Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

While Amber Rudd is Elsewhere Universal Credit Crisis Continues.

with 90 comments

Image result for universal credit
Public interest in Universal Credit has not dampened down.
Though  Amber Rudd has does not pay much attention.

A steady drip of really bad stories continues.

This site would like to hear from people on the issues around the  Universal Credit Job Search and the Journal.
We were told, or least got the impression,  that the transfer of millions of people already on benefits to UC  was being halted.
Or rather,

Ms Rudd will delay asking MPs to approve the transfer of three million benefit claimants to UC, and instead plans to move just 10,000 onto the system this summer as part of a trial to study its effectiveness.

Independent. 11th of January.

Other important changes include pressing ahead with a pilot to support 10,000 people from ‘legacy benefits’ on to Universal Credit in a test and learn approach.

There remains this:

What is natural migration

‘Migration’ is the word in common use for the process by which a claimant with a current award of a ‘legacy’ benefit (income-based job-seeker’s allowance (JSA), income-related employment and support allowance (ESA), income support(IS), housing benefit(HB), child tax credit (CTC) and working tax credit (WTC)) has that award (or those awards) terminated, instead being obliged to rely on UC for means-tested support. Under current plans, the DWP intends to start an official ‘managed migration’ process in 2019. This will see the DWP mandatorily terminating current legacy benefit awards and replacing that with a claim for UC. In this process, transitional protection will apply for those whose UC award is lower than their legacy benefit entitlement. The process is due to be complete by March 2022.

By contrast, ‘natural migration’ is the process by which a current claimant can end up, in effect, being obliged to claim UC instead of legacy benefits for means-tested support, completely outside of the managed migration process. No transitional protection will apply. Natural migration is possible at any time, including before 2019. It is more likely to occur in UC full service areas, but can occur in UC live service (or gateway) areas too.

This was announced last week, and, er, got buried under others news:

DWP not engaging with expert calls for change to Universal Credit

The Work and Pensions Committee is today launching a new inquiry into what the Government calls “natural migration”: the process by which people claiming existing benefits move onto Universal Credit if they have a change in their circumstances,

What is natural migration?

Universal Credit has now been rolled out to every Jobcentre in the country. This means that if people who are already claiming benefits under the old system have a change in their circumstances (for example, if they form part of a new couple, or separate from an existing partner), they can’t make a new claim for the old benefits. Instead, they have to make a whole new claim for Universal Credit.

The Government calls this “natural migration” to Universal Credit. People who transfer onto Universal Credit in this way aren’t eligible for any transitional protection payments and so may see a change in their income from benefits. For many people, this may be the first time that they discover that their income will change under Universal Credit.

Natural Migration inquiry launched

The Committee has heard concerns that:

  • the Government hasn’t given clear and comprehensive information about the “triggers” for “natural migration”
  • the absence of transitional protection means people might have to cope suddenly with a drop in income.

This is the latest stage in the Committee’s ongoing work on Universal Credit – which has already resulted in the Government making significant changes to the system

n its November report on so-called “managed migration” – the process of wholesale moving existing benefit claimants onto Universal Credit even if their circumstances haven’t changed  – the Committee called on the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of a sudden loss of income due to natural migration on different claimant groups, and then to look again at whether the triggers for natural migration are appropriate. In its official response to that report, published today alongside this new inquiry launch, the Government has refused to do that.

The Chair has written back to the Secretary of State with a series of questions about the Government’s response:

The Committee is disappointed and concerned by the Government’s failure to engage with its report and reasoning behind key recommendations, and intends to return to several of them including, now, the “triggers” for natural migration. The Department declined, again, to set tests that it will meet before managed migration begins. “Given that we, the NAO and SSAC all made this recommendation, this continued resistance is very disappointing.”

