVs for fifteen years – nothing a 100-point type-face wont fix though 😀

        Temazy

        February 14, 2017 at 3:31 pm

      • Corie Brown reminds me a of a blind guy who used to sign me on, eyes permanently glued to the ceiling with some ginormous screen-reading device on the desk. They also had a woman prostrate in a wheelchair shuttling across the Jobcentre floor. This was back in the day when the DWP headed by knucklehead Iain Duncan Smith decided that it would be a good idea to have disabled people working as ‘front-line’, front-line, sounds like a war in going on, staff thinking it would ‘shame’ able-bodied jobseekers: “If THEY can get a job, why can’t YOU?” Didn’t work! 😀

        Jobcentre Service User

        February 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

      • Those “continuity booths” look smaller and similar in design than a prison cell (with TV), and at least prison cells have a ‘window’ of sorts. Imagine being stuck in there all day watching ITV or even worse benefit-bashing programmes on Channel 5, and it’s not like you can change the channel. Enough to drive you up the wall!

        Old Lag

        February 15, 2017 at 12:23 pm

      • And also looks like a spy cam on top of the TV, maybe it also has a latched window somewhere for the screws to check up on you 😀

        Old Lag

        February 15, 2017 at 12:25 pm

      • And that mesh in from of the microphone is probably to stifle your screams 😀 Last thing you would want to do is chill out in front of the TV after a shift in there 😀

        Old Lag

        February 15, 2017 at 12:28 pm

      • It is Red Bee Media who provide ‘playout’ facilities for Channel 4. These ‘continuity booths’ are located in their premises at White City in London.

        Industry Insider

        February 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    • Gazza thought I was the only one up at silly oclock!

      news seeker

      February 14, 2017 at 5:39 am

      • Me. I was up at silly o clock. 4am. Saw on TV teletext. Some WordPress pages under attack and dds.

        philip

        February 14, 2017 at 7:33 am

      • news seeker

        upstairs [on tag] decided its good for past two nights to play loud music at between 12 and 3, or as in last night between 2 and 5.

        as I will be back on the streets in 3 weeks, location is being closed/locked out of by council and no idea where i’ll end up considering games of my council, in some ways it cannot come fast enough to get away from him so keeping quite for now about his behaviour.

        As its I warned him of what’s coming but its like talking to a doll- info goes in and comes out the other side – so i’ve decided to let him continue on his way and i’ll go in mine.

        Gazza

        February 14, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      • 4am is the lowest ebb for the human body, that is when accidents are most likely to happen…

        Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operator

        February 15, 2017 at 9:14 am

  60. so-called gig workers

    The head of Theresa May’s inquiry into the way millions of people work has said there is evidence businesses are using self-employment laws to avoid tax.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38963653

    news seeker

    February 14, 2017 at 5:36 am

    • News seeker

      This tax avoidance scam became known to me back in 2013 while attempting to register with best connections who cut the chat/paperwork short upon me asking a few revenue questions about my responsibility towards taxes/NIC and said they would be in touch. As you know when i went to chase it up for work on a later date, they said they lost the paperwork and upon a calm discussion about them obviously breaching the DPA as a result, they got flustered and threatened me with the police if i didn’t leave.

      Dispatches even twigged to it as far back as 2014 and kept chasing it into 2015 yet government sat idol while IDS boasted how the welfare reform was getting people into work faster,staying in work longer and the unemployment total was dropping.

      Now monies tight however, welfare benefits left with little to cut especially in the light of the tax credit backlash, concentrix scandal and other matters under the welfare spotlight both MPs and public alike are bringing into the fold, it appears government are turning to the shady practices of primarily recruitment agencies and the ever growing chorus of employers offering 20 hour weeks. Being self employed allows that 20 hours to be stretched in terms of tax avoidance and NIC payments.

      doug

      February 14, 2017 at 10:22 am

  61. Suspect a drop in recruitment agencies and work management companies numbers.

    Ive mentioned a few times here about new and shady recruitment agencies popping up that despite being listed at company house, have very suspect financial accounts and practices that avoid legally tax inspection for a period of time. We also saw a growth of so called work management firms offering to increase productivity while lowering or stabilizing running costs.

    I showed not so long ago how a company can take a 37.5 hour job, split it into two 20 hour jobs, drive down completion times for tasks and effectively get 4 workers while paying little to no tax and NIC. This is the scam.

    What bothers me about Matthew Taylor’s announcement is hes being extremely tactful in his admission and instead of just coming out and saying its rife and this is where its at is almost without saying it,implying its the workers being abused that are behind it with his constant rhetoric of self employment which is code for anyone self employed with an umbrella company who to which they have to pay a fee.

    Now anyone, even those working for an agency can set themselves up as a business/sole trader yet recruitment agencies are not telling them this and actually directing them to the agencies choice of umbrella company who are all part and parcel involved in this scam. This proves along with PAYE 20 hour ZHC type contracts that the blame is squarely on businesses.

    doug

    February 14, 2017 at 10:48 am

  62. ‘Unfit’ council home payouts and legal fees hit £35m in five years

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38914352

    Now we know why there’s a reluctance for councils to chase private slumlords as it appears its like calling the kettle black.

    doug

    February 14, 2017 at 10:56 am

  63. UK inflation highest since June 2014

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38966692

    Hyperinflation is a word i hope i don’t hear in time to come.

    doug

    February 14, 2017 at 11:02 am

    • We noticed that the price of flat-screen TVs have rocketed in price. We noticed one shop that begins with a T had increased the price of a Samsung and and LG 32 inch to a whooping £300. These were being sold for under £200 a couple of months ago! And, in any case, shouldn’t TVs be going down in price, not up! They even had the cheek to say that the Samsung was £320 in Argos. If that is not Weimarer-style hyper-inflation, what is? And this is only ONE example of what is going on. Goodness knows where we will be if we see the same happening to food, and energy, well it already is, our food and energy bills are going through the roof! It is like the £ in our pocket is worth nowt!

      The Supershoppers

      February 14, 2017 at 11:52 am

      • They weren’t even £200, under £180, just been informed that a friend got the Samsung for £177 from Argos at Christmas 2015, so not far off a 100% price increase. Massive inflation as our wages/benefits remain frozen.

        The Supershoppers

        February 14, 2017 at 11:56 am

  64. To help assess that a claimant is actively seeking work you may suggest that
    they show you:

    Their not suggesting it their dictating.

    Becareful Superted don’t post to much information that could identify or be linked to yourself.

    ken

    February 14, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    • well if they dont want to look at my job search evidence then there not going to know are they pmsl.

      and yes are trying to dictate what i provide as evidence the only problem is they cant do that buy law and again braking there own rules and regs to get a sanction to work.

      they just must think ill just give up and go away well thats not going to happen there the ones that have put me in this position in the first place sending me to endless providers over the years for help back to work but all i ever got was useless bits of paper at the end off it which is no good to nobody bar the providers profit margin.

      at the end off the day i cant force employers to give me a job and all i can do is apply for as many i can find and have proof of this with my ujm account.

      if the want to keep paying providers to hide the unemployed then they should offer real world accredited courses with nvq ect so i can build up my cv.

      a 6 week course making bubble bath is not going to do it and after doing it 20 times plus wonders why i cant find employment.

      superted

      February 14, 2017 at 6:21 pm

      • Ted, thought you graduated from a provider-led course with a Certificate in “Employability Level One with Merit and Distinction” … 😉

        A Provider

        February 14, 2017 at 6:44 pm

      • NCFE LEVEL 1 CERTIFICATE IN EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS
        This qualification is suitable for learners aged pre-16 and above. This qualification aims to develop and enhance skills required for the working environment and improve learners’ confidence and communication skills in order to prepare them for employment or for a change in employment.

        fee £34
        https://www.ncfe.org.uk/qualification-search/ncfe-level-1-certificate-in-employability-skills-1792.aspx

        it would be cheaper than the providers course at £1000 pmsl 😉

        superted

        February 14, 2017 at 6:52 pm

      • How many claimants realise that these ‘providers’ are screwing a couple of grand out of the job centre for these bullshit ’employability’, employability isn’t even a word ffs, ‘cv workshops’… It would be cheaper for the jobcentre to put claimants through a medical degree!

        Gabby

        February 15, 2017 at 12:15 am

  65. There is a scene in I, Daniel Blake where Daniel is sat in a Saturday 9am start “CV Workshop” with some patronising ex-used car salesman in a cheap ill-fitting suit talking complete and utter bollocks. If you freeze-frame it to read the chalkboard it says” “Tell the truth. It’s not you life story” 😀

    Jobsseker Top Tips

    February 14, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    • As some of us in Ipswich know. THERE IS an exe car salesman working for a pprovider in This town.

      wpp victim

      February 15, 2017 at 5:12 am

  66. READ ALL ABOUT IT!

    JOBSEEKER APPLIES FOR OVER TWO THOUSAND JOBS IN A SINGLE FORTNIGHT YET IS STILL SANCTIONED!

    READ ALL ABOUT IT!, READ ALL ABOUT IT!, READ ALL ABOUT IT!…

    The Ipswich Star

    February 15, 2017 at 12:40 am

  67. Channel 4 programme shows more women are becoming homeless and being treated far worse on the streets and by councils.

    Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, Undercover: Britain’s Homeless Scandal, has put local councils to the test, after claims that they are unable to cope and are wrongly turning women away.

    What is gatekeeping?

    “Gatekeeping” refers to deliberate attempts to prevent people accessing services in a council: in the case of housing, it means taking steps so people don’t, or can’t, fill in forms requesting help and registering their homelessness. If people are told the council won’t, and can’t, help them, they will often leave without filling in any forms and do not show up on the system. The Localism Act, introduced in 2011, also applied much stricter criteria to people’s eligibility for qualifying for housing help.

    https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/feb/14/homelessness-women-disadvantaged-channel-4-councils

    news seeker

    February 15, 2017 at 5:24 am

    • Homeless women shouldn’t be treated any differently from homeless men i.e. receive preferential treatment based solely on gender. We have been bombarded with decades of “equal opportunities” (when it is advantageous to women), well, you can’t have your cardboard box and eat it. Or are we OK to step over homeless men on the way out of the opera but perish the thought of a homeless woman blocking our way?

      Sir George Young

      February 15, 2017 at 8:48 am

      • “Women should be as open to being raped or sexually abused as much as men” !

        Does not quite work that way round does it Sir George Young so it amazes me when you mention equal opportunities as a premise to justify women being homeless.
        Norfolks quite right in there’s no need for homelessness so rather than justify more or making it acceptable to accept more homeless irrespective of gender, lets keep our focus to eradicating it to the history books shall we.

        doug

        February 15, 2017 at 12:41 pm

  68. There is NO need for homelessness. There are many empty properties that landlords or owners leave empty for whatever reason. (Sometimes) The owners are abroad and are leaving these properties empty while waiting to sell (Hoping for an increase in prices when the time is right). Some properties maybe secondary homes from out of area owners. These may be visited only once or twice a year. There is something that is not well publisied called the Empty Homes Management Order. This can empower a local authority to take over these homes if the owner cannot be traced. They then use this property as social housing. Some of the monies received from rent DOES go to the owner. If the property has been empty for sometime. This differs from area to area and the owner can be found. Sometimes if they are waiting to sell. A compulsory Purchase Order is made. Problem is a lot of people in nice houses Don’t Want ex homeless near them. Its a case of Not in my backyard.

    norfolk

    February 15, 2017 at 10:53 am

  69. i signed on as normal and gave over my ws1 book and after looking at it said is all the same?

    Because it keeps asking the same thing! there’s evidence people with literacy difficulties having been issued with that booklet and will have trouble understanding it.

    These “Agreements” are confusing to some people which makes them questionable.

    If your looking for work then the claim shouldn’t be closed down.They might well be trying to force you on to Universal Credit. There were pointers to that here also even though someone might no be able claim that benefit .

    Keep everything and go straight to the appeals process.If you can take someone with you to the Jobcentre also.Many outside agencies instead of challenging Jobcentre plus this tell people to claim ESA instead.

    My advice also is to record everything it offers you a level of protection against intimidation and unsavory behavior. When incidences like this happen G4s are usually around offending staff.Its important to keep calm and think clearly.

    ken

    February 15, 2017 at 11:42 pm

    • Hope the way the booklet is worded is not what Donald Rumsfield used to call ”Double Speak”

      Philip

      February 28, 2017 at 1:22 pm

  70. SUPERTED (PART2)

    OK, so DWP are claiming ” you refused to sign the enrolment form from the provider, disbelieving you were required to sign by law”.

    Further more, “you were shown a data protection policy from the provider but did not trust your details would not be shared with a 3rd parties”.

    Lastly ” you did not have any evidence to warrant your actions in failing to participate or sign the enrolment form”.

    Now food for thought so this means DON’T ACT ON, just think about is the use of phrasing as in ” disbelieving you were required to sign by law” and “failing to participate or sign”.

    The first is a twist as any form requiring a signature often will be related to law in one form or another.
    The second with its use of “or” whether they meant it or not just separated signing from participate which it would be the case if lawful consent was required.

    SO, you need in the first instance to gain a copy of this enrolment form from the provider as evidence in your case. You also need to find out,preferably in writing but verbal will do, what this course actually offers like for example, math, english, I.T, etc. You need to know every single thing they were going to offer you right down to even an hours CV creative writing, EVERYTHING. Usually but not always they have a prepared timetable of it so you could ask if they have one first.

    Do not at this stage ask for anything else or mention anything else. ASK IN A KIND AND COURTEOUS MANNER EXPLAINING WHY YOU NEED THIS MATERIAL AND EVEN IF THEY REFUSE OR ANYTHING, REMAIN CALM AND SIMPLE THANK THEM FOR THEIR TIME. (they may well have both pieces required in PDF,DOC form). If this is the case they can email it to you for ease of purpose as im sure their busy but again don’t push,don’t insist, just ask.

    Do this and report back.

    doug

    February 22, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    • Opinions are cheap, facts are expensive. Superted has the FACTS!

      A Neil

      February 22, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    • The DWP are are usual playing with words and twisting things; they are more or less saying: “Superted refused to sign the Data Protection Act Waiver and offered no explanation for their inaction”. Like superted must have a cracking good reason for not signing away their legal rights and protections under the Data Protection Act. It is like having to provide a good reason for not ticking/unticking a ‘data sharing’ box on some form. Since when did it become the case when we have to justify exercising out legal rights and protections under the Law?

      DPA

      February 22, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    • at the end of the so called course you get a piece of paper with it saying a celebration in learning? learning what?

      and then get a photo taken of you with said piece of paper and put it on there fb page.

      the only other form i was given was the sfa contract so to get there fee, not sure they will give me one of those but will try and ask for it, got cab on Friday so see what they say.

      i was not given or shown any other document other than the sfa form.

      the company is a 3rd party so what are they saying then lol.

      the foi states under law i dont have to sign anything if i dont want to or has this changed as i dont think it has as have never been sanctioned for it b4 and when i have had a doubt never got past the DM so what has changed now?

      just seems like a stitch up job to me.

      superted

      February 22, 2017 at 5:12 pm

      • i mean what sort of useless crap is this it is no help at all to anybody i cant put that on a cv as it means nothing to any employer.

        yet are charging £1000 for it from the sfa and want me to authorise them getting it via getting me to sign the sfa contract.

        i said no it is my right under law to refuse to sign it and showed them the foi stating this is the case from the dwp.

        if i did sign it all id have to do is sit there and listen to some twat talk complete bollocks for 4hrs over 4 days.

        like i have done at every other provider over the years why i have nothing to put on a cv in the first place.

        superted

        February 22, 2017 at 5:24 pm

      • Superted

        You could try first contacting the provider by phone, save on cab fare as like i said,chances are which seems confirmed by your pictures, they could always email a copy of the blank enrolment form and timetable listing what its is your doing (what their claiming funding for, to you as they come from a computer program and will be in DOCX. , DOC or PDF format.

        doug

        February 22, 2017 at 7:12 pm

  71. i can try but tbh i doubt they will give me anything like that as i just cant go down there either as they wont let me in as they lock the main door.

    so i need a
    enrolment form
    timetable listing what its is your doing, got that above.
    sfa contract form

    would the cab have a better chance of getting these ? as i dont fancy my chances tbh.

    superted

    February 22, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    • Its all about giving you the runaround.Hoping that you simply don’t attend also.Set them up is the name of the game.

      Anyone who employs anyone should not be associated with their website or have any dealings with them.Internal recruitment is the best policy .No way should any respectable organisation be linked with that.

      ken

      February 25, 2017 at 4:32 am

  72. or if you could do me a quick template letter asking for the above that would be grate and ill send it off tonight as now got there email addr.

    superted

    February 22, 2017 at 7:39 pm

    • Superted

      If you email them despite time sent, you have no idea when their reply or make an excuse how it disappeared into spam and got automatically deleted. You’ve got to phone them in the first instance and ask to speak to someone in charge of this “its in my hands course”. When connected introduce your name first then ask to whom am i speaking to. If you have to go through a reception great as you could first state your inquiring about the course and could they state who you should speak to whose in charge as you may get their name sooner.
      Now its totally possible that the person is busy so cant speak as their away from their desk in which case if returned back to reception simply ask if this person has an email address so you can confer with them that way. You see while a generic email address cannot demonstrate evidence of effort (info@) , a personal one can (ie ian.couldon@).
      I say this as we have no way of knowing how difficult they may become towards you so need to start accruing evidence of the bat if you need say either citizens advice or your local MP to step in which no doubt you will at some point if only to approach DWP.

      Now what you seek is a copy of

      1: This enrolment form assuming the SFA funding was contained within it. If it was not then we also need the SFA funding form as well.

      The logic here is it will detail for us any areas that require legal explicit consent and or areas where agreement is necessary.

      Now i did mention a timetable of content but that was so i could see looking through SFA docs whether or not this provider was playing any games i could get them dragged out on BUT thats not really important for you so forget that part.

      Now im off for the remainder of the night as not only am i hungry but also have my websites and servers to attend to that are backed up with work so any response wont be picked up this evening. I will however check in again sometime before 12 tomorrow to see how you got on.

      doug

      February 22, 2017 at 8:48 pm

      • how do you edit a post after you wright them ? 😉

        superted

        February 23, 2017 at 12:05 am

      • Superted

        Ive started compiling data i will give you in time as and when its relevant as i will need to ask further questions as we proceed.