The Government’s response also does not address the central issue of who takes the risk in the transition to Universal Credit, with the Committee arguing repeatedly that it should be Government, making the huge reform, who assume the risk, not existing benefit claimants who include the most vulnerable people in our society. The Government says it’s simply impossible for it to move people over without requiring them to make a new claim, but “did not offer—and has not offered during our inquiry—any evidence” why.

DWP also appears strangely reluctant to acknowledge the key recommendation it did accept. The Committee had said DWP should not ask MPs to vote on new UC rules until it had listened to expert views on them. And that is what happened: rather than a vote before Christmas as the Government had originally planned, revised rules were published last week. The Chair was therefore very “surprised to read that the Government ‘does not accept this recommendation’, given that by the time the response arrived the Government had not only accepted the recommendation but also implemented it.”

Written by Andrew Coates

January 29, 2019 at 1:18 pm

90 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. 1: Do any paid, or unpaid work or voluntary work
    2: Get a place on a training programme or start full or part time education
    3: Have someone come to live in your house or someone who was living in your house leave
    4: Change your account for your Jobseekers Allowance payments
    5: Change your address or are going away from home, even if it is for a day
    6: Changing your doctor

    There is a lot more BUT THESE RAISE EYEBROWS.

    Now i can understand changes you make being reportable but what when they are THRUST upon you, when you have absolutely no control over a change you never wanted in the first place.

    NEVER EVER have i heard a work coach caution a claimant while encouraging them to dissolve some barrier they THINK exists like doing volunteering,work experience, skills conditionality that if you do then its a change of circumstance and we need to close down this claim and have you make a fresh claim for UC.

    Only the other day we had a person on here who was i quote, instructed by a DWP work coach to change their bank account. I wont wonder here, I KNOW this work coach never ever mentioned it.

    Now the thing here clearly as vague as MUST SIGN PROVIDER PAPERWORK in terms of what specifically does DWP mean when they say that, is what are the taps that decide whether or not said claimant continues with said legacy benefit or is forced to do a fresh claim for UC.
    I say this because as expected DWP has yet again used terms that do not specially clarify so while its clear its backdoor level devilry (ie willful deception,maladministration), you sure wont easily be able to prove it.

    “Its all in the small print”

    Really, wheres the specific definition of lets say the difference between me deciding i want a new doctor to a practice going into partnership with another surgery and thus relocating to the other address. How about if my GP is a fossil and is retiring, what if they have been struck off ?

    How about living in shared accommodation, am i responsible for the landlord moving in,replacing or relocating tenants or what about a slumlord forced to relocate you because they have been found to have acted unlawfully in the upkeep of said original property?



    January 29, 2019 at 2:14 pm

  2. ”This site would like to hear from people on the issues around the Universal Credit Job Search and the Journal.”

    Basically there is an infinite number of things you can do to find a job, so whatever you put on the job search won’t ever be enough ; as there will still be things you have not done, which the so called Job Coach (Roach) will concentrate on, to try to make you feel stressed out and not trying, and on the verge of getting a sanction..
    Naturally, though a cornerstone of UC, the Job Centre provides no printouts or templates showing exactly what an acceptable job search looks like…
    If on the off change they cannot find holes in the job search they will shift the attention to why you are still haven’t got a job, woe betide anyway who doesn’t totally blame themselves…

    Same with a CV, which the Roach will insist you upload to the journal, or have your claim closed or sanctioned – even though this upload seemingly isn’t mandatory by their own rules.
    Of course the CV won’t be good enough either , too long/ short, etc etc , and require much alteration ( on the threat of a sanction) until the Roach is satisfied,
    if you change Roach, the process will start afresh, a CV being very subjective.

    As regards the journal, if you are in a non work search group, the DWP will often ignore any questions or problems you place on there, and force you to ring up to get the case manager or roach to bother to look at your journal.
    However if you are in job search group they will look at the journal, and often too, all to try to harass and hopefully sanction you ,
    Sending little tasks to do, hoops to jump through, silly jobs to apply for, snouts at the trough providers to contact, etc , all hoping you slip up and fail one.