        I hope all is going well your end as i will at some point ask you to contact them again in connection with the form/s you have recently asked them for.

        doug

        February 23, 2017 at 11:39 am

    • Here people already on these skills conditionality programmes are being to to do 30 hours unpaid work and then told to move their classes to the evening then finding the class doesn’t run at that time.However after much arguing they finally admit there is no requirement and may related to a local newspaper report that unemployment has risen sharply in the area.

      ken

      February 26, 2017 at 12:54 pm

  73. had this today and looks like it was for not actively seeking work sanction.

    i did ring but the person i need to speak to was on a course lol was given a name but refused a email address and told to ring back tomorrow.

    superted

    February 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    • Probably the Training for Trainers to Train Trainers to Train Trainers to Train Trainers course.

      CV Workshop

      February 23, 2017 at 4:56 pm

    • Superted

      Hopefully you got to speak with this person today but if not ask reception to put you intouch with another person who can supply you a copy of enrolment and if required SFA funding form (i have found from experience they are on the same form). Its a blank form/s for tribunal purposes so they should have no issues at surrendering you these forms. We do need them as we need to see whats on them in connection with what the provider claims in their letter to you.

      ANYWAY.

      Now DWP in their letter claimed you had to sign by law yet DPA states in SCHEDULE 1 that one requirement of SCHEDULE 2 (personal data) or 3 (sensitive data) must be met in order to process based on why something is being processed. Now if you look your see only one required consent meaning had they already had the data and one of the others applied, they could continue processing said data without the need for consent to be given (remember this)

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

      (SCHEDULES are located at bottom of act)

      Now you say the form/s requested your lawful consent meaning some form of processing could not be covered via any of the other options. If this is the case then DWP cannot insist you must sign it and further to cannot threaten nor force you with a sanction to sign it or as a result of not signing it as that under law makes the legal consent null in void as it was not freely given.

      Now my concern here as i have said in the past that every time you knock DWP, they just come back stronger, wiser, is that they may be sanctioning you not on the consent part but the not filling out form part or parts of it if not entirely and why we must have a copy of that or those forms whatever the case maybe.

      We need those forms superted as i would be speculating and merely wasting time without them.

      doug

      February 24, 2017 at 12:24 pm

      • It is not just signing forms, you don’t have to fill in the ‘provider’ forms either, doug, this has already been clarified by way an FOI. And that includes ANY of the forms including “health and safety” etc That’s the problems with the DWP, the bastards keep shifting the goalposts. If they can’t get you on one thing, they will get you on another.

        DWP = SCUM!!

        February 24, 2017 at 1:13 pm

      • tried again today but the person was in a meeting and was told to ring back in 30 mins, rang back and now this person has left the building asked again for a direct email and was refused and was told i will get a call from them next week about it.

        my cab was full so have to go back next week now as there only open for 3hr.45mins and closed 1 day a week.

        superted

        February 24, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      • Don’t wait for a call next week – phone them, that’s what the CAB would do, because they would know that these give-you-the-runaround fuckers won’t phone back. But let the CAB have a go at dealing with the bastards because it kind of looks like they are just pissing you around. Total fuckers of Hell!

        CAB

        February 24, 2017 at 5:09 pm

  74. superted@ Next week they will deny they spoke to you on the phone. Taking an audio recording would put a stop to denials over the phone & they ever took place. Also I want in writing that that person was in a meeting so could not contact you.

    Stepping Razor Sound Plate System

    February 24, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    • If if you can’t evidence anything, have proof these bastards will just lie through their teeth. And if you do get them bang to rights they will just laugh, say they made a “mistake” and apologise if need be – no consequences whatsoever. They are pure, fucking evil scum.

      CAB

      February 24, 2017 at 5:14 pm

  75. Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
    can you tell me under what law the dwp can raise a sanction doubt for not signing 3rd party provider enrolment forms.

    ie
    data protection waver
    enrolment forms
    esf and sfa skills funding contracts for the providers funding

    ie
    you refused to sign the enrolment form from the provider, disbelieving you were required to sign by law.

    buy what law does this mean as this foi request states this is not the case or the law.
    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3

    also.

    you were shown the the data protection policy from the provider but did not trust that your details would not be shared with 3rd party’s.

    as above foi request, how is this the case if a provider is a 3rd party.

    and under what law under threat of a sanction doubt can either case be deemed lawful for not signing there paper work.

    as contract law states.
    A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. A legally binding contract is a voluntary agreement reached between the parties that is enforceable in law.

    so can you tell me what law states i must enter in to a contract for there funding from the skills funding agency under threat of a sanction doubt with a 3rd party private company.

    and that i also must sign a data waver under threat of a sanction doubt so the provider can process my personnel information.

    Yours faithfully

    superted

    February 24, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    • Superted

      Remember when i said every time you kick DWP in the teeth how they come back stronger and wiser ?

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/527577/pg-chapter-8.pdf

      While in the one two three sense of physical objects a provider represents a third party, sadly your personal and or sensitive data in most cases does not. You see clearly in this document that DWP remains the data controller of any personal and or sensitive data processed by contractor (provider), subcontractors and service delivery partners. This means the said data is second party data unless non approved by DWP or such not requiring approval (then consent would be required).

      I bring this up as you will note that your link for your FOI is dated Jan 2016 with the actual FOI dated Jan 2015 where as the document i have just given you is dated 06/06/2016.

      Now despite this if you still intend to fight this or at the very least investigate it you need to discern is the learners agreement just an agreement or is it a contract. Basically an agreement is a mutual understanding between parties of rights and responsibilities where as a contract creates obligations that are enforceable.

      As you can see its never as simple as wafting a DWP FOI response especially when that response predates changes in law and procedure while still conforming to law. Its a citizens duty to stay current with law which may sound harsh but is none the less very true. For instance you cant commit murder the first time and claim you didn’t no it was illegal because you didn’t know the law nor was taught it.

      Some cases are easy cut where as some not so and i feel the latter may well be the case here either if DWP and contractor have tied all their knots as so to speak and or you do not pursue it with the vigor and tenacity.

      Im not back on this site today so take the time to seriously consider carefully what i have said and produced as work you will on this and will have to console yourself with the notion that despite such an effort, you still may find no resolve.

      doug

      February 26, 2017 at 12:51 pm

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

    [DWP request email]

    Our reference: FoI 575

    Date: 27 February 2017

    Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 14 February
    2017.

    You asked:
    is it mandatory that any one sent to a 3rd party provider must sign there paper
    work ie contracts between a claimant and a 3rd party private company and
    failing to sign such paper work would result in a benefit sanction if the
    claimant is still willing to take part.
    there four is it unlawful that a jcp adviser can issue a sanction doubt for not
    signing 3rd party paper work if the claimant is still willing to take part.
    as under contract law it states any contract must be entered in to voluntary
    buy both parties and any threat of a sanction doubt or being forced to sign
    them with threats of a sanction is unlawful.

    DWP Response

    It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The
    Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public
    authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide
    that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor
    does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in
    relation to issues/policies under question.

    In cases where a customer does ask a question or makes a statement to
    which they seek a bespoke policy response rather than request recorded
    information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best
    answers the question or statement. Once the public authority has provided the
    recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it
    has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information
    provided is left to the requestor.

    There is no recorded information which provides an answer to your specific
    question. However, I can advise you that participants on mandatory provision
    such as the Work Programme are not required, as part of the provision, to
    sign any documentation. Providers cannot compel participants to sign
    documentation but in general it is sound practice to sign documents as this
    ensures activity is linked to the individual.

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

    Yours sincerely,

    DWP Central FoI Team

    superted

    February 27, 2017 at 12:25 pm

  77. Superted

    Now that’s a speedy reply.

    So there still singing from the same song sheet but do remember this is exactly what you said over the phone to the DM and he chose to ignore it and or validate your claim it would appear.

    Now i would continue to gather evidence to cement your case if i was you but ultimately its up to you to decide what to produce at the tribunal.

    doug

    February 27, 2017 at 6:00 pm

  78. i have got another 3 waiting for a reply atm rang that place again today but said will ring me tomorrow still need to get over to the cab but want to get as much as i can b4 i go over there.

    i did see this coming so fired off my missile first and adviser did not look to happy as i put in for a budgeting loan and got the full amount 😉

    superted

    February 27, 2017 at 6:04 pm

  79. doug

    could you do me a foi request as you can word it all better than i can and ask all the right questions and ill send it off in my name and will post it here when i get a reply.

    if you post it on here i can copy and paste it if you have the time 😉

    superted

    February 27, 2017 at 9:31 pm

    • Superted

      Im afraid im to busy to supply that depth of service like CAB do. I run multiple websites covering different subjects not mention have to work or look for work. I also study a lot of subjects, help people in all manner of things both online and in the real world and tutor people or parents kids.

      I advise you to quiet the mind and focus on purely what it is you need. Right them down as bullet points in the first instance.

      Now skills conditionality courses are designed to address an individuals barrier/s into work like english as one example. In order to know if you qualify for said course DWP must carryout skills screening and record it on the LMS. Where that skills need is unclear DWP must send you to a face to face interview to be further assessed like next step, national careers service etc.

      Now if you are assessed as needing SC, then your mandated to attend the directed provider (the place you were recently sent to last year). The provider must then assess the claimants requirements and decide if a fully funded place on a suitable course is available (this must be done prior to enrolment).

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533870/SFA_common_and_performance_management_funding_rules_2016_to_2017_V3.pdf

      1: Is there a record of DWP carrying out a skills screening on the LMS or a record of you attending where unclear a face to face interview with the likes of next step for example. If either took place what does the LMS state your need is ?

      Go ask your work coach to look on the LMS to answer this question. If for whatever reason they refuse simply hand in a subject access request

      https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/principle-6-rights/subject-access-request/

      Go check this out WHILE as the clocks ticking you contact SFA to ask them is the learners agreement a contract (ie obligations that are enforceable) or an agreement of mutual understanding between parties of rights and responsibilities (not legally enforceable and without obligation). ALSO ask SFA are they a service delivery partner of DWPS skills conditionailty courses scheme or is it purely a contract arrangement with the contractor with DWP not included.

      Also while doing all that state to this provider as they did invite you to reapply, that you are considering this but first must ask under the DPA for a full written list of third parties they intend to share you data with. DO NOT TAKE THIS ON VERBAL SAY SO, your entitled under the DPA to full disclosure of how your personal and or sensitive data is processed (sharing such data with third parties is considered processing).

      Obtain all that and then come back here and we can see what you have and whether or not there’s a case to answer to.

      PS: If you wish to re engage with the recent FOI then as under such as work programme, does this include skills conditionailty courses and voluntary work and include the data that DWP supply to said providers that the provider may wish to confirm as correct and upto date by way of a signed declaration.

      doug

      February 28, 2017 at 12:16 pm

      • How can they be enforceable if someone hasn’t signed? How can someone be mandated to something if a signature is required?

        This doesn’t add up to me.People referred onto these programs sometimes have limit understanding of whats being proposed a “Just Sign Here”. While there’s much about Skills Conditionality on the web much of it relates to perhaps unsurprisingly sanctions and DWP correspondence rather then overall achievements into employment.

        ken

        February 28, 2017 at 1:57 pm

      • CORRECTION

        PS: If you wish to re engage with the recent FOI then as under such as work programme, does this include skills conditionailty courses and voluntary work and does this include signed declarations a provider may need to obtain as a result of the data DWP supply to said providers that the provider may wish to confirm as correct and upto date for whatever purpose.

        doug

        February 28, 2017 at 2:06 pm

      • Ken

        Youve misunderstood what i said. If you trace my earlier post i explained to superted that not all agreements are contracts and the way to separate the two is a agreement that constitutes as a contract places obligations and is enforceable on you where as a non contractual agreement does not.

        In the case of an agreement that forms a contract legal consent is required by law to make it lawful. For legal consent to be lawful it must be willingly given and cannot be gained by force,threat or deception meaning if it is gained by any or all of the three mentioned methods that it by law becomes null and void and thus unactionable in its purpose.

        So to answer your question there only enforceable after you sign lawful consent, DWP mandate claimants but never mention where lawful consent is required that they cant actually mandate you to sign a contract as it negates the law to do so.

        Its funny you say much about SC relates to sanctions as if you look at all DWPs stuff, they always seem to spend more time and ink or LED on covering sanction procedure than they do anything else.

        Anyway i hope that clears it up for you.

        doug

        February 28, 2017 at 3:08 pm

      • doug i have been to the same thing over the years over 25 times over and over again like all my details are wiped when i go to the next adviser and it all starts again.

        i must have 10 different job seekers directions for the same thing over and over again just with different advisers.

        its a total joke tbh.

        superted

        February 28, 2017 at 7:19 pm

      • superted

        The Jobcentre are notorious for not keeping client’s data. I made a complaint about my roach by email. When I made a subject access request for all the data they held on me, guess what? Nearly zilch. And no record of my complaint, either. Funny though, they sent me the attachments that I sent with the email. All attempts to get them to acknowledge they have a record of this email have hit a brick wall.

        I’ve also had two jobseeker directions as well. No record of them either.

        Incidentally, you should have a dedicated roach. Sounds like they’re deliberately messing with your head by making you see a different adviser every time you go in.

        jj joop

        February 28, 2017 at 8:08 pm

      • it is funny how they keep asking for all this information over and over again yet when you ask what they have on you comes back with nothing at all.

        i mean if this is the case why uc will never work at all as you got one putting it on the system and another removing it.

        like pre esa where has all my sanction doubts gone?

        where have all my cvs gone over the years i even have in writing a direction from a adviser demanding it in writing.

        and i gave it to them, then i think 12 weeks later get another adviser demanding the same thing calling me a liar to my face that i never gave it in?

        even asked the adviser that i gave it to a said i never gave it to them.

        so why was i not sanctioned then?

        and why do i have a photo of it on my phone pmsl.

        o yes i can now see it on the system you gave it to the adviser.

        so where is it then was it not scanned on to the system or filed in to the bin like all the others.

        they even send me on skills conditionality to get a cv done and then get another adviser and says its not good enough and send me on it again.

        the last time they wanted access to my ujm account to do a cv and point blank refused and never liked that and tried to sanction me for it.

        i filled in the form and never heard of it again no letters nothing and that was in the jcp with a provider and i also signed nothing.

        superted

        February 28, 2017 at 9:26 pm

      • Superted

        If your going to tribunal then you need all the evidence you can get to find error on the part of DWP.

        Jobseekers directions to skills conditionaility courses prove nothing so forget about them. In regards to previous courses that duplicate what your being offered recently, the evidence must come from you personally like awards,certificates from past providers displaying said skills, math and english test and result papers,etc, all of which must display the past provider who gave you them.

        As regards your recent SC, DWP must have on record a skills screening having been carried out be it by themselves, the national career service or even the provider your sent to. If carried out by the provider your sent to then they prior to enrolment must carryout this assessment. If this is not carried out then DWP cannot prove you have a skills need. Clearly you were sent to the provider with the intent you would be enrolled so wheres the evidence to substantiate the skills need ?

        No identified and recorded skills need, no enrolment, are you getting me yet superted as im getting tired of repeating myself and trust me when a say a tribunal will be far less patient in such an instance.

        If DWP have deleted said record then that’s their problem and your reward so all you need to do is get DWP to officially in writing declare they have no such record on file as being carried out.

        If the do have a record, get a copy of so you and i can see your skills need and see where we can go with it if required or possible.

        SFA funding does not cover prior assessment/skills screening or the physical act of filling out and taking part in an enrolment process, It only covers the learners from the date they actually start being taught.

        doug

        March 1, 2017 at 10:31 am

      • ffs doug Who keeps their “Certificate of Employability Awarded with Meritorious Distinction and Achievement” and all that shit – they go straight in the bin. Who need all that clutter. And it is not like a ‘provider’ is going to issue a new “Certificate”. Of course you could run up these “Certificates” yourself if you have access to computer, printer, coloured paper, and a laminator to add the final touch.

        ParchK

        March 1, 2017 at 10:42 am

      • ParchK

        I keep all my correspondence, employability course certificates and so on in an a4 box file. I also record all my signings and JCP interviews as well. I would urge a every one to the same, where possible.

        jj joop

        March 1, 2017 at 10:53 am

      • Yup! Always a good idea to retain all the ‘work programme’ bumf for at least a couple of years after you have left it in case a sanction for ‘failed to attend’ or some shit comes flying in the door. The DWP like to wait until you have disposed of your ‘evidence’ 😉

        The Collectors

        March 1, 2017 at 6:47 pm

  80. lets see if anyone can spot the difference.

    superted

    February 27, 2017 at 9:55 pm

  81. On And Off Topic I recently submitted a FOIR both to the DWP @ Caxton House and Royal Mail HQ to as why our letters to the DWP go to Wolverhampton, why they use a generic postcode, and why is the location actually an industrial estate in TELFORD – SHROPSHIRE! The site is infact owned or leased by Royal Mail as all buildings on site are Royal Mail (I did NOT tell them that bit though) I received no reply whatsoever from DWP or Royal Mail. Have a look at the post code on Streetview. Look for Trafford Park TELFORD then enter the post code.

    Philip

    February 28, 2017 at 1:19 pm

  82. The Jobcentre are notorious for not keeping client’s data. I made a complaint about my roach by email. When I made a subject access request for all the data they held on me, guess what? Nearly zilch. And no record of my complaint, either. Funny though, they sent me the attachments that I sent with the email. All attempts to get them to acknowledge they have a record of this email have hit a brick wall.

    JJ there is no effective complaints procedure any complaint in writing is simply ignored.What is replied to is complete gibberish and a culture of stone wall exists.Its advisable to keep all correspondence and other gathered information.

    Whats happening in that department currently suggests panic stations.

    The Skills Conditionality enrollment form is from the provider simply contains someones name and address,if they have a disability,do they require leaning support? the fee details any previous qualifications,what benefits are entitled and finally a declaration of learning agreement.The contract is between the provider and the DWP.

    As Doug mentions Now skills conditionality courses are designed to address an individuals barrier/s into work like English as one example.The problem here is while education is a very important step the assessment focuses on what someone can do.What they can’t is simply ignored leaving the individual pulling their hair out as that’s what went wrong with so many interviews/jobs over the years.A number of employers specify or look for level 1 English and Maths.If someone falls below a certain level they are are likely to have problems in a job,possibly a disability hence may need to be moved to another role or adjustments/support made or is sadly the case in many cases returned to the benefits system.

    When attending these courses someone is seen as looking for work and they have to pay people and counts towards those steps.

    Superted is right to have concerns about third parties,while attendance is reported so also is improvements to skills.The danger here is that someones opinion becomes involved not the true circumstances and in this case only comes to light before a tribunal.Someone doesn’t know whats been said behind their back.You need to get those sanctions overturned.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/skills-funding-agency

    ken

    March 1, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    • i got a call from the provider today and have to go pick up what is is there giving me from reception so will just see what it says when i can get over there and get them and take it from there.

      tho i should not have put in my MR so fast as now have just 3 weeks to get all the info i will need.

      superted

      March 1, 2017 at 5:07 pm

      • Nice one top one as then we can see what they need a signature for. I take it there giving you copies ?