    And basically the job search is counterproductive, especially a 35 hour week one , and forces every claimant to applying for many many jobs , meaning the employee are getting absolutely flooded with unsuitable applicants.
    It’s also used for the psychological tactic of making claimants lie, thus getting an edge over them ,as most will not succeed in doing the required 35 hours, every week,
    Start a new UC claim, you will be in debt and a liar… a great mood to be in for job interviews ,

    The whole idea of UC is to bully and micro manage the lives of the poorest 25% of the population, and make sure there’s no such thing as poor but happy..

    Thought Criminal

    January 29, 2019 at 2:15 pm

    • Oh yeah I forgot the main issue with the Journal, right at the top of the web page it says:
      Imagine, say, a bank forcing you to beta test their software,

      Thought Criminal

      January 29, 2019 at 2:24 pm

      • At the UC website have moved on from the ALPHA testing stage 😀 It still has a long way to go in the development stage before it could be considered for release to the public. Gotta iron out those bugs 😉

        Bill Gates the Third

        January 29, 2019 at 3:35 pm

    • the Job Centre provides no printouts or templates showing exactly what an acceptable job search looks like…

      here you go 😉


      January 29, 2019 at 3:20 pm

      • this is my job search. it is now at 8325 and not 1 interview so much for uc pmsl 😉


        January 29, 2019 at 3:26 pm

    • That’s true. People apply for jobs they know they won’t get before even applying in order to look busy and satisfy their work coach that they’re making an effort. There are significant numbers of applicants for every job these days, even crap ones, and so the chances of even getting interviewed are always low especially if you’ve been out of work for a while, are over 50, have a health problem, are too qualified, or unqualified, or inexperienced, or too experienced, or… well… whatever really… especially if the jobs being applied for a low-skilled minimum wage work of a kind you’ve never done before. It’s all balls dreamed up by people who have no experience of the real world and based around the idea that if somebody doesn’t have a job it’s because they aren’t trying hard enough and need repeated kicking up the backside, threats and policing in order to “motivate” them.

      Hammer on the Mountain

      January 29, 2019 at 3:56 pm

    • I just hope an employer tells me to stop applying, as I am unsuitable


      January 30, 2019 at 9:44 am

    • I can’t see anything on this .gov journal site that gives someone the option to decline cookies being set.


      January 30, 2019 at 10:22 pm

  3. And now the DWP are having to use an actor to pretend to be a successful claimant of Universal Credit.
    Didn’t we go through this before in 2015 with the fictional ‘Zac’ and ‘Sarah’ ? ( As I remember, they were glad to have been sanctioned, because with hindsight they realised it was for their own good ).

    Jeff Smith

    January 29, 2019 at 2:39 pm

    • Yes.

      One reason I asked is somebody I know is worried about having to keep this Journal and letting Coachy spy on his every effort to find a job.

      I recall that last time around our Newshounds tracked down a statement saying that you did not have to let Coachy look online ay you were doing on Universal Jobmatch.

      What you had to so – which I do – is provide evidence of your Jobsearch.

      Is this the case with this Journal giving details of your actions over every waking minute of your life?

      Andrew Coates

      January 29, 2019 at 5:05 pm

      • no because you can provide your job search in any format you like and the dwp can not dictate how it is provided.

        so you can refuse to use the journal to provide your job search just as long you can provide one.

        i bet the coach wont like that but it is the law at the end of the day and your personnel private info.