        It worth if there local to pop into DWP to get what they have on your file for the skills screening as in whats you skills need. The more we can cover simultaneously the more we can cover in these 3 weeks.
        If DWP say they have nothing on it then ask for confirmation of this in writing and like i said prepare a subject access request incase they refuse to supply evidence of this.

        In the mean time to cover bases did you either while attending the provider last year or a time prior to this attend the provider or any other provider like say the national careers service for example to be assessed for a skills need. I say this as DWP may suggest this was the duty of the provider they sent you to in which case if the provider didn’t then this enrolling you is under false pretenses prior to any assessment being carried out and recorded. Based on what you find we can then look to proceed.

        SFA email – info@sfa.bis.gov.uk

        SFA phone – 0345 377 5000

        This is so you can ask is the learners agreement a contract ( as in your obligated and its enforceable) or just an agreement of rights and responsibilities and self declaration as in confirming personal details. If its NOT a contract ask if your legally obliged to sign it if you don’t want to/ feel you don’t lack those skills that are not a national qualification level but a notional (that’s not a misspell) level. LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY IF SPEAKING OVER THE PHONE and right down their replies accurately.

        I will leave it at that for now.

        doug

        March 1, 2017 at 11:43 pm

  83. http://www.gavca.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/GEM-Newsletter-January-2016.pdf

    http://www.grcc.org.uk/Vacancies/grcc-job-opportunity-navigator-developer-gem.pdf

    this just looks like a near copy of the work programme same old shit just with a different name and no help bar there prophet yet again.

    tho this time said they wanted to meet in the local community centre and that is a new one.

    so lets start at level 1 then.

    http://www.gloscol.ac.uk/courses-and-departments/course-details/IT2581/computing/?BackToSearchURL=%2fsearch%2f%3frestore%3dtrue

    superted

    March 6, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    • superted

      Hooking up with you in the local community centre lends a touchy-feely aspect to it. You know, like: we’re your friends superted, we’re all in this together man, we want to help you, etc. I bet they’ll want to hug you when you come in and they’ll tell you they feel your pain.

      What a load of old bollocks. I’ll give them local community centre – WTF!

      jj joop

      March 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm

      • get this they wanted for me to bring my passport and birth cert and then asked why they wanted this and then all i got was a letter with my name on it from the jcp will be fine.

        from the looks of there funding this has to be voluntary so thats not going to happen pmsl i mean are these ppl for real they help no body bar them self.

        3.2 million to help 1000 ppl in to work ? so lets see if they will stump up the £1700 for the it coarse at the collage.

        NOPE.

        superted

        March 6, 2017 at 4:05 pm

  84. it is run buy this place
    http://www.prospect-training.org.uk/home

    and been there loads of times, last time they booked a room at the collage for a back to work course and a guaranteed job interview at a local service station.

    and did i get a interview nope, as i was asked to leave as it was not suitable for me as i was the only one there that could speak English.

    to bad i kept the paper work 😉

    superted

    March 6, 2017 at 4:15 pm

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

    [DWP request email]

    Our reference: FoI 577

    Date: 6 March 2017

    Dear Mr ted

    Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 13 February
    2017. You asked:

    Can a Work Coach demand i present my work search evidence in a pacific
    way that they demand it in, ie web sites that the jobs was found on and failing
    to right this information in the my work plan book ws1 will result in a benefit
    sanction even tho i have met the required jobs to apply for in the claimant
    commitment, just not have listed the web sites the jobs was applied on in my
    work plan ws1 booklet.

    as my adviser is now demanding this yet have not had a problem with any
    other adviser in the last year.

    my claimant commitment states.

    use job sites and employer websites to find and apply for jobs i can do.

    it does not state that i have to provide every web site i use to look for work
    and give it to them in writing each time i sign on.

    the work coach also now says not to use the ujm web site which has jobs from
    sites all over the internet job recruitment sites anyway and has cost the dwp
    millions of pounds to create.

    as a result of not providing the other web sites i use on my work search
    activity ws1 other than the ujm site i have now got a sanction for this even tho
    i have applied for 25 jobs a week on the ujm web site and have done so for
    the last year with no problems from the 7 other work coaches i have had at
    this office.

    Before I reply to your requests it may be helpful if I explain the role of the
    Freedom of Information Act. The Act provides a right of access to recorded
    information held by a public authority like DWP (subject to certain
    exemptions). The Act does not provide that a public authority must create new
    information to answer questions; nor does it provide that a public authority
    give advice, opinion or explanation in relation to issues/policies under
    question.

    In cases where a customer does ask a question, rather than request recorded
    information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best
    answers the question. Once the public authority has provided the recorded
    information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it has met
    its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information provided is left
    to the requestor.

    We have understood your requests to relate to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
    claimants to whom the Jobseekers Act 1995 and Jobseeker’s Allowance
    Regulations 1996 apply. The recorded information which best answers your
    questions can be found in an extract from Chapter 03 of the Universal
    Jobmatch Toolkit which has been copied below – paragraphs 82 to 94 explain
    how Jobcentre Plus staff may review the jobsearch activity of a JSA claimant:

    Actively Seeking Employment

    82. You cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of
    their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this – it is not
    therefore possible to require JSA claimants to give DWP access to their
    Universal Jobmatch account.
    83. You will continue to review jobsearch activity and record the outcome on
    LMS in the usual way for JSA claimants and look at all the evidence provided
    by claimants to determine if there is an ASE doubt. This may be in various
    forms and these are explained in the Labour Market Conditions Guide.
    84. However, Universal Jobmatch will be a key tool you can use in
    appropriate cases to review whether a claimant has taken all reasonable
    steps to have the best prospects of finding work.
    85. How you review jobsearch activity will depend on whether the claimant is
    using Universal Jobmatch and if so, has given DWP access to their account.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant using Universal Jobmatch (DWP
    has access to their account)

    86. You will look at any number or all of the following screens/pages from the
    claimant’s Universal Jobmatch account:
     Activity History.
     Application History.
     Alerts.
     Messages.
     Saved Jobs.
     Recommended Jobs.
     Saved Searches.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant using Universal Jobmatch (No
    DWP access to their account)

    87. To help assess that a claimant is actively seeking work you may suggest
    that they show you:
     prints of any number or all of the screens/pages detailed in paragraph 86
    from their Universal Jobmatch account. However, this will not be possible

    for claimants who do not have access to a printer or cannot afford to print
    out copies of these pages; or
     any number or all of the screens/pages detailed in paragraph 86 from their
    Universal Jobmatch account if they have access to the internet on a
    smartphone.
    88. If it is not possible for the claimant to do any of the above, or the claimant
    does not wish to accept cookies and so needs to use a DWP Customer
    Computer, advise the claimant that they can login to their UJ account and
    print off copies of the relevant screens/pages from an available DWP
    Customer Computer in your office.
    89. However, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence of their
    jobsearch activity (by whatever means they choose).
    90. Therefore if a claimant does not wish to do this, you will need to base your
    assessment on the evidence they have provided. 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.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant not using Universal Jobmatch
    91.In cases where a claimant is not using Universal Jobmatch, they will show
    the steps they can be reasonably expected to take to actively seek work that
    can give them the best prospects of employment, through other means.
    92.In these cases, you will review a claimant’s jobsearch activity using the
    evidence they provide as described in paragraph 83.

    Referral to a Decision Maker required
    93.Any doubts identified as a result of the evidence provided (however
    presented) will need to be referred to a Decision Maker in the usual way.
    Action required by Decision Maker
    94.You will make your decision in the usual way.

    In addition to this I have also provided extracts of guidance from Chapters 04
    and 05 of the Labour Market Instructions used by Work Coaches which helps
    to explain that the more information a claimant can provide about their work
    search the less likely their will be a doubt about whether they have met their
    Actively Seeking Employment requirements or not.

    Chapter 04 – My Work Plan Booklet
    The My Work Plan Booklet
    4. The expectation is that the Jobcentre will work with claimants to actively
    use the My Work Plan booklet. The claimant should be actively encouraged to
    use their My Work Plan booklet to record their plans as it will help them to
    better plan, manage and review their work search activity. It will also provide a
    strong basis upon which it can be determined whether the claimant is meeting
    their requirements for actively seeking work, and make it easy for the claimant
    to provide evidence that they are undertaking reasonable steps to secure
    employment.

    5. It is not mandatory for claimants to use the My Work Plan booklet, however
    Work Coaches must issue them with the booklet as it contains important
    information about sanctions and appointment times as well as useful
    information on how to plan.
    6. There may be times when the claimant has recorded their activities to the
    same standard in a different format. In cases like these, the coach should
    then encourage the claimant to revert to use of the My Work Plan booklet.
    However, this booklet is not a mandatory product for demonstrating evidence
    of work search and claimants have the right to demonstrate what they have
    done to look for work through whichever means they deem suitable and most
    effective.
    7. For example, the claimant may prefer to use Universal Jobmatch to record
    their activities and their plans for what they will do to look for work or may
    bring in a CV that they have developed to demonstrate that they have
    undertaken this activity. Claimants can use their Universal Jobmatch account
    to show details of:
     saved jobs
     saved searches
     CVs created and saved
     application history, and
     activity history.
    Chapter 05 – Work Search Reviews
    Considering whether the level of activity is enough to meet the ASE
    condition
    60. The more information a claimant can provide about their work search
    activities, the less doubt there is to if they have met the requirements under
    Actively Seeking Employment.
    61. To avoid any doubts, claimants need to understand:
     what we expect of them
     what information we are looking for
     the kind of examples they can use to provide it
     what will happen to them if they don’t meet the conditions for Actively
    Seeking Employment? That is, that their benefit will stop and they will
    no longer qualify for Jobseeker’s Allowance and that if they make a
    new claim after such a failure, they may not receive their benefit for up
    to 4 weeks or 13 weeks if they’ve previously had an intermediate
    sanction within a 52 week period.
    I have also included below, an extract from the Labour Market Conditions
    Guide which says:

    The evidence of jobsearch produced when they attend to have their regular
    reviews may be in various forms:
     information they have provided from their Universal Jobmatch account;
     evidence in writing from employers, employment agencies, or other
    organisations which they have contacted;
     copies of letters they have sent to employers;
     the claimant’s un-corroborated written evidence, for example an ES4;
     the claimant’s verbal evidence
     evidence from previous Jobsearch Reviews recorded on LMS.

    This is supported by:
    Section 8(1),(b) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 which says:
     Regulations may make provision for requiring a claimant [(other than a
    joint-claim couple claiming a joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance)] to
    provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to his
    circumstances, his availability for employment and the extent to which
    he is actively seeking employment.; and
    Regulation 24(1) of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 which
    says:
     A claimant shall provide such information as to his circumstances, his
    availability for employment and the extent to which he is actively
    seeking employment as may be required by the Secretary of State in
    order to determine the entitlement of the claimant to a jobseeker’s
    allowance, whether that allowance is payable to him and, if so, in what
    amount.

    The Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996
    are available via the DWP Website at the following internet addresses,
    respectively:
    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a11-0101.pdf

    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a11-4001.pdf

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

    Yours sincerely,

    DWP Central FoI Team

    superted

    March 6, 2017 at 8:19 pm

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

    [DWP request email]

    Our reference: FoI 579

    Date: 6 March 2017

    Dear Mr ted,

    Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 13 February.

    You asked:

    “1 is it mandatory that a work coach can ask to retain a paper copy of my cv
    under threat of sanction if i dont give it to them.

    2 is a screen shot of a cv on my smart phone evidence enough that i have a
    cv and proof of this via a screen shot is enough evidence to present a work
    coach that this has taken place via a job seekers direction.

    3 can a sanction doubt be raised if i dont give a cv in paper format to a work
    coach”.

    Response:

    Whilst Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants cannot be mandated to present a CV
    at the jobcentre, they can be mandated to obtain a CV by issue of a
    Jobseeker’s Direction, as a means of improving their chances of finding
    employment.

    The use of Jobseeker’s Direction are supported by Section 19A of the
    Jobseekers Act 1995, which can be found at the following internet address,
    via the DWP Website:
    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a11-0101.pdf

    The issue of a Jobseeker’s Direction for this reason is supported in
    instructions, which are attached separately in Annex 1.

    Legislation does not make reference to whether claimants can be mandated
    to provide a copy of their CV to the jobcentre or whether the jobcentre may
    keep a copy of a claimant’s CV. However, they are required to provide
    evidence of having undertaken the activity required of them. How a claimant
    provides this evidence is up to them. However, a Work Coach has to be
    satisfied that the evidence provided clearly demonstrates that the claimant
    has complied with the Jobseeker’s Direction.

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

    Yours sincerely,

    DWP Central FoI Team

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/389599/response/947907/attach/html/4/4c.Annex%201%20Jobseeker%20s%20Directions.pdf.html

    superted

    March 6, 2017 at 8:21 pm

  87. superted

    March 6, 2017 at 9:48 pm

  88. They don’t have any entitlement to that CV.there’s a comment here about that.

    This becomes very important if the CV contains information about the person’s health or disability that the JCP staff don’t need to know about (it’s called sensitive personal data in the Data Protection Act). It’s unlawful to coerce people into disclosing this type of information so unless disclosure is prescribed in Law the JCP staff are on sticky ground.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is_providing_a_cv_to_the_jobcent

    There a lot of those dubious directions about and clearly being abused being banged down on the table first thing rather then a last resort.There no purpose to to them having a CV copy no good has ever come from it as mentioned elsewhere there is no professional recruitment support in that department.It has to be suspected they are just phishing for information or one thing leads to another to gather other contact details.what looks to be happening here is yourself being targeted multiple times to try and sanction for three years.

    If any details are on there regarding disability for example just edit it.they already know the type of work someone is looking for.

    It needs to be remembered they will try and use your own words/actions against you.

    Much more seriously is someone trying to use one of those directions for work experience.

    ken

    March 7, 2017 at 1:10 am

  89. Superted

    Just to let you know i have clocked your entries and will get around to looking at them as soon as i can get from under my workload some time today and get back to you.

    doug

    March 7, 2017 at 9:49 am

  90. superted

    March 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    • I’m as daft as a brush… does that count as as disability?

      Mad Mary

      March 7, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    • I’m as mad as a hatter 😀 … does that count as a disability? 😀

      The Mad Hatter

      March 7, 2017 at 10:14 pm

  91. it is also essential that we have this information so that we can obtain funding for these courses.

    errr not my problem. and i can not be forced to sign that form under any law. like the foi states.

    the information you provide may be shared with other organisations for education training employment and well being related purposes, including research.

    so they will share my information with 3rd party’s despite my sanction letter stating other wise.

    superted

    March 7, 2017 at 2:27 pm

  92. Superted

    Don’t forget to get the skills screening results that should be recorded on the LMS at your DWP.

    With regards to any previous courses (covering same subjects) you were mandated to prior to this one recently that you took part in and completed that you have nothing yes ?

    Lastly i take it other than the supplied SFA form the provider gave you, no other forms besides what you posted exist and required a signature also ?

    doug

    March 7, 2017 at 8:59 pm

  93. i have the letters sending me here and there but i never had to do any off it as i refused to sign there paper work so was asked to leave and then got a sanction for non attendance.

    tho all these seem to vanish from the system.

    i won them all until this one, and have never failed to look for work until this adviser said it was not good enough, but if you see my ws1 book they signed it off for the 2 weeks it was not good enough?

    i was given no other paper work bar that to sign, and i had to sign in at the front desk and sign out thats it.

    superted

    March 7, 2017 at 9:22 pm

    • Superted

      Ok, so we have no proof of your prior attending and gaining a qualification/award, not a problem.

      Moving on as im sure it has you, ive been puzzled what DWP in the RM results meant when they said ” disbelieving you were required to sign by law”. You can call it an affirmation,affidavit or contract but the whole point of a signature is to demonstrate willingness without coercion.

      So what i feel is DWP think and intend to show their law (welfare based and may well have your consent in part) is what you broke rather than why or more importantly the facts behind this affair. Whats very much on trial here and im sure DWP will do their upmost to avoid it is what constitutes as participation/taking part.

      Now if you go get those skill screening results off the LMS like i asked you to we will have a more clear picture on precisely how to proceed as the clock is ticking here.

      doug

      March 8, 2017 at 11:22 am

      • ” disbelieving you were required to sign by law” – that is one weird statement.

        Is it meant to give the impression that ted was required to sign by LAW?

        “disbelieve” just means that you have no belief in something, “ted disbelieves in Father Christmas”, “Ted disbelieves in fairies at the bottom of the garden”. For all we know Father Christmas is real, and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

        Now if the DWP had written “disbelieve”, disbelieve: to believe wrongly; hold an erroneous belief it would put a whole different spin on things, then that would be saying that ted was required to sign/fill in these forms by LAW.

        You are reading “disbelieve” as “misbelieve” 😉 Surprised you haven’t picked up on that, doug.

        Lexy Con

        March 8, 2017 at 2:03 pm

      • No where have the DWP stated that ted is required to sign/fill in these forms by LAW. It is NOT what is says – you are reading it all wrong. Ted disbelieves NOT misbelieves. DWP playing with words as usual to create a false impression.

        Lexy Con

        March 8, 2017 at 2:08 pm

      • *Correction: Now if the DWP had written “misbelieve”, misbelieve: to believe wrongly; hold an erroneous belief it would put a whole different spin on things, then that would be saying that ted was required to sign/fill in these forms by LAW.

        Lexy Con

        March 8, 2017 at 2:10 pm

      • “So what i feel is DWP think and intend to show their law (welfare based and may well have your consent in part)” – this statement is totally incorrect! You have been wrong footed, and heading down the wrong track by reading disbelieve as misbelieve which is the deliberate intent of the DWP/whoever wrote this no doubt, and no doubt it appears on plenty of other mandatory reconsideration too. Crafty, but not crafty enough 😉

        Lexy Con

        March 8, 2017 at 2:14 pm

      • @doug Your are reading ” disbelieving you were required to sign by law” as “”misbelieving you weren’t required to sign by law.” It is the DWP messing with your head!

        Lexy Con

        March 8, 2017 at 2:35 pm

      • Lexy con

        i am not reading into anything as i don’t have to.

        The charge is failure to participate or sign the enrolment form.

        Do you even know why we have signatures requested on forms Lexy con ?