        January 29, 2019 at 5:13 pm

      • https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/work_search_evidence_the_uc_onli

        All available Work Search evidence should be considered, including :
         the claimant’s Universal Jobmatch account RIP pmsl 🙂
         any Claimant Commitment Pack ‘My work plan’
        stencils, diary or record the claimant has kept of
        their activities
         print-outs of jobs they have applied for
         letters from employers
         updated CVs


        January 29, 2019 at 5:33 pm

  4. I haven’t been paid this month they didn’t give me a penny so have had to resort to borrowing money from my family who are absolutely f7cking livid with those jc *unts. I have to visit jc next week to bring 3 proofs of identity to prove who I am & have got to do a new claimant commitment. I’ve got a horrible feeling it is going to be exactly the same as the last one. SIGN THE SHARKS DOCUMENTS OR ELSE.


    January 29, 2019 at 5:54 pm

    • just refuse to sign it unless it is removed as it is unreasonable as you know 😉


      January 29, 2019 at 6:05 pm

      • superted

        From whom do you seek a second opinion?

        jj joop

        January 30, 2019 at 4:46 pm

      • imo the coaches floor manager.


        January 30, 2019 at 4:53 pm

    • You need to get some outside involvment here,theres been clearly been unlawful activity and the possiblity of a vicious circle could arise,Take any paperwork to the Citizens Advice and tell them what has been happening and to help with any appeal paperwork and offer other support as the prospect of stress and anxiety could develop .


      January 29, 2019 at 6:11 pm

  5. You don’t sign it, it has to be accepted via the online account within 5 days.


    January 29, 2019 at 6:12 pm

    • well the plan should be not to let them put that on there in the first place 😉

      even if you signed it and was then sent to the provider and refused to sign there paperwork if they tried a sanction and it went to tribunal they would still loose.


      January 29, 2019 at 6:21 pm

      • Violet is probably right though, It is more likely the joke shop will start where they left off. And if Violet doesn’t sign the provider’s crap they will just stop the claim again. Rinse and repeat. Like the evil old aunt who would feed you the same horrid food for breakfast, lunch and dinner and keep it over until the next day and the next.. until you ate it.


        January 29, 2019 at 6:33 pm

      • Get rid of that online account.The situation can rapidly go down hill you dont know who’s looking i there and what could be going on,these could be a dozen heads looking in there hence a dozen opinions and none of them lawful.

        How can a claiment committment be agreed online it must be done face to face,simply someone putting anything on there is like giving some an ultimatum.Try to avoid using family for support as this could put a strain on relationships long term.The whole idea of the welfare state is to provide the support not the family.

        I’ve had horrendous experiences with these Claiment Commitments with no doubt many more people,all well mentioned.


        January 29, 2019 at 6:35 pm

      • You are going to have to call Checkmate on this, ted? Where can Violet move her King without it being captured? Outmanoeuvred? Boxed-in? Joke shop win?


        January 29, 2019 at 6:39 pm

      • The online account leaves your King exposed to attack and capture. ken.


        January 29, 2019 at 6:42 pm

      • And capture means.Game Over!


        January 29, 2019 at 6:43 pm

      • It is all about material and position, ken.


        January 29, 2019 at 6:49 pm

      • Seems like this game is now at Endgame, ken. Violet needs to free up her King. Get it out of danger and protect it.


        January 29, 2019 at 6:51 pm

  6. According to my roach, if an employer sees a gap in your CV, straight away they think that you don’t want to work… or you have been sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle. Cv’s are a bloody barrier anyway, what happened to seeing a job, ringing up, getting an interview and more than likely getting the job!


    January 29, 2019 at 6:24 pm

    • Ken I am on full service uc there is no way you can get rid of the online account, everything has to be done online.


      January 29, 2019 at 6:54 pm

      • you can refuse to use it for job search and uploading a cv online but as for the cc having no option to accept it or not but it says if you dont agree to it within 5 days the claim will be closed.

        tho within those 5 days you can ask for a 2nd opinion.


        January 29, 2019 at 7:03 pm

      • It is still not right though. The cc is being used to deny Violet her rights as enshrined under contract Law.
        It is as doug said, you can’t use a legally enforceable contract to enforce a non-legally enforceable contract. Assuming the cc is even legally enforceable contract, that is. The horse must come before the cart. The problem is what outside parties can you involve to get this unlawful activity sorted out? Who are
        these job centre bastards accountable to?


        January 29, 2019 at 7:15 pm

      • superted

        January 29, 2019 at 7:16 pm

      • Who are these job centre bastards accountable to?

        There are supposed to be complaints procedures but don’t expect to hear anything,here the local MP was fobbed of with ilegible paperwork.


        January 29, 2019 at 7:31 pm

      • Working Links had a ‘complaints procedure’. Little postcards you popped in a ‘letter-box’ that just fell into a bin.

        Working Stinks

        January 29, 2019 at 7:48 pm

  7. Reblogged this on The Night Owl and commented:
    . . .and the Universal C redit Crisis continues!
    Unfortunately, it’s the claimant who pays forit all, not the Government who introduced this evil so-called reform! 😦


    January 29, 2019 at 6:47 pm

  8. Where are all the real jobs?


    January 29, 2019 at 7:06 pm

  9. Click to access Claim_closure__re-claims_v5.0_.pdf



    you can refuse to accept the commitment, in which case you will be given a 7-day cooling off period to reconsider your decision before your claim is closed. If your claim is closed for not accepting the contents of your claimant commitment you can request a mandatory reconsideration and then appeal.


    Violet go to citizens advice take that so called commitment and launch an appeal.That cooling off period should be used for an appointment at citizens advice.


    January 29, 2019 at 7:25 pm

    • her claim was ongoing tho and in that case should of been a sanction unless i missed something lol


      January 29, 2019 at 7:35 pm

      • It should have been a doubt, a sanction, a mandatory reconsideration, then an appeal. What the fuck are the joke shop doing by just closing the claim. They can’t just close a claim down!

        Click to access sscs1-eng.pdf


        January 29, 2019 at 7:41 pm

      • Here its saying.

        1. Claimant Commitment not accepted during an on-going claim For an on-going claim, their payments will
        be stopped from the beginning of the assessment period in which they failed to accept their Claimant Commitment. They will then have to claim again.

        Click to access 685%20CLAIMANT%20COMMITMENT%20GUIDANCE.pdf

        This is only guidence though,its doubtful if a commitment saying I must sign provider paperwork would progress very far,that is a nougat.As with all of this another Jobcentre in another area this wouldn’t of happened.It does look like the old macho,claimant harrassment is once again in full swing,its typical when theres a new kid on the block.


        January 29, 2019 at 9:53 pm

      • The claimant may be sanctioned if, without good reason,

        where have i heard that b4 lol but she had a good reason and told a so called manager and was ignored.!


        January 29, 2019 at 10:03 pm

  10. I did refuse to accept the commitment, after 5 days claim was shut down, you can’t beat them ken. They didn’t give me a 7 days cooling off period so the roach (ermintrude) broke rules and regulations, why the hell are these people so twisted? The word psychopath comes to mind.


    January 29, 2019 at 7:34 pm

    • It is like taking on the cops or the NHS.


      January 29, 2019 at 7:44 pm

    • https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/claimant_commitment_is_not_a_con

      I can confirm that the Department deliberately did not refer to a legal contract in the previous
      Freedom of Information response. Rather, we referred to a contractual concept because the
      Claimant Commitment is intended to be about a very specific two-way bargain: claimants are
      provided with financial support; and in return for that financial support we expect them to do
      everything that they can to prepare for and find work.

      like the 35hr job search they cant enforce it buy law and when they tried to it went to upper tribunal and the dwp lost as it is nothing more than a expectation.

      so if they put must sign all provider paperwork then this will also be classed as a expectation as cant be enforced buy law.

      same as will jump off a cliff next Friday.

      so say you sign it and then be sent to another provider and again refuse to sign there paper work which is your right under law and dwp rules and regs at a tribunal the dwp will never win.

      my old adviser was sacked for what they done to me and this is no different and even worse given what was on the cc and what this coach is doing.