        Do you know how this signature has to be given or not by the person being asked to sign ?

        doug

        March 8, 2017 at 8:20 pm

      • “The charge is failure to participate or sign the enrolment form.” True, doug but the charge against you is that you appear to be under the false impression that they DWP has stated that superted had to sign the enrolment form by LAW: “Show us the LAW, DWP, show us the Goddamned LAW” because the DWP state that superted dis>believed that they were required to sign the enrolment form rather than superted believed that they had to sign the enrolment form which *would* be implying that ted held an erroneous belief i.e they were required to sign the enrolment form by LAW. Disbelieving is not saying whether the belief held is true or false but misbelieve is.

        Thessy Saurus

        March 8, 2017 at 8:47 pm

      • “The charge is failure to participate or sign the enrolment form.” True, doug but the charge against you is that you appear to be under the false impression that they DWP has stated that superted had to sign the enrolment form by LAW: “Show us the LAW, DWP, show us the Goddamned LAW” because the DWP state that superted dis/i>believed that they were required to sign the enrolment form rather than superted miselieved that they had to sign the enrolment form which *would* be implying that ted held an erroneous belief i.e they were required to sign the enrolment form by LAW. Disbelieving is not saying whether the belief held is true or false but misbelieve is.

        Thessy Saurus

        March 8, 2017 at 8:50 pm

      • “ive [sic] been puzzled what DWP in the RM results meant when they said ” disbelieving you were required to sign by law”.” – well, now you know 😉

        Thessy Saurus

        March 8, 2017 at 8:54 pm

      • And according to your posts there was no requirement to sign the enrolment forms by law, so superted’s belief is borne out as true. So, that effectively squashes that statement of the DWP – totally meaningless.

        Thessy Saurus

        March 8, 2017 at 8:58 pm

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

        [DWP request email]

        Our reference: FoI 575

        Date: 27 February 2017

        Dear Mr ted

        Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 14 February
        2017.

        You asked:
        is it mandatory that any one sent to a 3rd party provider must sign there paper
        work ie contracts between a claimant and a 3rd party private company and
        failing to sign such paper work would result in a benefit sanction if the
        claimant is still willing to take part.
        there four is it unlawful that a jcp adviser can issue a sanction doubt for not
        signing 3rd party paper work if the claimant is still willing to take part.
        as under contract law it states any contract must be entered in to voluntary
        buy both parties and any threat of a sanction doubt or being forced to sign
        them with threats of a sanction is unlawful.

        DWP Response

        It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The
        Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public
        authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide
        that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor
        does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in
        relation to issues/policies under question.

        In cases where a customer does ask a question or makes a statement to
        which they seek a bespoke policy response rather than request recorded
        information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best
        answers the question or statement. Once the public authority has provided the
        recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it
        has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information
        provided is left to the requestor.

        There is no recorded information which provides an answer to your specific
        question. However, I can advise you that participants on mandatory provision
        such as the Work Programme are not required, as part of the provision, to
        sign any documentation. Providers cannot compel participants to sign
        documentation but in general it is sound practice to sign documents as this
        ensures activity is linked to the individual.

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

        Yours sincerely,

        DWP Central FoI Team

        superted

        March 8, 2017 at 10:21 pm

      • Thessy Saurus

        i am not reading into anything as i don’t have to.

        Further more i did and you cant say you haven’t read my post state, “what DWP in the RM results meant when they said ” disbelieving you were required to sign by law”. At no point did i attempt to interpret it but instead swiftly moved the point of why people seek signatures followed by what i suspect DWP may try argue at tribunal.

        Its very troubling that you can claim to analyze a sentence construct and context yet completely fail to apply it in the right circumstance.

        This is now further cemented as the case courtesy of superted entering new evidence to collaborate the point.

        doug

        March 9, 2017 at 9:59 am

  94. There is nothing on that agreement that mentions anything about having to sign or the consequences for not doing so.

    The learning programme is suitable for my needs

    I fully understand the implications of my choice of programme and understand the entry requirements?

    The problem is often it lacks to fulfill them.Its not taking into account of someones ability.jobcentre staff are not qualified in someones condition and the assessment at the providers ignores subjects which someone has no chance.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/151317/response/372529/attach/html/5/guidance.pdf.html

    ken

    March 8, 2017 at 1:05 pm

  95. this is the first letter i was given but buy a different adviser than i have now.

    doug i will ask what they have on the lms next week but i cant see anything being there as i already have another place on my back to go there for more of the same imo, gem project run buy http://www.prospect-training.org.uk/youth-training

    they even offers to meet me in the community centre and that is a new one but from the phone call i had from them this has to be voluntary like work experience as i can not be forced to do it.

    yet on the other hand i am being sanctioned for not signing a enrolment form at the other place and the FOI states i dont have to sign anything and it is even now in my name above.

    as far as i am concerned that form was a contract to get there sfa fee of £1000 as they are not funded buy the dwp and as a result have cost them money. and that has nothing to do with me like you said.

    like how does not signing that form count as being not allowed to stay and do it under health and safety grounds it says nothing about this on that form so why was i asked to leave with it in writing that is why i was asked to leave on the 2nd day? as i did sign in at the front desk and sign out.

    it says i was required buy law to sign the enrolment form? what law? foi states i dont have to sign anything.

    and the same day i get a sanction for that i get another for not ase? when i have never had a problem with my work search log in a decade.

    i have 2 weeks left to put in a mr for the ase should i send it off as far as i can see there dictating how i provide my work search.

    on ujm i have jobs i have applied for going back to aug last year and my ws1 book that proves this and the foi states this.
    Actively Seeking Employment

    82. You cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of
    their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this – it is not
    therefore possible to require JSA claimants to give DWP access to their
    Universal Jobmatch account.
    83. You will continue to review jobsearch activity and record the outcome on
    LMS in the usual way for JSA claimants and look at all the evidence provided
    by claimants to determine if there is an ASE doubt. This may be in various
    forms and these are explained in the Labour Market Conditions Guide.
    84. However, Universal Jobmatch will be a key tool you can use in
    appropriate cases to review whether a claimant has taken all reasonable
    steps to have the best prospects of finding work.
    85. How you review jobsearch activity will depend on whether the claimant is
    using Universal Jobmatch and if so, has given DWP access to their account.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant using Universal Jobmatch (DWP
    has access to their account)

    86. You will look at any number or all of the following screens/pages from the
    claimant’s Universal Jobmatch account:
     Activity History.
     Application History.
     Alerts.
     Messages.
     Saved Jobs.
     Recommended Jobs.
     Saved Searches.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant using Universal Jobmatch (No
    DWP access to their account)

    87. To help assess that a claimant is actively seeking work you may suggest
    that they show you:
     prints of any number or all of the screens/pages detailed in paragraph 86
    from their Universal Jobmatch account. However, this will not be possible

    for claimants who do not have access to a printer or cannot afford to print
    out copies of these pages; or
     any number or all of the screens/pages detailed in paragraph 86 from their
    Universal Jobmatch account if they have access to the internet on a
    smartphone.
    88. If it is not possible for the claimant to do any of the above, or the claimant
    does not wish to accept cookies and so needs to use a DWP Customer
    Computer, advise the claimant that they can login to their UJ account and
    print off copies of the relevant screens/pages from an available DWP
    Customer Computer in your office.
    89. However, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence of their
    jobsearch activity (by whatever means they choose).
    90. Therefore if a claimant does not wish to do this, you will need to base your
    assessment on the evidence they have provided. 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.

    Reviewing jobsearch activity – claimant not using Universal Jobmatch
    91.In cases where a claimant is not using Universal Jobmatch, they will show
    the steps they can be reasonably expected to take to actively seek work that
    can give them the best prospects of employment, through other means.
    92.In these cases, you will review a claimant’s jobsearch activity using the
    evidence they provide as described in paragraph 83.

    so there braking there own rules and regs to sanction me for that as well and i have that in my name as well.

    it just seems to me i am being targeted for a 3 year sanction and that i will just give up and sign off well its not going to happen.

    i have not signed any provider paper work since the wp so what has changed now as nothing has as far as i can see.

    why have i one all my sanction doubts until now and why was i sent on the same thing last year to get a cv done in the jcp and as they wanted access to my ujm account to do the cv i refused and said could do it in writing and refused and asked to leave.

    all i had to do is participate which i did as i turned up and one that sanction doubt as well tho that also went missing from the system and never got a letter either.

    superted

    March 8, 2017 at 11:03 pm

    • Yeah, that Sweet Fuck All place is £1000 knicker out of pocket, innit?

      Cockney Rebel

      March 9, 2017 at 9:07 am

    • Superted

      That letter states you will be initially assessed at that provider prior to training.

      So, did you prior to the enrolment form being introduced to you to sign, sit any initial assessment on that day or prior to that day but at that same provider ?

      (it can be carried out in paper form or computer)

      VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION SUPERTED.

      doug

      March 9, 2017 at 9:42 am

      • no i got that form as soon as i arrived and was told if i dont sign it i would get sanctioned so showed them the foi that states i dont have to sign anything.

        i was given the course details and told to leave and come back the next day to start the course which i did and then asked to leave again and was given that letter.

        superted

        March 9, 2017 at 9:57 am

      • Superted

        Thank you superted. So all we now need is the skills screening record off DWPs LMS and you are about ready to go to tribunal.

        doug

        March 9, 2017 at 10:12 am

      • Superted

        Sorry, should have said “and you are about ready to go to tribunal on the charge of failing to participate or sign an enrolment form.

        doug

        March 9, 2017 at 10:14 am

  96. Superted

    1: Have you been issued a mandate by DWP for this new training programme (yes or no only) ?

    In connection with the sanction for worksearch evidence save me a trip flipping back to all the above stuff and answer some simple questions.

    2: Did you get a work coach asking you one week to demonstrate the following fortnight (or week if you sign weekly) what other websites you use to look for and apply for work prior to this ase (again yes or no only) ?

    3: Regardless of yes or no, does DWP have a record of this be it on paperwork/computer record or both ?

    doug

    March 9, 2017 at 10:58 am

  97. 1 no

    2 yes

    3 no

    superted

    March 9, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    • Superted

      Stave off this new training for just a while so it does not interfere with the current case.

      If No 3 is no and your absolutely positive about that wheres this work coach that did ask you to ?

      Im off for the rest of the night but leave your answer and i will pick up on it tomorrow.

      doug

      March 9, 2017 at 7:07 pm

      • i was told to add the external web sites that i used to apply for work on the ujm web site.

        and to change it the next time i signed on, i said my js is fine as it is and i have all the employers on my ws1 and on my phone with screen shots of my ujm account with the last ten jobs for each week.

        i was given no direction to do this nor was i told a sanction would follow if i never done it.

        tho the day i got that sanction my ws1 book was not signed, tho the next time i signed on the adviser signed both pages even tho i put sanction on each page??

        should i put in a mr and see what it comes back with what i was sanctioned for as all i have is not ASE doubt.

        superted

        March 9, 2017 at 7:20 pm

      • Superted

        To save me flipping up, what is the actual charge in respect to your worksearch evidence.

        Wheres this work coach that asked you to do a change of evidence a fortnight earlier then superted, do they still work for DWP/JCP ?

        And when you say no direction or sanction, irrespective of this is what this work coach asked for a fortnight earlier recorded anywhere be it paperwork or computer recorded (is does not has to have a direction/mandate or sanction attached to it) ?

        doug

        March 10, 2017 at 9:01 am

      • as far as i can tell it is a ASE doubt.

        the adviser is the same one i have now.

        all the letter says is a doubt has been raised it says nothing as to what it was for.

        superted

        March 10, 2017 at 1:12 pm

      • superted

        March 10, 2017 at 1:19 pm

      • superted

        March 10, 2017 at 1:26 pm

      • An ASE doubt (JSA) would read: “you did not take enough steps to actively seek employment and cannot be treated as actively seeking employment”. There is not mention of actively seeking work.

        Is this this universal credit: “Whilst you are unemployed we expect you to do all you can do look for work.” bollocks?

        Shite Dee

        March 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm

      • im on jsa not uc.

        superted

        March 10, 2017 at 1:36 pm

      • Oh, it is JSA 🙂 “all that is reasonable to find work” WTF does that mean?

        Shite Dee

        March 10, 2017 at 1:37 pm

      • It that word “reasonable” again.

        What is a ‘wholly unreasonable’ or ‘clearly incorrect’ decision?
        Wholly unreasonable

        41. The position that is to be adopted is similar to that used in Judicial Review. To be regarded as wholly unreasonable, it is not sufficient for the decision to be one that another person would not have made. Nor is it sufficient for the original decision to have been wrong in law (given the complexity of the law and the degree of interpretation available to decision-makers). Instead we use Lord Diplock’s definition:

        Lord Hailsham observed:
        ‘Two reasonable persons can perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable.’

        Lord Diplock expanded on that principle by saying that to be ‘wholly unreasonable’ the decision must be:
        ‘so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.’

        Lord Diplock

        March 10, 2017 at 1:44 pm

      • Superted

        This might not be doing everything required to get JSA blar blar piece keeps making me go back to your CC.

        As the regs and guidance’s are broad where as a CC is suppose to be more specific so on that note what does your page 2 of 4 say in regards to other sites.

        doug

        March 10, 2017 at 10:43 pm

      • use job sites and employer web sites to find and apply for jobs i can do.

        superted

        March 10, 2017 at 11:00 pm

      • superted

        March 10, 2017 at 11:02 pm

      • Superted

        “use job sites and employer web sites to find and apply for jobs i can do”.

        Further down the page under other actions does it outline any actual websites like monster,jobsite,etc ?

        I say this as the generic one you stated and put on every CC does not imply what, meaning its not unreasonable to just state looked on other websites equally as generic whether or not you applied for a job on one or put it down as evidence.
        Like you said you did put down the amount of jobs they expected as a min so as long as your I WILL section explains consuming 35 hours or more importantly you can physically.

        Also adding my point about hows a link to another jobsite through UJM not the same as going to that site physically (as in typing in google) if you don’t have named jobsites on your CC only. Also don’t forget jobsites pooling other jobsites and the time management argument on an effective jobsearch in this reference.

        Oh before i forget for the hundredth time, contact this provider again and find out did they receive any medical or health data from DWP regarding you or were they expecting you to supply it ?

        doug

        March 11, 2017 at 10:03 am

      • The Claimant Commitment reads:

        “My actions for getting work

        I know I must do everything I reasonably can, each week, to give myself the best prospects of securing employment. I have discussed with my Coach the activities that I will take to seek employment and to improve my chances of finding employment and I have agreed that I will:

        “Use job sites and employer web sites to find and apply for jobs i can do”

        and then

        “Log in to my Universal Jobmatch account to find and apply for jobs I can do.”

        So, it seems you are right doug, this doubt appears to lead back to the Claimant Committent.

        Clay M Ant

        March 11, 2017 at 11:31 am

      • And if you “Log in to your Universal Jobmatch account to find and apply for jobs you can do you will “use job sites and employer web sites to find and apply for jobs you can do” by default because most of the “job” on ujm are “off-site”.

        Clay M Ant

        March 11, 2017 at 11:40 am

      • … or “external listings” 😉

        Clay M Ant

        March 11, 2017 at 11:42 am

  98. no i got that form as soon as i arrived and was told if i dont sign it i would get sanctioned

    Whoever said that should not have implied a sanction would be automatic.

    ken

    March 9, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    • i have got the same reply to near every place i get sent to over the years, a sanction is the first resort not the last.

      now it is my word against theirs tho as the fact i have been sanctioned unlawfully says it all in the hope ill give in and not bother with it.

      same with the ase doubt as the adviser never gave me any direction in writing that my job search had to change as just decided now it is not good enough and got a sanction for that.

      tho as i also had screen shots on my phone with the 10 jobs i had applied for that week and my ws1 book that is more than enough proof of applying for jobs.

      the adviser can tell me what they like on my work search it is not in there remit to decide what is and what is not good enough.

      superted

      March 9, 2017 at 7:12 pm

      • There will be a copy of the DART ASE referral form in the appeal bundle. It probably won’t even mention the stuff about not recording websites. More than likely a load of shit saying that you applied for only one job or something, not mention of any of your evidence. Also they are supposed to pull that form up in front of you when they make the ASE referral. They ask you what you did for the past fortnight and the fortnight before that. Like that has already been signed off. They just put their fingers in their ears and fill it in with any old crap.

        Flying Pigeon

        March 9, 2017 at 8:38 pm

      • And you only need to show that you are looking for work for an appeal to succeed. You have a tonne of evidence to support your case.

        Flying Pigeon

        March 9, 2017 at 8:42 pm

      • Silly nonsense that roaches come up with like recording websites is by the by, no tribunal judge is going to give a flying sausage about crap like that. As long as you can show you were ASE you will be fine.

        Flying Pigeon

        March 9, 2017 at 8:46 pm

  99. Its hard to see how someones sincerely held beliefs and legal rights to be respected are taking a different turn simply because someone is claiming benefits and portrayed as otherwise.

    ken

    March 10, 2017 at 2:59 pm

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

    [DWP request email]

    Our reference: FOI 765

    Date: 10 March 2017

    Dear Mr ted

    Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FoI) request received on 24
    February 2017, in which you asked:

    can you tell me under what law the dwp can raise a sanction doubt for not
    signing 3rd party provider enrolment forms.

    ie
    data protection waver
    enrolment forms
    esf and sfa skills funding contracts for the providers funding

    ie
    you refused to sign the enrolment form from the provider, disbelieving you
    were required to sign by law.

    buy what law does this mean as this foi request states this is not the case
    or the law.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/310933/response/760040/attac
    h/html/3/FOI%20152%20Rev.pdf.html

    also.

    you were shown the the data protection policy from the provider but did
    not trust that your details would not be shared with 3rd party’s.

    as above foi request, how is this the case if a provider is a 3rd party.

    and under what law under threat of a sanction doubt can either case be
    deemed lawful for not signing there paper work.

    as contract law states.
    A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. A legally binding
    contract is a voluntary agreement reached between the parties that is
    enforceable in law.

    so can you tell me what law states i must enter in to a contract for there
    funding from the skills funding agency under threat of a sanction doubt
    with a 3rd party private company.

    and that i also must sign a data waver under threat of a sanction doubt so
    the provider can process my personnel information.

    It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The
    Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public
    authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide
    that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor
    does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in
    relation to issues/policies under question.

    In cases where a customer does ask a question or makes a statement to
    which they seek a bespoke policy response rather than request recorded
    information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best
    answers the question or statement. Once the public authority has provided the
    recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it
    has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information
    provided is left to the requestor.

    The Department does not hold information that answers your specific
    questions. However, I can advise that within mandatory provision, such as the
    Work Programme, there are no regulations or contractual requirements that
    specify a participant must sign documents drawn up by their provider.