      January 29, 2019 at 8:36 pm

      • Welcome to contract law superted.

        Now while what you say isn’t without merit. it does little to no good to bring this long standing issue to a head, especially considering the approach has changed.

        Just like your case it was not a quick fix, you had to put your ducks in order so again learn to walk before you run is what i strongly suggest here rather than blindly stabbing away.

        The first quest is WHY do DWP feel it is essential to place “must sign provider paperwork” on a CC. Not what you think it is BUT what is DWPs official standing/justification is. Furthermore what is DWPs interpretation from the point of a decision maker of said sentence as in what if any are the parameters of what constitutes as a non breach of CC contract in this and only this particular regard.

        This will effectively give you a base to work from. Blood from a stone is very much what DWP are about so do not expect the road of needed disclosure to end here.


        January 30, 2019 at 3:31 pm

      • doug to me it is Crystal clear what the work coach is trying on as she was sent to a provider and refused to sign, she was then sent to another provider and had her cc changed to must sign all provider paperwork because dwp rules state you dont have to sign them and they know it.

        she complained to a so called manager about the cc change and was ignored and the claim was ended the day she had to go to the 2nd provider, thats not a coincidence that was done on purpose.

        mr was done in writing and received and will take place with a face to face meeting, that is not normal procedure.!

        and like you said they cant use 1 contract to enable another but at the end of the day if it goes to a tribunal and takes 6 months or more the dwp will loose.


        January 30, 2019 at 11:37 pm

      • It is analogous to a burglar forcing your door open (cc) and threatening you with menaces to open your locked safe (signing the provider contract).

        Cat Burglar

        January 30, 2019 at 11:48 pm

      • @ doug

        With Universal Credit’s full digital service you don’t actually physically sign your CC. You accept what is recorded on it by clicking a button later on a page in your UC online account or, as poor Violet has discovered, the automatic system doesn’t pay you by direct transfer into your bank account.

        Adolph "Harpo" Marx

        January 31, 2019 at 8:00 am

      • Having to wait months,possibly no money to go to court isn’t what could be said as bringing this to a head.
        Just because it can be found DWP acted in a manner contrary to legal definition does not put them in any position where this attempt to assist and gain has to officially stop as we can see clearly.

        So the plight to prevent DWP doing this in the first instance hasn’t in the slightest been solved as of yet despite numerous cases identical to yours going to tribunal for quite a few years now. If anything, DWP has new and approved it as now thanks to regulation they can close a claim, something far worse than a sanction that still affords some benefits of welfare. Its further also a neat way to get a legacy claimant onto UC as despite any tribunal ruling, the tribunal cannot and more importantly will not reverse the decision to put the said claimant back onto legacy.

        Businesses work with third parties all the time and dependent on that relationships classification would allow them to bundle certain consents together. The question is however as it must be given physically a second time at a second location rather than completed simultaneously at the point of CC, can it be said to be the same thing legally.
        Like you have said its a directive that is an expectation which if DWP agrees with does not remove their right to add it and close a claim on that basis if and only if the relationship is deemed to be of a certain classification among the two parties and the manner in which they approach said situation is deemed the same.

        Its a completely different arguing point now and at this juncture until DWP are made to announce/declare substance to, where is it exactly one is to begin when presenting a case assuming one has a case as currently a claimant might have a say but also DWP still have their cake in the meantime.


        January 31, 2019 at 11:24 am

      • Given what has happened to Violet it seems that the best strategy would be to treat the cc as a cookie notice and just click ‘accept’. Even if it says jump off a bridge by Friday. Whatever. And from then on just deal with the ins and outs of whatever you have accepted.

        Black Label

        January 31, 2019 at 11:28 am

      • Given what has happened to Violet it seems that the best strategy would be to treat the cc as a cookie notice and just click ‘accept’. Even if it says jump off a bridge by Friday. Whatever. And from then on just deal with the ins and outs of whatever you have ‘accepted’.