    Work Programme 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 Work Programme provider’s forms this does not mean that they do
    not have to participate in the programme. The Work Programme 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 us quoting the
    reference number above.

    Yours sincerely,

    superted

    March 10, 2017 at 5:11 pm

  101. However, I can advise that within mandatory provision, such as the
    Work Programme, there are no regulations or contractual requirements that
    specify a participant must sign documents drawn up by their provider.

    Why the sanction then? You didn’t decline to take part.

    Left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

    Symbolises how little thought was given to this welfare reform and the numerous other ventures such as this.

    Regulations are in place, which allow the Secretary of State to share
    information about clients in relation to employment, skills and training with
    careers advice services and skills providers, where this information is
    necessary to effectively administer their training and benefits. Only those
    items of information that are listed in the Operational data share data list can
    be exchanged without breaching the Data Protection Act 1998. Claimant
    consent is not required for this information. Please note that information on
    criminal records; health details and other sensitive personal information are
    not listed in the Operational data share data list so informed consent is still
    required to pass on this information. See Operational Data Sharing for Skills
    for further guidance.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/192184/response/473959/attach/html/3/Skills%20Conditionality%20Guidance.pdf.html

    A clear skills need which is the main barrier to the claimant from
    moving into work

    That’s not taking into account someones ability.

    ken

    March 11, 2017 at 2:01 am

  102. Further down the page under other actions does it outline any actual websites like monster,jobsite,etc ?

    no it does not say anything like that on any of the cc i have.

    Oh before i forget for the hundredth time, contact this provider again and find out did they receive any medical or health data from DWP regarding you or were they expecting you to supply it ?

    no they was not given anything like that as i guess why that it is on the enrolment form in the tick boxes.

    superted

    March 11, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    • you will “use job sites and employer web sites to find and apply for jobs you can do” like cvlibrary, reed, monster, totaljobs, jobmatcher, jobserach, oil & gas industry jobs, all which have listing on ujm and which you would already have looked at if you were using ujm as your ‘portal. The jobcentre can’t have their looking for jobs on ujm cake without eating the looking for jobs on other sites. It is well-nigh impossible to use ujm without using other sites. “other sites” are part and parcel, a very big part and parcel of ujm, in fact, ujm is predominantly ‘external listings’ As far as record-keeping goes, is run by the jobcentre and it is mandatory to use ujm; ujm is the jobcentre’s preferred job-board; all job-searching in jobcentres is through ujm, ujm takes priority; and if ujm was the source of the vacancy you would naturally record it as a ujm vacancy.

      Job Board

      March 11, 2017 at 5:18 pm

      • thats what i mean i have directions to use and apply for work on the ujm and that is the only site listed in my cc.

        now if it is the case i must now use other web sites other than ujm then why have i not been given a direction to do so because i haven’t. my adviser has just thought of some way to sanction me the only problem is it is unlawful.

        as why has my job search over near 2 full ws1 books filled with jobs each week been passed buy 6 other advisers?

        why was my cc not changed to list these sites i must now use as my cc has been the same since i can think off.

        is that not a adviser dictating how i provide my work search because that what it looks like to me.

        superted

        March 11, 2017 at 5:33 pm

      • If they wanted you to use use other jobsites, they would have to mention them specifically you know wot I mean. And they would have to book you on a separate £1000 course for each specific jobsite you know what I mean. Some of them jobsites can be tricky and confusing to use you know wot I mean. The only ‘training’ you get with the jobcentre is like on ujm you know what I mean.

        Becks

        March 11, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    • Superted

      Ok , so DWP have not given you specific directions as in to particular jobsites.
      You say they wanted you to use other jobsites (non specific) and they feel hence the doubt leading to the sanction that you did not do this.
      We know how one carries out their search and supply said evidence is the claimants to decide.

      Based on what you have supplied me you have actually fulfilled that and i will reconfirm you evidence.

      1: UJM is a jobsite hub as well as a place for specific employers of a business to advertise a vacancy as it also is for agencies. This proves beyond reasonable doubt as you were given no specific jobsites to go to that are not contained within UJM to, you would have indeed visited other jobsites.

      2: Your evidence is that you simply cant apply to a job from another jobsite you were sent to via UJM without not having to register with said jobsite first. Its irrelevant whether or not you actually applied or registered as you did go to said site and did look at vacancy.

      3: We use links as micro commands which are little program commands that minimize work that would usually be done by multiple keystrokes. So proof positive is irrespective of amount of keystrokes involved did visit another jobsite again irrespective of whether or not you applied for said vacancy or registered to said site. So not only did you visit another jobsite, you also demonstrated effectively looking for work by utilizing your time management skills by using links.

      Do you fully understand what im saying here ?

      If so then that covers the sanction regarding not going to look for work on other jobsites.

      In regards to not participating or signing an enrolment form i also have your strategy but i need you to confirm what your skills screening record on DWPs LMS states, I have a suspicion of its content or should i say lack of but rather than guess need you to find out for sure.

      doug

      March 12, 2017 at 5:29 am

      • FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL

        SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT CHAMBER

        Held at: Ipswich on 12/03/17

        Before: Doug

        DECISION NOTICE

        1) The Appeal is allowed.

        2) The decision of the Secretary of State is set aside.

        3) I am satisfied superted was actively seeking employment.

        Signed

        Judge Doug

        Tribunal Judge Doug

        March 12, 2017 at 11:05 am

  103. doug

    i asked the adviser for the skills screening results from the lms and was told there was not anything and said it is up to them what course i am sent on.

    so the skills screening has not been done.

    superted

    March 13, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    • also when i send this off to tribunal what do i need to send in with it? cant get to cab till Friday and going to buy a printer.

      superted

      March 13, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    • Superted

      Just as i thought so you can now officially tank that charge then as like i said you must be assessed for a skills need prior to any skills conditionality course. The letter you showed me from DWP mandating said attend for an initial assessment (that’s the skills screening that must be attained prior to warranting such a course). It further states your assessment is on Monday 28th November at 9:30 but you stated no assessment took place, that all they did was to shove the enrolment paper in your face.

      If you still claim this to be true naturally this provider will have no evidence of any such assessment if DWP asked provider to do one (skills screening) and as DWP have no record of it or any other one being carried out means the provider if asked to breached protocol as did DWP. This is relayed in the jobcentre plus advisory services factsheet (internal use only) on skills conditionality, JCP skills conditionality toolkit and jobseekers allowance back to work schemes (JSABWS1) paperwork where it stipulates one must be cared out prior to any enrolment on such course .

      Summing up

      1: DWP failed to carryout the requested procedure of identifying a skills need/barrier prior to enrolment be that done by themselves or having you referred to a provider to carry this out. Further more DWP failed to record the results of this skills screening to identify a main skills barrier preventing them going into work.

      2: If JCP expected said provider to carryout this skills screening then this provider breached their agreement with JCP/DWP as well as SFA who also require certain assessment/s to be carried out prior to enrolment for funding purposes/contractual rules. Further more this provider knows SFA funding does not cover the cost of any prior assessment or enrolment process.

      Additional summing up

      1: A signature must be given of free will as must be the supplying of personal documents but cannot be said to be such if made to do so under any form of duress.

      2: Pursuant to the data protection act schedules 1, 2 and 3 personal and or sensitive data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless one condition is met in schedule 2 and or 3 dependent on nature of data (personal or sensitive)

      3: Clearly on the enrolment a signature is required not only for the learners agreement but also for data processing. Irrespective of reason the learner must consent of their own free will and not under any form of duress.

      Do you understand what i have said clearly superted as it will be you that is speaking and so must have a firm grasp of what it is i have imparted on you ?

      I ask this about this sanction and the other sanction regarding worksearch evidence required for grounds of repeal i have made to you as it will do you no good what so ever to make a copy of what i said and say here tribunal this is what i want to say. If you cant argue your case competently and or receive a panel harboring biased opinions you may well find yourself in a spot of bother,especially if these DWP officers change the game on the fly.

      doug

      March 13, 2017 at 6:38 pm

      • yes just shows you i was right in the first place and i dont have to sign anything under duress tho i did offer to sign it and put that down and said no pmsl.

        i also said can i do a interview on my phone and said no under the data protection act pmsl.

        i said funny that is as that is what i am doing and when they walked off said i was right and i dont have to sign anything and got that letter from the provider and told to leave.

        superted

        March 13, 2017 at 6:53 pm

  104. The appeal form you need, and guidance leaflet are here.

    You can fill in the pdf form on your computer screen, and then print it off. Looks better than hand-writing like the CAB would do 😀

    http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=3038

    HMCTS

    March 13, 2017 at 5:38 pm

  105. i have that just do i need send any of the above in with it or take it with me on the day?

    superted

    March 13, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    • Superted

      If you read the material in the appeals pack you would know they need rhyme and reason to focus their attention on before the hearing. Yes you may if you wish supply additional supportive evidence but regardless if you do, you should still take it with you on the day.

      Now the tribunal are not incapable of seeking out and or knowing the law but it will help to expedite the process of assessing grounds for appeal.

      Superted please upload both RMs

      doug

      March 13, 2017 at 7:07 pm


      • not had the mr for that yet ?

        i got till the 20th to send it off so might run out of time tbh. not sure where the mr is for the ase doubt either.

        superted

        March 13, 2017 at 7:23 pm

      • Superted

        What the one for the sanction on worksearch evidence ?

        doug

        March 13, 2017 at 7:38 pm

      • yes as i just have the top letter, not unless they have now dropped this one?

        superted

        March 13, 2017 at 7:49 pm

      • You don’t take additional evidence into the hearing with you. You include it with the appeal form and can any additional evidence to the appeal bundle up until 7 days before the hearing. The tribunal will send a copy of your submissions to the DWP so they can respond if they wish.

        Frodo

        March 13, 2017 at 8:30 pm

      • You don’t take additional evidence into the hearing with you. You include it with the appeal form and can add any additional evidence to the appeal bundle up until 7 days before the hearing. The tribunal will send a copy of your submissions to the DWP so they can respond if they wish.

        Frodo

        March 13, 2017 at 8:31 pm

      • After you send off the appeal form you will receive a “bundle”. This will include all the decision making forms, the guff that the roach has input etc. Might make for interesting reading 😉

        Frodo

        March 13, 2017 at 8:34 pm

      • Re: Skills Conditionality: You were willing to participate but the third-party provider denied you the opportunity to take part because you declined to sign their data sharing forms, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding. There is no legal requirement to sign such forms, a right which is enshrined by the Data Protection Act.

        Frodo

        March 13, 2017 at 8:56 pm

      • Superted

        Never make assumptions, ever,ever.

        You need to find out for sure and if it still stands and also find out if DWP took it as part of your RM regarding the skills conditionality so you can RM it if possible and leave you a space to then take it to tribunal at a later date. You must get into the habit of being logical and methodical otherwise be it an advisor raising a doubt, a DM, a RM or tribunal that takes a notion to challenge any claim you make to the contrary and this includes producing FOI and or toolkits and you will fold everytime as you don’t or didn’t understand the law they extend from and how they apply in a particular instance.

        As for the SC sanction, if the explanations you gave me are correct then you were not assessed prior as having a skills need/barrier which is preventing you from entering the workplace. This is also borne out as DWP have no record of any such skills screening be it prior to this recent SC or expected at this recent SC.
        The assessment must be carried out prior to any enrolment otherwise how is the provider suppose to know what it is their claiming funding for or what they can claim it for fits into their contractual obligation with the SFA regarding funding. You basically turned up on the 28th and without any assessment the provider proceeded to attempt to enrol you.

        Furthermore because you were not assessed according to procedure, not told of how you stand to benefit/gain if at all you would nor given a comprehensive list of third parties in regards to processing you did make a verbal request for so as to make an informed decision did decide at that current juncture to refrain from as is your free will to, a signature.

        Then you can add in what constitutes as lawful consent and what a signature signifies as in why its made of free will without duress (force,threat or deception) and how it become null in void if obtained under such a method and ergo is defeating to insist forms any part of the term failing to participate or attend, especially when you add you have the right to cancel the consent or agreement at any point. You could go further and add or flesh out this by describing the nature of a learners agreement, how the legal and contractual requirement placed on the provider by SFA is their legal and contractual responsibility and not yours, how your not prior informed nor asked for further consent of what employers have access to the PLR, and on and on it goes quite extensively that maybe easy for me to talk about but is way to long for me to type and explain how such and such could fit into your case.

        This is why you should have taken the time to go to CAB or welfare advisor or even took the time to learn this material yourself in depth. With all dew respect i don’t get to claim legal fees for this but more importantly which i did explain i don’t have all the time to denote to one single case when i have so very much to do.

        From the beginning of this post to the point/s about consent and signatures is more than enough to kick your appeal off not to mention all the other stuff i have posted in the past regarding this. I will continue to aid you as best i can time permitting although i cant see how but it is your mind,your hands, your voice and your dedication that has to carry this through unless like i said you approach your local CAB or welfare advisor, especially if you feel not confident of representing yourself.

        The same could be said about the other sanction but without an actual charge its hard to advise if its not the charge you perceive.

        doug

        March 13, 2017 at 10:29 pm

      • doug you would kick the cab ass 😉 i got till Friday b4 i need to send off the sscs1 form so ill just do the best i can as cant see the cab doing much in 1 day tbh.

        i have those FOI letters in my name or is that not the law? and if it is why have i not been sanctioned for the last 6 years for doing the same thing?

        superted

        March 13, 2017 at 10:59 pm

      • Superted

        If you haven’t figured it out yet that FOI team are giving you the run around while pulling the three wishes trick (where their stop replying eventually). I did tell you the more you kick DWP in the ass, the more they learn, the more they comeback stronger. You can take those FOIs to the hearing if you like but i prefer using the law as its not open to misinterpretation, i prefer staff directives as one or both prevent authorities back peddling or sidestepping.

        This is my last reply for the night superted so leave any reply and i will pick up on it tomorrow.

        doug

        March 13, 2017 at 11:25 pm

  106. Table 10.1 Claimants who were sanctioned while on JSA Skills Conditionality Pilot
    Name Circumstances of sanctioning based on claimants’ reports
    Jonathan He was mandated to attend a CV writing course and was sanctioned for late attendance. He
    has since attended training to gain Level 2 maths so that he can work in education. He is still
    claiming benefits, is volunteering and working part-time for a charity and working to establish
    himself in the music industry.
    Ali He was sanctioned for leaving his job search training course and had his benefits stopped. Rather
    than making a new claim, he took a temporary job as a road sweeper through an employment
    agency. He is still in this job but looking for permanent work as a kitchen porter.
    Paul He was signed off sick following a foot injury but returned to his job search training a day after
    his sick leave period ended. He had continued to attend, not realising he was sanctioned and is
    still looking for work.
    Aiden He declined to attend job search training, believing it would not help him to find work, and was
    sanctioned. He is still looking for work.
    Cheryl She forgot to attend a basic skills training course and was sanctioned. She is considering going to
    college to study for GCSEs.
    Marcus He was late for basic skills training several times because of transport problems, was dismissed
    from the course and sanctioned. He is still looking for work.
    Sophia She attended a CV writing course and was sanctioned for late attendance. She was then offered
    skills training in areas in which she had no interest. Facing sanctions for declining training,
    she returned to her former part-time job, continued to claim benefits and was sanctioned for
    overpayment of benefit. She is aiming to get her overseas qualifications recognised so that she
    can get a full-time professional job in the UK.
    Greg He thought he was being offered a choice of skills courses in manual trades and was interested
    in a carpentry course. However, on arrival at the college he found he had been sent on a basic
    skills course which he found too easy. He felt ‘insulted’ by having to attend, left the course and
    was sanctioned. He is looking for ground work and driving jobs.
    Tim He was mandated to training arranged by the local authority, but missed a follow-up session by
    getting the date wrong. Facing sanctions, the training provider vouched for his positive attitude
    and his benefits were not affected. He recently found work in a specialist retailer.
    Jamie He left his job search and work placement course for health reasons and was transferred from
    JSA to ESA so was not sanctioned.
    Dai He stopped attending training involving job search and a work placement when his girlfriend
    started to earn enough for him to sign off JSA.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214549/rrep768.pdf

    superted

    March 13, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    • If you read the material in the appeals pack you would know they need rhyme and reason to focus their attention on before the hearing.

      any chance you can give me some help with the sscs1 form and what to put on it and also what else paper wise i will need to send in with it?

      i just cant word it like you can and not sure if the cab will have enough time now as if i do it its gunna be shit imo ;(

      superted

      March 13, 2017 at 8:56 pm

      • You just need to put down the points you want to make. It doesn’t have to be in fancy legal language as if a lawyer wrote it up. Don’t keep putting it off and leave it until the last minute. Better to start as soon as possible by doing a rough draft. Then you can give yourself as much thinking time as possible. Because you will likely think of something you missed out, better to leave out, a better way of getting your point across. The more thinking time you give yourself, the better!

        Frodo

        March 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm

      • Ask the CAB to fill in a copy of the form. The CAB will probably do it in a hurry so it might be a bit messy. But you can take the good parts and leave out the rest. If you have a computer and a printer you can fill it in and print it off.

        Frodo

        March 13, 2017 at 9:44 pm

      • Just reading doug’s post. That is very good point that they never even offered you a skills assessment, just shoved a funding form in your face in order to fill a place on a random course and get paid. It is supposed to be about offering you tailored support to help you into work. They are supposed to identify what is best for you, and not what’s best for the jobcentre and a third-party provider’ profit.

        Frodo

        March 13, 2017 at 9:52 pm

  107. this is my point.
    Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
    Central Freedom of Information Team

    [DWP request email]

    Our reference: FoI 575

    Date: 27 February 2017

    Dear Mr ted

    Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 14 February
    2017.

    You asked:
    is it mandatory that any one sent to a 3rd party provider must sign there paper
    work ie contracts between a claimant and a 3rd party private company and
    failing to sign such paper work would result in a benefit sanction if the
    claimant is still willing to take part.
    there four is it unlawful that a jcp adviser can issue a sanction doubt for not
    signing 3rd party paper work if the claimant is still willing to take part.
    as under contract law it states any contract must be entered in to voluntary
    buy both parties and any threat of a sanction doubt or being forced to sign
    them with threats of a sanction is unlawful.

    DWP Response

    It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The
    Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public
    authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide
    that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor
    does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in
    relation to issues/policies under question.

    In cases where a customer does ask a question or makes a statement to
    which they seek a bespoke policy response rather than request recorded
    information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best
    answers the question or statement. Once the public authority has provided the
    recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it
    has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information
    provided is left to the requestor.

    There is no recorded information which provides an answer to your specific
    question. However, I can advise you that participants on mandatory provision
    such as the Work Programme are not required, as part of the provision, to
    sign any documentation. Providers cannot compel participants to sign
    documentation but in general it is sound practice to sign documents as this
    ensures activity is linked to the individual.

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

    Yours sincerely,

    DWP Central FoI Team

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

    [DWP request email]

    Our reference: FOI 765

    Date: 10 March 2017

    Dear Mr Shepherd

    Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FoI) request received on 24
    February 2017, in which you asked:

    can you tell me under what law the dwp can raise a sanction doubt for not
    signing 3rd party provider enrolment forms.

    ie
    data protection waver
    enrolment forms
    esf and sfa skills funding contracts for the providers funding

    ie
    you refused to sign the enrolment form from the provider, disbelieving you
    were required to sign by law.

    buy what law does this mean as this foi request states this is not the case
    or the law.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/310933/response/760040/attac
    h/html/3/FOI%20152%20Rev.pdf.html

    also.

    you were shown the the data protection policy from the provider but did
    not trust that your details would not be shared with 3rd party’s.

    as above foi request, how is this the case if a provider is a 3rd party.

    and under what law under threat of a sanction doubt can either case be
    deemed lawful for not signing there paper work.

    as contract law states.
    A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. A legally binding
    contract is a voluntary agreement reached between the parties that is
    enforceable in law.

    so can you tell me what law states i must enter in to a contract for there
    funding from the skills funding agency under threat of a sanction doubt
    with a 3rd party private company.

    and that i also must sign a data waver under threat of a sanction doubt so
    the provider can process my personnel information.

    It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The
    Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public
    authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide
    that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor
    does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in
    relation to issues/policies under question.

    In cases where a customer does ask a question or makes a statement to
    which they seek a bespoke policy response rather than request recorded
    information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best
    answers the question or statement. Once the public authority has provided the
    recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it
    has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information
    provided is left to the requestor.

    The Department does not hold information that answers your specific
    questions. However, I can advise that within mandatory provision, such as the
    Work Programme, there are no regulations or contractual requirements that
    specify a participant must sign documents drawn up by their provider.

    Work Programme 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 Work Programme provider’s forms this does not mean that they do
    not have to participate in the programme. The Work Programme 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 us quoting the
    reference number above.

    Yours sincerely,

    DWP Central FoI Team

    1: DWP failed to carryout the requested procedure of identifying a skills need/barrier prior to enrolment be that done by themselves or having you referred to a provider to carry this out. Further more DWP failed to record the results of this skills screening to identify a main skills barrier preventing them going into work.

    2: If JCP expected said provider to carryout this skills screening then this provider breached their agreement with JCP/DWP as well as SFA who also require certain assessment/s to be carried out prior to enrolment for funding purposes/contractual rules. Further more this provider knows SFA funding does not cover the cost of any prior assessment or enrolment process.

    Additional summing up

    1: A signature must be given of free will as must be the supplying of personal documents but cannot be said to be such if made to do so under any form of duress.

    2: Pursuant to the data protection act schedules 1, 2 and 3 personal and or sensitive data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless one condition is met in schedule 2 and or 3 dependent on nature of data (personal or sensitive)

    3: Clearly on the enrolment a signature is required not only for the learners agreement but also for data processing. Irrespective of reason the learner must consent of their own free will and not under any form of duress.

    will that do?

    superted

    March 13, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    • Superted

      I told you it will do you no good copying my words, you need to understand what it is im saying otherwise your no better off than you were when you tried to use the FOI you had.

      I had hoped you would learn as we went along, researched the subjects in depth but i fear this has not happened. Eventually you will have to face a human being whose going to know their stuff and may not be as amiable and helpful as you may like,especially these DWP officers.

      If on reflection you do decide to seek out CAB or the like in your area DONT attempt to pour the law down their throats as it will certainly not be received well. Just give them the RMs, explain the events with the advisor and DM and RM and hear what they have to say. You can quite easily put in your appeal paperwork in the meantime if they cant see you quickly as don’t forget the clocks ticking.

      doug

      March 13, 2017 at 10:49 pm

      • What about something along these lines?

        On the I was to referred to Skills Conditionality by Anytown Jobcentre Plus. No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral.

        On attending Skills Conditionality I requested that a skills assessment be conducted in order to identity any suitable training opportunities. This request was denied. Instead I was presented with an enrolment form, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding for . I declined to sign this enrolment form. then informed me that I would be reported to Jobcentre Plus for “failing to participate in the Skill Conditionality programme”. I made it clear to that I was willing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme but I was unwilling to sign the enrolment form.

        It is my understanding that under the Data Protection Act, and as referenced by the Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc)* that there is no need for me to enter into contracts with third-party ‘providers’ to the DWP or to waive my rights as to the sharing of my personal and sensitive data.

        *send the FOI’s off with the form

        Lord of the RIngs

        March 14, 2017 at 11:51 am

      • What about something along these lines?

        On the *insert date* I was to referred to Skills Conditionality by Anytown Jobcentre Plus. No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral.

        On attending Skills Conditionality I requested that a skills assessment be conducted in order to identity any suitable training opportunities. This request was denied. Instead I was presented with an enrolment form, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding for . I declined to sign this enrolment form. *The provider* then informed me that I would be reported to Jobcentre Plus for “failing to participate in the Skill Conditionality programme”. I made it clear to that I was willing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme but I was unwilling to sign the enrolment form.

        It is my understanding that under the Data Protection Act, and as referenced by the Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc)* that there is no need for me to enter into contracts with third-party ‘providers’ to the DWP or to waive my rights as to the sharing of my personal and sensitive data.

        *send the FOI’s off with the form

        Lord of the RIngs

        March 14, 2017 at 11:53 am

      • What about something along these lines?

        On the *insert date* I was to referred to Skills Conditionality, a programme run by *provider*, by Anytown Jobcentre Plus. No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral.

        On attending *provider* I requested that a skills assessment be conducted in order to identity any suitable training opportunities. This request was denied. Instead I was presented with an enrolment form, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding for *provider* . I declined to sign this enrolment form. *The provider* then informed me that I would be reported to Jobcentre Plus for “failing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme”. I made it clear to *provider* that I was willing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme but I was unwilling to sign the enrolment form.

        It is my understanding that under the Data Protection Act, and as referenced by the Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc)* that there is no need for me to enter into contracts with third-party ‘providers’ to the DWP or to waive my rights as to the sharing of my personal and sensitive data.

        *send the FOI’s off with the form

        Lord of the RIngs

        March 14, 2017 at 11:59 am

      • Filling in the blanks….

        On the 21/11/16 I was to referred to Skills Conditionality, a programme run by Adult Education, Gloucester, by Gloucester Jobcentre Plus. No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral.

        On attending Adult Education on 28/11/16 I requested that a skills assessment be carried out in order to identity any suitable training opportunities. This request was denied. Instead I was presented with an enrolment form, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding for Adult Education . I declined to sign this enrolment form. Adult Education then informed me that I would be reported to Jobcentre Plus for “failing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme”. I made it clear to Adult Education that I was willing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme but I was unwilling to sign the enrolment form.

        It is my understanding that under the Data Protection Act, and as referenced by the Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc)* that there is no need for me to enter into contracts with third-party ‘providers’ to the DWP or to waive my rights as to the sharing of my personal and sensitive data.

        *send the FOI’s off with the form

        Legolas

        March 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm

      • Legolas

        I couldn’t have put it better myself. Your posting is spot on and straight to the point.

        What happened next with regards to yourself. Were you referred to a decision maker or did the Jobcentre back off?

        Gandalf

        March 14, 2017 at 3:26 pm

      • jokecentre sent me to a shiity course pmsl i came i seen i kicked ass pmsl

        The Twin Towers

        March 14, 2017 at 4:56 pm

      • its all printed off ready to go, if anyone thinks i should add anything else to that letter i got 1 day b4 i need to send it off.

        superted

        March 14, 2017 at 8:15 pm

      • superted

        Don’t forget to send the FOI’s with your form! And you may want to send it using recorded delivery, as well.

        Good Luck

        jj joop

        March 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm

      • yes i got all that as well 😉

        superted

        March 14, 2017 at 8:23 pm

      • It’s looking good, ted. A right DWP-ass kicking Grounds for Appeal.

        The straight-to-the-point easily-digestible stuff it at the top. Once that has sunk in it provides a framework for the more detailed stuff.

        Just a couple of minor typos:

        No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral. – An extra “of” has slipped in.

        Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc)* You need to remove the asterisk because it is referring to the footnote at the bottom of the post. (enc) means enclosure i.e. the FOI. Enc is missing a “.”, it should be enc. because it is an abbreviation.

        Leave it on hold a little bit longer in case it can be improved. And doug has yet to pass an opinion.

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 8:30 pm

      • Yeah, doug needs to check it for spelling and grammatical errors 😀

        Windy

        March 14, 2017 at 8:36 pm

      • You’ve missed the “jokecentre sent me to a shiity course pmsl i came i seen i kicked ass pmsl” bit 😀

        Windy

        March 14, 2017 at 8:40 pm

      • 1: DWP failed to carryout the requested procedure of identifying a skills need/barrier prior to enrolment be that done by themselves or having you referred to a provider to carry this out.

        You should be changed to me because you are writing in the first person.

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 8:48 pm

      • Further more should be furthermore – it’s one word.

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 8:51 pm

      • And it looks like you have spelled regards as reguards.

        Anyway, it should be pasted into the “Ground of Appeal” box in the Appeal form. You then print the form off. If you can’t fit it all, then use a continuation sheet for the remainder and print (Cont.) meaning continuation at the top of the sheet. You want it to look professional like a CV. It then shows up the DWP’s shoddy presentation and makes them look like the arseholes that they are.

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 8:58 pm

      • The Appeal form is interactive – you can type into the boxes directly or cut and paste into the boxes 🙂

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 9:00 pm

      • it will not let me copy and paste it ;(

        superted

        March 14, 2017 at 9:11 pm

      • It should. It is working OK here. At the top of the form does it say in yellow: “This form has interactive fields”? The box on the form has to be filled in first. You just can’t leave it and put in a sheet.

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      • Correction: “This document contains interactive form fields”.

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 9:19 pm

      • i have filled it all in just cant copy and paste from the note pad just get the print when i right click

        superted

        March 14, 2017 at 9:22 pm

      • If you are using Adobe?

        If the form doesn’t have interactive form fields, open the form in Acrobat 9 (any version) and choose Forms > Add Or Edit Fields. Check if this message appears: “Currently there are no form fields on this PDF. Do you want Acrobat to detect the form fields for you?”. You can click Yes to run the Form Field Recognition tool, or use the Typewriter tool to create form fields.

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 9:25 pm

      • Notepad not giving you the Copy option when you select text?

        You can try “Notepad 2” then.

        http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html

        https://sourceforge.net/projects/notepad2/

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 9:31 pm

      • ok i have it now in adobe but the box is not big enough, never used this b4

        superted

        March 14, 2017 at 9:39 pm

      • It says at the bottom of the Grounds of Appeal box (if necessary, continue on a separate sheet)

        Proof Reader

        March 14, 2017 at 9:58 pm

      • superted

        March 14, 2017 at 10:14 pm

  108. You will have to go with what you’ve got Superted those forms are not properly explained and you have a sincere belief in not signing your rights away.That just sign here expectation is wrong .The most point is important point is that you must appeal these at all costs.

    ken

    March 14, 2017 at 10:45 am

  109. Ken

    The hypocrisy here is they say its a legal requirement to sign yet notice how they don’t say a penalty under law is attached. To put it simply if you don’t sign, you don’t get just like a job contract,virgin cable and any other place asking for a signature yet mysteriously DWP can attach a penalty to it as though it was a criminal act you performed just like going not guilty in a court of law yet when found guilty handed a far harsher sentence. The funny thing about my last comment is though, not being vulnerable still does not effect you getting food,fluid and a roof over your head.

    I cant remember who said it but the benefits sanction system is without doubt the most punitive system ever created and only the dumbest of dumb or Tory sycophant would say otherwise.

    doug

    March 14, 2017 at 11:26 am

    • Yep! It is hard to think of another circumstance whereby a quasi-criminal penalty can be imposed for not signing/entering into a contract or an Act of Parliament where it states that it is an offence not to sign/enter into a contract. The DWP seem to inhabit it’s own quasi-judicial universe.

      Lord of the Onion Rings

      March 14, 2017 at 5:20 pm

  110. dont forget i seen this coming from the start so fired of my missile first as a sanction is to deprive me of my benefits for 4 weeks.

    worked out well that did pmsl 🙂

    superted

    March 14, 2017 at 10:43 pm

  111. Superted has launched an Appeal. It’s time to kick some DWP ass 😀

    Mr & Mrs T

    March 15, 2017 at 12:56 am

  112. Superted

    The summing up post i made was for your reading, not for copy and paste purposes.

    If we get to the nut of your appeal the letter you produced and appears to have been copy and pasted onto your appeal form starts off well as in where and when. (You can enter the direction form DWP gave you into evidence to confirm this points).

    (This same direction outlines clearly on that day an assessment would follow, then training on another day which then leads you to write your next point).

    I was expecting an assessment to be carried out known as a skills screening which according to DWP guidance must be carried out prior to attending any skills conditionality course so as to identify any skills need i may have that is maybe a main barrier preventing me from entering into employment. (i cant upload my form/s superted as i have written all over them but if you look on line (i did list in a prior post the form/s outlining this) but will act as evidence as to this requirement)

    Then you could lead with how this assessment was not carried out and instead saw this provider attempt to enrol you straight away without first identifying any skills need to which their course could address nor address their contractual requirements set down by the SFA on what they will fund (here you can enter into evidence the SFA funding rules 2016 to 2017) prior to applying for funds.

    (Now this form superted also outlines what SFA does not cover the cost of like prior assessments or enrolment so although not provable at this stage may have lead to this provider claiming funds or preparing to for the time they took assessing and enroling you in between training time) ( You cannot prove this so you do not mention it. Just let the tribunal digest the paperwork and come to their own conclusions).(Also this document stresses how the obligation for attaining a signature is placed on the provider as part of their agreement with SFA).

    Further to this you could then add how dew to this what with failing to see how if at all you would benefit from this in that you may already have the skills and knowledge already and upon asking for a more comprehensive breakdown of third parties that could process your personal and or sensitive data did decide at this juncture to refrain from imparting any such data or signing this form if at all you would until such time as you were better informed to make such a decision.

    Further to this and after reading SFA learners agreement form that day (you can enter into evidence this form https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432983/PLRS01_Learner_Agreement_for_the_use_of_the_Personal_Learning_Record_V1.3_June_2015.pdf) and digesting all parties obligations and responsibilities not covered by the documentation the provider supplied me earlier that day did decide my initial concerns and actions were warranted.

    Now it is my understanding after seeking legal clarity pursuant to the rules of engagement of a learners agreement and schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the data protection act in conjunction with this providers forms that any personal and or sensitive details and signature/consent i give must be given of my free will without duress or any other form of coercion being placed on me let alone forms of deception. (You can enter DPA into evidence).(DPA does not stipulate what consititues as a lawful signature or consent, you would need additional evidence for that if you wish to enter it into evidence).

    This sanction or any prior threat of tantamount’s to coercion which is pointless as not only does it contravene my rights but also contravenes what constitutes as lawful as any such action would render any signature/consent given under such a condition null in void. (In short signing/consenting via coercion ends up being the same as not supplying one and lets not forget you can legally withdraw from the learners agreement or consent regarding processing personal and or sensitive data when ever you wish so is DWP saying they would sanction you for doing this as well ? ).

    NOW SUPERTED THIS POST IS ONLY TO OUTLINE YOUR APPEAL BY SUPPLYING YOU THE FRAMEWORK REQUIRED IN STATING YOUR CASE SO YOU DO NOT SIMPLY CUT AND PASTE IT IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM.

    THIS POST SIMPLY TELLS YOU HOW TO APPROACH THIS MATTER IN AN ORDER NOT TO DISSIMILAR TO YOUR ORIGINAL LETTER YOU PRODUCED. EVEN IF YOU HAVE SENT OFF ALREADY YOUR APPEAL, THIS WILL AID YOU AT YOUR HEARING BY INSTRUCTING HOW TO PRESENT YOUR CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH EVIDENCE.

    DO NOT TELL THE TRIBUNAL LAW AS IT WILL NOT GO DOWN WELL, SIMPLY ENTER POINTS OF LAW VIA EVIDENCE RELEVANT ONLY AS AND WHEN A POINT IS BEING COVERED BUT ONLY IF IT IS NECESSARY. DO NOT CONFUSE LAW WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE/TOOLKITS/OPERATION INFORMATION EVEN WHEN THEY ARE WOVEN TOGETHER.

    SERIOUSLY – I cant help you anymore in this SC matter than i already have so i wish you all the best and look forward to hearing your results when they come. Do remember though despite being in the right justice is a fickle thing as many an Innocent man has been sent to the gallows as so to speak.

    Good Luck Superted

    doug

    March 15, 2017 at 10:20 am

    • Revised to incorporate one of doug’s suggestions.

      On the 21/11/16 I was to referred to Skills Conditionality, a programme run by Adult Education, Gloucester, by Gloucester Jobcentre Plus. No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral.

      On attending Adult Education on 28/11/16 I was expecting a skills assessment be carried out in order to identity any skills need as per the information I was given by Jobcentre Plus . Instead I was presented with an enrolment form, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding for Adult Education . I declined to sign this enrolment form. Adult Education then informed me that I would be reported to Jobcentre Plus for “failing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme”. I made it clear to Adult Education that I was willing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme but I was unwilling to sign the enrolment form.

      It is my understanding that under the Data Protection Act, and as referenced by the Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc)* that there is no need for me to enter into contracts with third-party ‘providers’ to the DWP or to waive my rights as to the sharing of my personal and sensitive data.

      Legolas's Little Helper

      March 15, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    • Corrected for typo:

      On the 21/11/16 I was to referred to Skills Conditionality, a programme run by Adult Education, Gloucester, by Gloucester Jobcentre Plus. No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral.

      On attending Adult Education on 28/11/16 I was expecting a skills assessment to be carried out in order to identity any skills need as per the information I was given by Jobcentre Plus . Instead I was presented with an enrolment form, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding for Adult Education . I declined to sign this enrolment form. Adult Education then informed me that I would be reported to Jobcentre Plus for “failing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme”. I made it clear to Adult Education that I was willing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme but I was unwilling to sign the enrolment form.

      It is my understanding that under the Data Protection Act, and as referenced by the Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc)* that there is no need for me to enter into contracts with third-party ‘providers’ to the DWP or to waive my rights as to the sharing of my personal and sensitive data.