        Black Label

        January 31, 2019 at 11:28 am

      • “Having to wait months,possibly no money to go to court isn’t what could be said as bringing this to a head.”

        Speak for yourself doug, but we aren’t all sat out in the woods with a collection of 12-bore shotguns for company. It is all fine and dandy for you living in your log cabin. You are fortunate to possess the skills to hunt, fish and shoot to sustain yourself. You are in no hurry for your ‘day in court’. Unfortunately, this does not represent the living circumstances of the vast majority of claimants for whom having to wait for 18 months with absolutely no income for a Tribunal hearing to vindicate them is a an impossibility

        Off Grid

        January 31, 2019 at 11:49 am

      • I doubt Violet even knows how to pluck a swan!

        Big Game Hunter

        January 31, 2019 at 11:54 am

      • Off Grid

        That is my exact point that people cant wait, that unless its brought to a head that it will just continue and plunge people in crisis on a basis that needn’t happen if DWP conceded to the point you just cant force,threaten and deceive people into consent, that it is a wilful act of repugnant behavior on their part to pursue in such a manner.


        January 31, 2019 at 12:55 pm

    • It seems very unfair and wrong that you cannot dispute or contest a CC without getting you claim closed. Work coaches often insert things into CCs without telling or showing you what they’re doing and you only find out about it later, because on the full digital service of UC you only get the chance to read and accept your CC later online by clicking a button. You could use the journal, a two-way means of communicating with your work coach and unknown others, to dispute your CC I suppose but have never heard about anybody doing this. As I say you don’t see new CCs while at the Jobcentre, or I don’t anyway. The only way to see new CCs is via te relevant page of your online UC account and there is only one button to click as far as CCs go, i.e., to accept the CC, and no button to allow you to dispute or contest what has been included digitally.

      Bad times.

      On the plus side you don’t have to record your job search digitally by means of your UC account. (You wouldn’t use the journal for that anyway because there is a separate section for work search in the UC account to do that like Universal Jobmatch had.) I know you don’t have to store details of job search activity online because I have personally refused to do this several without any penalty. Who the heck would want to commit their job search to a database that won’t let you edit, alter or delete what you have written and let anybody with the right permissions, anywhere in the world, monitor what you have been up to remotely?

      I wouldn’t want my Mum to be able to do that let alone anybody working at the DWP!

      Adolph "Harpo" Marx

      January 30, 2019 at 1:36 pm

  11. None of anyone business if I change my doctor (I don’t always see the same gp at the pratice I go to anywhere) my named gp has been changed a few times over the last couple of years.


    January 29, 2019 at 7:55 pm

  12. My roach is trying to force me to do voluntary work through my claimant commitment… I thought that voluntary was doing it off your own back and not being ordered into doing it.


    January 29, 2019 at 9:37 pm

    • the providers must be getting desperate as if you did find some voluntary work they could stop you doing it and send you down the provider but it is still up to you to sign there contracts.


      January 29, 2019 at 9:48 pm

      • The people who work for the providers, know some wont get jobs elsewhere because of their dirty tactics


        January 30, 2019 at 9:40 am

  13. Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating!.


    January 29, 2019 at 9:49 pm

  14. I think instead of the claimant asking for a second opinion from a work coach someone from Citizens Advice would be better at that second “opinion” for them.


    January 29, 2019 at 10:00 pm

  15. superted

    January 29, 2019 at 10:21 pm

  16. CIVIC chief is calling for action after the number of people using the food bank in Romsey almost doubled.

    Universal Credit has caused a lot of people to get into debt and they have to keep paying their rent so they are denying themselves food.



    January 30, 2019 at 1:04 pm

    • I’m sick to death of all of this tyranny & I am bloody ashamed to be a British national. Thanks very much tory