      Legolas's Little Helper

      March 15, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    • Another typo 🙂

      On the 21/11/16 I was to referred to Skills Conditionality, a programme run by Adult Education, Gloucester, by Gloucester Jobcentre Plus. No prior assessment of of my skills need was conducted by Jobcentre Plus prior to this referral.

      On attending Adult Education on 28/11/16 I was expecting a skills assessment to be carried out in order to identity any skills need as per the information I was given by Jobcentre Plus . Instead I was presented with an enrolment form, the sole purpose of which was to obtain funding for Adult Education . I declined to sign this enrolment form. Adult Education then informed me that I would be reported to Jobcentre Plus for “failing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme”. I made it clear to Adult Education that I was willing to participate in the Skills Conditionality programme but I was unwilling to sign the enrolment form.

      It is my understanding that under the Data Protection Act, and as referenced by the Freedom of Information request obtained from the DWP (enc.) that there is no need for me to enter into contracts with third-party ‘providers’ to the DWP or to waive my rights as to the sharing of my personal and sensitive data.

      Legolas's Little Helper

      March 15, 2017 at 12:50 pm

  113. Doug said: “Then you could lead with how this assessment was not carried out and instead saw this provider attempt to enrol you straight away without first identifying any skills need to which their course could address nor address their contractual requirements set down by the SFA on what they will fund (here you can enter into evidence the SFA funding rules 2016 to 2017) prior to applying for funds.”

    Adult Education have certainly jumped the gun in their haste to secure their funding but according to the DWP direction the Assessment and Training are both *mandatory* which means that a skills need *would* be identified and Adult Education would get their funding regardless. What would happen if no skills needs were identified? And what if ted had had a skills assessment (and a skills need identified)? Adult Education have just jumped the gun in their haste to secure their funding.

    Gandulf the Great

    March 15, 2017 at 12:24 pm

  114. right done the typo and checked the spelling and its now waiting to get posted recorded post and if it takes as long as last time will be about 12 weeks so will see what happens.

    and thanks for all the help guys ill report back here what happens win or loose 😉

    superted

    March 15, 2017 at 3:26 pm

  115. i think i have screwed up as i dont think i signed the sscs1 form in pen, what should i do ?

    superted

    March 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm

    • It is very easy to forget to sign a form. It is just an oversight, but still they, the DWP could still say the form was invalid/the Appeal ‘incompetent’ or some horse-shit. You could post of another signed form as soon as possible since it is only a day or two past the deadline. Has the Tribunal notified you yet that they have received your form? Or the Tribunal might send it back for you to sign since you have still submitted it. It won’t be the first Appeal form that the Tribunal have received unsigned. Even the ‘decision makers’ forget to sign their arse-wipes.

      Joolz

      March 18, 2017 at 9:28 pm

    • Sobbing Decision Makers Beg Claimants Not To Appeal

      Sobbing decision makers are desperately trying to persuade claimants not to lodge appeals following an unsuccessful mandatory reconsideration, a senior welfare rights worker has revealed.

      Writing on the welfare rights workers website Rightsnet, one senior welfare rights worker reveals that two clients have told him independently that the decision maker was ‘in tears’ or ‘sobbing’ because the claimant insisted that they wished to continue with their appeal when their mandatory reconsideration was unsuccessful.

      The senior welfare rights worker goes on to explain that two decision makers have told claimants:

      “But don’t you understand, the whole point of mandatory reconsiderations is to avoid appeals because they’re expensive, time-consuming and usually pro-claimant and wrong. Even government ministers know that.”

      In the past, decision makers were indifferent as to whether their decisions were appealed or not. It simply made no difference to them. For decision makers to be reduced to tears when a claimant informs them that they intend to appeal suggests that massive pressure is now being placed on them to stop this happening.

      This is a time of continued staff cuts at the DWP. The threat of being put on a ‘performance improvement plan’, which could lead to cuts in income and dismissal, because too many of your decisions are being appealed, is a powerful one. It seems certain that, as with sanctions targets, the DWP will deny that any such threats are being made.

      But, if they aren’t, what possible explanation could there be for the weeping decision makers?

      https://samedifference1.com/2015/02/11/sobbing-decision-makers-beg-claimants-not-to-appeal/

      The News Seekers

      March 18, 2017 at 9:47 pm

    • The first thing the Tribunal will do when they receive the form is check it over, and the first thing will be to check if it is signed and dated. And then they will stamp the “date received” on it. They must have a procedure for the ones that aren’t signed/dated. Most likely they will tell you that the Appeal can’t proceed or send you the form back to sign/date it. The deadline might not be set in stone, anyway, more of an aspiration. The hearing won’t be for a while anyway. No harm in posting off another one since it is only a day or too.

      Joolz

      March 18, 2017 at 10:04 pm

      • Superted

        I would not advise another one as they may make to date of making an appeal that date rather than the day he did appeal but didn’t sign.

        Quote from SSC1 advice form

        Section 8 –Your signature
        This section is for your signature. It is a legal requirement for your appeal to be signed.
        Please sign your name here, write your name in block capitals in the box underneath and
        record the date that you signed the form in the box provided. If you do not sign your appeal
        form, HMCTS may have to return the appeal to you for you to sign it. If you have named a
        representative at Section 4, signing the appeal form will also give HMCTS your permission
        to correspond with them and discuss your appeal with them should the need arise.

        HMCTS SSCS Appeals Centre
        PO Box 1203
        BRADFORD
        BD1 9WP

        You sure like digging holes don’t you superted. Get in touch with SSCS appeals centre and explain your error if you know for a fact you didn’t sign it. Make a point of mentioning the data you made your claim for appeal along with a print of your name (CAPITALS) and a signature as it may (cant say it will) act as the missing signature. Outline you wish to validate the form and allow the appeals centre consent where consent is needed to carry out the processes required to move the appeal forward.

        doug

        March 19, 2017 at 7:18 am

      • Superted

        Whats happening with the sanction regarding your jobsearch being questionable ?

        doug

        March 19, 2017 at 7:20 am

      • “If you do not sign your appeal form, HMCTS may have to return the appeal to you for you to sign it.” Sorted, innit? 🙂

        Londoner

        March 19, 2017 at 6:53 pm

      • still not had the mr for the ase doubt and am on the phone to the now

        superted

        March 20, 2017 at 4:48 pm

      • said will phone me back tomorrow about it lol

        superted

        March 20, 2017 at 4:55 pm

      • Superted

        Ok, keep us informed when they do contact you.

        doug

        March 20, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    • Thought for a minute you had taken doug’s advice and refused to sign the “Data Protection Act Waiver” on the Appeal form 😀

      The Chuckle Brothers

      March 19, 2017 at 7:07 pm

  116. You sure like digging holes don’t you superted.

    Anyone who has got a leaning difficulty or disability its a whole new situation.If someone doesn’t understand what they are signing under these conditions and they try this it will be very difficult for them.The extension to the timescale will be increased also.

    https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/benefits-introduction/problems-with-benefits-and-tax-credits/challenging-a-benefit-decision/challenging-a-dwp-benefit-decision-on-or-after-28-october-2013/appealing-against-a-benefit-decision/appealing-against-a-dwp-benefit-decision/

    ken

    March 19, 2017 at 8:50 pm

    • The one month time limit for submitting an Appeal is ridiculous. It takes at least six months to get a CAB appointment round these parts.

      Strawberry Tart

      March 20, 2017 at 2:33 am

    • Ken

      With all dew respect superted can hardly claim a leaning difficulty yet understand what constitutes as lawful consent and why. Taking on board your point though if this is the case then im sure superted could make me aware of any difficulties and how it effects them in any understanding during our conversation.

      If as you say superted as a diagnosed learning difficulty then this too adds to his case as regards this provider as any such person working with such a person with said condition must make certain things happen. However before they can as law dictates they must first seek explicit consent from the sufferer that wasn’t from what i read overtly obvious in this enrolment form let alone of a nature that reasonably informs the individual at any depth that would allow them to make an informed decision prior to any such consent. Further more the privacy notice does not cover any medical aspect which is regarded as sensitive data that the individual would be consenting to which raises a few questions as to whether or not its actually covered which again is required by law.

      I will always strive to do my upmost best in imparting information but do recognize i cant reach everyone.

      doug

      March 20, 2017 at 8:19 am

      • With all dew respect doug anyone who can make head or tail of of your posts can hardly claim a learning difficulty. You would need a brain the size of a planet for them to make any sense 😀

        The Chucke Sisters

        March 20, 2017 at 10:13 am

      • Yep! Like the DWP always argue that if you are capable of appealing one of their ‘decisions’ by definition you are ‘fit to work’. You can’t have your appealing a decision cake and eat your learning difficulties 😉

        Marie Antoinette

        March 20, 2017 at 10:22 am

      • I’m not saying he has or dare to imply so.but some people on these courses have.The expectation and being told to just sign is unacceptable is all to common these days.

        ken

        March 20, 2017 at 1:06 pm

      • Ken

        I totally agree with you but how do you change how these providers/trainers and job club helpers work when they either deliberately don’t want the person knowing to much or simply don’t have a clue about it either.

        The best we can do who do know is keep the unemployed informed either when in person or online.

        How many unemployed people use there full personal details to register, its not like a computer knows the difference between you and Dick Turpin ?

        How many use there full name as an email address ?

        doug

        March 20, 2017 at 6:28 pm

  117. I once sent a letter to the jobcentre which was sent as registered mail. At the bottom I also put’ Copied to.. Caxton House, Norfolk Unemployed Rights, And my solicitors at the time. I also took a copy to the Kings Lynn CAB.’ I was told by the Cab. That I was chancing my arm by copying to my solicitor. My solicitor though took it on and won my case. It was in relation to me being fired after telling my supervisor to fuck a dead goat. He would not let me have a week off when my mother died. This was in 1997. The DWP have since tried and failed to give me a retrospective sanction for this incident. I think they could try again soon. They always try every four or so years.

    Sunhouse

    March 20, 2017 at 7:31 am

    • Sunhouse

      Thats a shocking story but i cant say im surprised considering DWP will and have hunted benefit fraudsters back that far. Regardless in your case if they have already tried once you do have your data i hope from that time not to mention your solicitor as a physical witness. This will more than warn the dogs off should they try again.

      doug

      March 20, 2017 at 8:29 am

    • Fuck a dead goat, ha ha. I’ll have to remember that one.

      jj joop

      March 20, 2017 at 10:14 am

  118. Yep My Solicitor Was Livid. She took it on. Turns out her practice in Kings Lynn was also the local one for the DWP. She handed back their contract. This led to the DWP using the Solicitor General for their legalities in the future. The incident occurred when I was working at Decorative Sleeves in Kings Lynn as a cleaner. I had only been there two weeks. This was on August 14th 1997. My solicitor BTW is now a County Court Judge. Protocol will not allow me to name name on this page. But I do know she does read these pages so she hopefully remember this incident.

    SUNHOUSE

    March 20, 2017 at 11:08 am

  119. What ever happened to sustainable employment?

    ken

    March 20, 2017 at 3:52 pm

  120. had a call back today and said the mr was sent out but i never received it so said will get copy’s sent out today.

    seems funny how i got all the other letters bar this one ?

    superted

    March 21, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    • Superted

      Ok, i need to do a little backtracking with you. So you remember receiving the original decision from the DM prior to you putting in for a MR ?

      How did you receive this original decision and what was the actual charge ?

      doug

      March 21, 2017 at 7:21 pm

      • Oh dear, doug. This all but a saga now. I admire your staying power but I think it’s time to put this one to bed now.

        And as for you superted, you’re doing my bleedin’ head in.

        sen

        March 21, 2017 at 7:27 pm

      • You clearly don’t know your arse from Christmas!

        sen

        March 21, 2017 at 7:28 pm

      • Or from a hole in the ground for that matter. Dog, I’ve got to know. What’s going on inside that head of yours. I reckon if I was to saw the top off. I’d probably find a toothless simpleton doing the “old-timer dance” from City Slickers. Jesus wept.

        sen

        March 21, 2017 at 7:34 pm

      • thats all i got and never received the 2 letter MR notice, i did ask for what it was for on the phone and just got ASE doubt.

        i think there doing it on purpose now as i guess the penny has dropped i wont let them get away with it.

        i have the right to appeal and i will every single time they sanction me.

        superted

        March 21, 2017 at 10:00 pm

      • You have sent a warning shot across the joke centre’s bow’s, ted. When they realise that you aren’t a soft target and will launch an appeal automatically against their horse-shit sanctions they will soon put a sock in it.

        Torpedo

        March 22, 2017 at 1:35 am

      • Superted

        The first letter says they are again looking at their decision so this is a MR outcome.The second acknowledges a raised doubt. So we have no results of original doubt on which you raised a RM to.

        Also the first letter above the other does not outline what one of the sanctions they refer to.

        Further more saying its a ASE doubt is a generic statement. You cant just say for instance a man is guilty of theft just because the stolen item was found in there pocket. If the event and circumstances are not examined an innocent man could be found guilty even though the thief could have planted it in the accused pocket after realizing they were going to get caught dew to no escape. In short the accused could well be an unwilling, unknowing participate and as such a victim of.

        You need to know the event leading up to the charge, the evidence used to establish not only guilt but also that the right charge is being applied. Even if we agree with the line the doubt was raised as ASE how has the DM established no good reason. Are they saying they don’t have to be aware of the UJM toolkit chapter 3. Are they saying they don’t have to be aware of whether or not UJM is itself a portal for other jobsites so in effect acts as a micro command to visiting other jobsites regardless of whether or not you applied for a particular job. How have they established you didn’t visit that site through UJM.

        They are basically saying accept their judgement on faith, that the person who arrived at that decision is competent enough to make said decision and was also competent enough in there evidence gathering and examination at that time and incident.

        Just because you merely put visited jobsites say instead of visited this particular site at that time and date, this one at that time and date does not establish you didn’t. There saying by giving you a sanction that you didnt, that your lying. Well there’s presumption of innocence,burden of proof which states the burden of proof is on those who accuse, not those that deny as fraud is a criminal offence.

        doug

        March 22, 2017 at 7:59 am

      • Even a Court of Law couldn’t just say: “I am of the opinion that superted wasn’t ASE”.

        The judge(s) would have to deliver a written/verbal judgement detailing the reasoning, arguments and evidence that led them to reach this conclusion. Just who the hell do the DWP think they are?

        Superted’s position is that they did do all that was reasonable to find work. What ‘evidence’ does DWP have to the contrary? Just some anonymous ‘decision maker’s’ opinion? Is that it?

        And, in any case, doesn’t the ‘burden of proof’ rest on the prosecution? Innocent until proven guilty? Or does superted have to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that they did all that was reasonable to find work?

        Judge Dredd

        March 22, 2017 at 10:00 am

      • doug

        not another appeal, sport? For the love of Jesus!

        sen

        March 22, 2017 at 10:05 am

      • doug

        As it says on the tin the dwp have looked at all the evidence. superted is as guilty as hell.

        sen

        March 22, 2017 at 10:08 am

      • superted

        Looks like they’re deliberately trying to muddy the water. In plain English, they’re fkn with your head. By way of not letting them get away with this, if you haven’t done so already, I would write down in chronological order (by numbers) everything that’s happened.

        For example: 1. attended skills con, 2. declined to sign forms, 3. spoke to JCP adviser, etc.

        This way you have a clear timeline of exactly what happened and when.

        jj joop

        March 22, 2017 at 10:46 am

  121. doug

    Why are you so hell bent on saving a guilty man from the dwp gallows?

    sen

    March 22, 2017 at 10:10 am

  122. i got the letter from the court today so that one is sorted now 🙂

    mr letter is so called in the post so will see what it says it is for when i get it.

    superted

    March 22, 2017 at 1:23 pm

  123. superted

    March 22, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    • doug

      what have you gone and done. jesus wept.

      sen

      March 22, 2017 at 11:48 pm

  124. doug

    should i do the sfa complaint now or wait till after the tribunal and send that in with it if i win?

    as i want to hit them where it hurts as all these providers care about is there funding.

    superted

    March 22, 2017 at 7:49 pm

    • Superted

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220368/skills-conditionality-consultation.pdf

      As you can clearly see the SFA did not devise the SC scheme, they merely fund certain aspects either wholly or partly (refer to SFA funding rules). The said provider was unable to secure funds as you didn’t enrol so hasn’t breached contract terms and conditions.

      I don’t see where your coming from. If approaching SFA prior to the tribunal was pertinent to aid your case i would have said so but it was not because your issue is with DWP who i can tell you now whether you win or not, will only if they infact do, advise the said provider to revise their procedure in future.

      My interest is solely to attempt to reverse your sanction and not conduct a witch hunt. You need and should be solely concentrating on preparing to represent yourself at the hearing as you could be among the first to have to go toe to toe with these presenting officers sent by DWP. Regardless of this you have to be able to understand what it is your putting forward to the tribunal otherwise struggle you will.

      Anyway await this DWP response/rebuttal they will send you and the tribunal as this will give you an idea of how they are looking to approach this case.

      doug

      March 23, 2017 at 7:17 am

      • ok ill leave that for now then still not had the mr letters so there taking the piss now and will ring again next week.

        also when i get the dwp reply i will go to the cab and see what help they can give me when the time comes 😉

        superted

        March 24, 2017 at 10:31 pm

  125. still not had the mr letters

    Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Citizens Advice Bureau once told me “their not keen on tribunals” I can only imagine thats even more so in recent years.

    ken

    March 26, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    • Ken

      Regulations are made to layman an act yet still DWP have trouble interpreting them.

      doug

      March 27, 2017 at 9:02 pm

      • now lets see what they got 😉 2000-2017.

        superted

        March 31, 2017 at 3:41 pm

      • Superted

        That looks like a notice of receipt for an FOI,

        Have they not sent you your copy of the DM or RM on the sanction regarding work search evidence yet ?

        doug

        March 31, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      • superted

        Hang in there, mate. Don’t let the bastards grind you down!

        jj joop

        April 1, 2017 at 10:13 am

  126. yes it is a foi request and no still not received anything about that?

    superted

    March 31, 2017 at 9:27 pm

    • You sure its not a Subject Access Request? An SAR is a request for personal information and comes with a 40 day time limit.

      Dot Cottan

      March 31, 2017 at 11:34 pm

      • yes it is a sar sorry 😉

        superted

        April 1, 2017 at 12:05 am

  127. superted

    April 5, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    • “Its in your Hands” obviously their not talking about document 19 20-22.

      Its not in your hands for many people refered to this Skills Conditionality.People should be assessed properly to determine they can complete a qualification not fail half way through anyway.They hype the smallest thing but it boils down to its expected of a 7-9 year old.

      Their ignoring the likelihood of finding work.many today are demanding 100% background and ability.

      Keep us informed Superted.

      ken

      April 5, 2017 at 6:03 pm

    • Superted

      https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/184115/response/454532/attach/20/Skills%20Guide%20Ch5%20England%20Provision.pdf

      I want you to read Referrals and Signposting and tell me whether or not you sat at a work focused interview prior to your referral ?

      Next, i have to ask you this again. Was any prior assessment carried out at any point with this provider BEFORE being asked to fill out an enrolment form ?

      As you see if you read very carefully, despite what went on at a work focused interview had you had sat one prior, you still would need to be assessed by the provider first. To be assessed, you must be skill screened inorder to identify a need to which a course can address. You stated to me that DWP have no LMS record of a skills screening and its results.

      A skills need that prevents a claimant from going into employment must be identified and recorded on LMS as a matter of procedure by DWP. Before enroling a claimant the provider MUST CARRY OUT an initial assessment to identify a need and whether or not a suitable place and training is available.

      SFA DO NOT fund any prior assessments so if this provider is asking you to fill out an enrolment form then they must have identified a skills need prior either by themselves carrying out a prior assessment or been handed evidence from DWP of one being carried out prior to your referral. If they didn’t carryout one or DWP didn’t supply them with one that must be recorded on the LMS then why at this stage are they asking you to fill out an enrolment form first.

      Think about this superted, read the document i supplied. once you have relived this in your mind, get back to me with your answers.

      doug

      April 5, 2017 at 7:33 pm

  128. I want you to read Referrals and Signposting and tell me whether or not you sat at a work focused interview prior to your referral ?

    all i have is this and i never seen him again and then just got the letter to show up at the provider.

    Next, i have to ask you this again. Was any prior assessment carried out at any point with this provider BEFORE being asked to fill out an enrolment form ?

    no i went in and sat down and was given the sfa form to sign, i said no and showed them the foi that states i dont have to sign anything.

    said ok thats fine and gave me the time table and said to come back the next day to start the course.

    went the next day and went in to a different room with 9 other ppl in there and sat down, the tooter held up the sfa form and said are you going to sign this and again said no as i dont have to and said i have a foi that states i dont have to and showed it to 1 other person that also remarked err i do have a point and the the head of service came running in and asked me to step out side.

    i then refused to leave without it in writing why i was being asked to leave or they could phone the police to have me removed.

    i got the letter and left.

    superted

    April 5, 2017 at 8:35 pm



  129. now i was asked if id like to use a pc but said no as i have internet at home and also showed them my job search that i was and am applying for work.

    not at 1 point was i asked to do a assessment via pc or paper just sign this or else, i refused.
    the course was also not for maths and English so wtf there on i dont know as dont you think buy now i have donr this rubbish over 25 times with different providers.

    the main reason i cant get a job is doing this useless crap over and over again i cant put a celebration in learning on a cv its a fkn waste of time proven over and over.

    superted

    April 5, 2017 at 8:59 pm

  130. o and it says on the 29th the day the course started i was asked to do the assessment, that is a out right lie and should of been done on the 28th the first day i went. and was not.

    just seems they wanted me on it weather i needed it or not to fill the space and get there funding and in cohorts with the jcp to use sanctions as threats to sign there contracts.

    superted

    April 5, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    • Superted

      Only had a chance to gaze over paperwork you uploaded, will look at it in more detail tonight and tomorrow.
      Now during your posts on this site, why didn’t you mention attending the national career service Gfutures ?

      During this meeting with the NCS ( 25/4/16), did you take part in any tests regarding maths,english,communication,etc physically. Did you hand in a CV for them to view. Did you make any declarations to a particular need to gain training in math,english,computers,etc while there ?

      What is your NVQ Lv 2 for ?

      (Think very hard about all was said and done at NCS on the 25/4/16)

      This NCS on the 25/4/16 is what DWP are saying is your skills screening or forming a part of it whether or not DWP have it on the system (LMS).

      Now regarding the provider 29/11/16 they say you asked to do a English and math test. Wasn’t this offered to you on the 28th (day before) as part of your initial assessment prior to any enrolment form ?

      As i said , think about this today and reply and i will look at it this evening or at the latest,tomorrow morning. Use the time rather than rush to answer.

      doug

      April 6, 2017 at 8:01 am

      • Superted

        Also get intouch with this Gfutures to find out what they identified as your skills need that prevents you getting into employment.

        doug

        April 6, 2017 at 8:39 am

    • The NCS meeting was more than likely one of those computers programmes that ‘identify’ based on your answers to a set of questions what jobs you would best suited to; always something outlandish like Rocket Scientist lol

      Rocket Scientist

      April 6, 2017 at 10:07 am

  131. During this meeting with the NCS ( 25/4/16), did you take part in any tests regarding maths,english,communication,etc physically. Did you hand in a CV for them to view. Did you make any declarations to a particular need to gain training in math,english,computers,etc while there ?

    no it was to re do my cv and wanted access to my ujm account when i went and refused and said i have nothing to put on it anyway and if they wanted to re right one and commit fraud then could print me one off and refused to do it, wonder why lol i did have a sanction doubt raised for that but nothing was done after i filled in the reason why on paper and gave it to my adviser that also left not long after that.

    Now regarding the provider 29/11/16 they say you asked to do a English and math test. Wasn’t this offered to you on the 28th (day before) as part of your initial assessment prior to any enrolment form ?

    no as above on the 2nd day i went in to the training room with 9 other ppl no computers was in this room and i was not asked to do anything bar sign the sfa contract said no and was asked to leave the room what they are saying is a out right lie.

    at no time on either day was i asked to do anything like that as if they did then would be clear as day i dont need anything like that as done it b4 over and over again.

    superted

    April 6, 2017 at 10:57 am

  132. “Skills Provision (England only)
    Referrals and Signposting

    1. Where evidence gathered at any Work Focused Interview suggests:

     A clear skills need which is the main barrier to the claimant from moving into work – Mandate to appropriate local provider for an Initial Provider Interview for further assessment, to confirm:

     Whether training would be suitable

     Whether a fully funded place is available.

     A less clear skills need or unclear job goals – Mandate to National Careers Service Adviser for face-to-face appointment.

     No skills need as a barrier to work but the claimant is interested in upskilling – Signpost the claimant to Skills Provider / National Careers Service.

    Skills Conditionality

    2. Attendance and participation are mandatory for all referred JSA and ESA WRAG claimants. This includes Initial Provider Interviews and training (where the skills need is the main barrier to them gaining employment and a funded place is available).

    3. Non-attendance, failure to participate or failure to complete training (without good reason) must be passed to a Decision Maker and may result in a benefit sanction.

    —-

    For referrals to Providers, Complete and print off the clerical mandatory referral letter:

    JSA: SC06 JSA Combined Initial Provider and Referral Letter or
    ESA: SC07 ESA Combined Initial Provider and Referral letter.

    Do not issue the LMS generated referral letter.

    Letters must not be amended locally. Any changes may create Legal challenge.

    Once the relevant SC letter has been issued to the claimant, should provision details change, a revised letter must be generated and issued to the claimant.

    —-

    For referrals to the National Careers Service, Complete and print off the clerical mandatory referral letters

    ESA: SC01 ESA Initial Referral Letter

    JSA: SC02 JSA Initial Referral Letter

    The combined letters cannot be used for the National Careers Service. Do not issue the LMS generated referral letter.

    Letters must not be amended locally. Any changes may create Legal challenge.
    Once the relevant SC letter has been issued to the claimant, should provision details change, a revised letter must be generated and issued to the claimant.”

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/192184/response/473959/attach/html/3/Skills%20Conditionality%20Guidance.pdf.html

    The evidence of a skills need needs to be gathered at a Work Focused interview. The DWP make no mention of a Work Focused Interview.

    And for an ‘offence’ to sanctionable the claimant has to have it clearly explained to them the consequences of failing to carry out the instruction. The DWP don’t even have any referral paperwork.

    DWP FAIL!!

    April 6, 2017 at 11:46 am

  133. “Mandate to appropriate local provider for an Initial Provider Interview for further assessment, to confirm:

     Whether training would be suitable.”

    What happened to the further assessment to confirm whether training would be suitable…. before filling out the enrolment (funding) forms?

    DWP FAIL!!

    April 6, 2017 at 11:54 am

    • Theres no assessment at the Jobcentre just someones opinion.People are then refered to these providers for a short test to try and establish what someone can or cannot do.They keep any paperwork.

      The new Jobseeker’s Allowance regime was introduced on 4 April. It gives Jobcentre Plus advisers more autonomy to deliver the right support to the right customer at the right time.

      They are just not qualified to do that.

      https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldmerit/137/13706.htm

      ken

      April 6, 2017 at 5:12 pm

      • thats what my adviser said when i asked for the skills assessment on the lms only to be told they have nothing as that is what the provider is meant to do and in my case just never bothered.

        so if a adviser sends you some place as they think you need it? is based on what exactly and what evidence do they have and as the provider is just going to go for the money and not even bother with it anyway.

        like i have never been turned away from a provider that said the course is no good for me lol.

        superted

        April 6, 2017 at 9:33 pm

  134. “Whether a fully funded place is available.”

    And if a skills need is identified AND a fully funded place is available THEN and ONLY THEN you enrol.

    DWP FAIL!!

    April 6, 2017 at 11:55 am

  135. But they don’t get PAID for the initial assessment hence the rush to fill in the enrolment form. You could fill in the enrolment form and then they could say you have no skills needs. But they would still claim payment.

    DWP FAIL!!

    April 6, 2017 at 11:58 am

    • its all about the money nothing else matters where providers are in the mix it did not matter if i needed it or not the day i was sent it was set in stone from day 1.

      we get our money or you get a sanction simple as that. its a fkn racket 😉

      superted

      April 6, 2017 at 12:02 pm

  136. By signing the enrolment form you could easily be accused of facilitating their fraud, being party to a CRIME, or aiding and abetting a CRIMINAL ACT!

    Legal Eagle

    April 6, 2017 at 12:07 pm

  137. thats what my adviser said when i asked for the skills assessment on the lms only to be told they have nothing as that is what the provider is meant to do and in my case just never bothered.

    so if a adviser sends you some place as they think you need it? is based on what exactly and what evidence do they have and as the provider is just going to go for the money and not even bother with it anyway.

    like i have never been turned away from a provider that said the course is no good for me lol.

    is based on what exactly and what evidence do they have

    Thats a good and valid question Superted.

    It might be that is a course that fits all and not people placed at different levels but thats no guarentee that its of suitable use or money well spent. Jobcentre plus staff say things they shouldn’t and comment/act on what they are not qualified to do so.Providers tell you that they only tell the Jobcentre if you turn up however its deeper then that.

    ken

    April 7, 2017 at 12:57 am

  138. Superted

    That recent document you posted states you attend the initial assessment but wouldn’t sign the enrolment form.
    Now why did you ask for a math and English assessment test on the following day. Why didn’t you ask for it on the 28th or did you ?

    That aside the onus of identifying a skills need is on the provider. Now according to there conversation (document you posted above) with DWP and even the letter they gave you. They state they try to enrol you so they must have carried out an initial assessment (skills screening) to identify a skills need along with your suitability for a course/s they offer. So the question is what method did they use to attain this, what are the results and did they record this and if so as per procedure, why wasn’t this relayed to DWP who should have recorded this on the LMS.

    So your point remains the same unless DWP can provide evidence of a skills screening being carried out to identify a need that’s preventing you from going into employment. From the NCS document and your answers to my questions i don’t see a skills need being identified and to further cement this isn’t even recorded by DWP.

    The point you raise about consent and what constitutes as lawful also stands as DWP even as a third party in effect have insisted through documentation that failure to sign an enrolment constitutes as a sanctionable offense and thus clearly removes the individuals right to consenting of free will without force,threat or deception.
    Furthermore had you had signed it as a result of fear of being sanctioned, you would have made this consent null in void. Basically you ended up at the same point where the provider cannot claim SFA funding, nor can SFA supply it.

    doug

    April 7, 2017 at 11:30 am

    • Now why did you ask for a math and English assessment test on the following day. Why didn’t you ask for it on the 28th or did you

      i never asked for it and when i went on both days it was not even brought up, the first day i was given the sfa form to sign and asked if i would like to use the pc to job search.

      the 2nd day i went straight in to a room with 9 other ppl and asked again to sign the form said no and was asked to leave.

      at no point was any skill assessment done buy the provider or the dwp what the provider is saying is a out right lie i was not asked or asked to do anything bar sign there contract.

      superted

      April 7, 2017 at 1:21 pm

      • Superted

        So it seems DWP are relying on hearsay then.

        “Initial assessment yesterday but wouldn’t sign enrolment form” quoted from document dated 29th.

        This does not explain what initial assessment they carried out that justified the then required enrolment to secure SFA funding.

        The provider states they attempted to enrol you on the 28th.

        This implies then one was carried out successfully as otherwise, why the enrolment ?

        The question for DWP is where is the proof that a skills screening was carried out that identifies a barrier to you getting into employment and what was it. Also why is it not recorded on LMS like its suppose to be as per the agreed operation rules of the implementation of skills conditionality.

        Now i can only speculate but the game afoot here is that DWP hope the tribunal don’t push these very important points. That they accept its only about your suitability as in age, unemployed status rather than establishing what level of competency your at.

        When you attend this tribunal i hope you bring this up as DWP’s case is based purely on arguing Proof on the balance of probabilities which means they have no smoking gun (ie no direct evidence to a fact something did indeed happen) so rely on other evidence to suggest it did to a point a judge would conclude more likely than not it did indeed occur.

        https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-500-6576?__lrTS=20170408095838048&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

        doug

        April 8, 2017 at 10:13 am

      • superted can add a note into the “bundle” to refute the DWP claims. Saves having to articulate it and gives something to rely on at the Tribunal. The DWP will receive a copy of this though so that they can attempt to refute superted’s refutal. But what can the DWP respond with? They probably won’t even respond. Game over for the DWP.

        Ostrich

        April 8, 2017 at 10:48 am

      • Superted

        Ostrich is quite right, personally i get my jollies putting people on the spot but then again im very comfortable with representing myself so if your not as i suspect you may not be then Ostrich approach is probably best.

        The thing to remember here is DWP were at the time sure enough on fact to sanction you when they did yet now it appears can only offer Proof on the balance of probabilities.

        Just relay the facts, one being, DWP has absolutely no recorded evidence of any skills need that prevents you going into employment being identified prior to enrolment on a skills conditionality course which is a clear requirement for advisors/work coaches/DWP to practice under their own rules and staff guidance.

        Start you case from this point first then lead into what constitutes as lawful consent so you can lead into how its null in void had you had signed it anyway for fear of sanction if its warranted as in the judge would like to hear more. Keep things clear,concise and ordered which is a good practice for all things.

        doug

        April 8, 2017 at 6:58 pm

      • The Jobcentre have a “toolkit” to identify skills needs. They ask the claimant a serious of questions and ask you to rank your math(s), english, etc. on a scale of one to five (poor to excellent) along with other questions designed to identify a skills need i.e. computers. They use this as a basis to decide on which “courses” to send the claimant on. This is recorded on the LMS. This obviously has not been carried out in superted’s case. This is a cock-up of the highest order. ‘Balance of probabilities’ doesn’t cut it.

        Jobcentre User

        April 8, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    • It’s math<strong>s</strong>, more than one!

      Though Ali G always used to say math, when he was in ‘Hood’ wiv the crew of the Berkshire Massif.

      Andrew Coates

      April 7, 2017 at 4:16 pm

      • It’s the Yanks that say math!

        Uncle Sam

        April 7, 2017 at 7:50 pm

      • This always makes me laugh when people waste there time talking language in an era absolutely the majority don’t give a hoot and now use words in ways completely contradictory to there concise meaning and abbreviate so hard many have untold meanings.

        While dependent on where you are is quite true when talking human explanation, no one can say they understand either word any less. Oddly enough a computer was programmed with this question among others during one of the many cybernetic developments for the holy grail that is AI and this is what it discerned.

        It decided that by using +/- conundrum along with Einsteins theory that math and maths are both right. You see mathematics is agreed as the universal language which means it ranks above any other language (does not deviate) no matter where you go . This computer explained that the word mathematics is too generic as it does not factor time (what proceeds on a day by day basis).
        It explained that while a child will learn various forms of calculation over one time frame that at any one moment within is liable to only be learning one. So it concluded that considering both time frames exist simultaneously yet also separately that both words are correct. So basically when you examine this the system implies either the individual linguists are wrong or mathematics and Einstein are wrong. If a computer had humor it would probably say have you ever heard of a calculator getting a wrong answer.

        doug

        April 8, 2017 at 9:02 am

      • In the English public-schooling system math(s) was always a plural because it encompassed Algebra, Calculus and Trigonometry. And maths came with three accompanying separate tatty textbooks for each discipline.

        Tom Brown

        April 8, 2017 at 10:15 am

      • Hi doug

        sen here. You should apply for a slot on Dictionary Corner (c4’s Countdown). Talk about picking the bones out of a corpse, you certainly know how to give it up in the nit-picking department. As for superted, I would just drop him if I were you. He’s dragging you down with him, me old China – into a pit of insanity where most people would be hard pressed to find their asses with both their hands. It’s time to put this one to bed, me old son. It’s bad enough wading through your verbal diarrhoea. Now you’ve got superted in on the act as well.

        sen

        April 8, 2017 at 10:20 am

      • Sen

        I just knew once i saw your other post that i would find you here on this one as you are a creature of habit after all.
        Yet again i hear waffle,waffle,waffle of absolutely no substance. When are you going to entertain the audience and actually say something worth posting. Surely you know something about something, learnt something in your life and can contribute on any of the other welfare related posted topics.

        I think we the audience know your game sen, which is to stalk me like some pervert. You can pretend not to be a deviant if you like sen but so you know there is help for your problem.

        116 123

        doug

        April 8, 2017 at 6:04 pm

      • doug mate, you tell him. The best thing for every one would be to ignore him/it and it’ll go away.

        jj joop

        April 8, 2017 at 8:03 pm

  139. The main thing now is concentrate on and winning the appeal.Skills conditionality is the last of a string of ideas under welfare reform which has shrunk over the years perhaps it lingers because of EU funding and seen as a potential sanction thrown in.None of the others worked anyone who did choose to get involved found themselves in the headlines in the spotlight then in the courts.The DWP are toxic.

    Ian Duncan Smiths trail of disaster has cost the country a fortune.From Universal Credit Universal Jobmatch to steep food price rises in the shops.One item has gone up 25p.Perhaps he should have put that on the side of the Brexit battlebus.

    ken

    April 7, 2017 at 2:27 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: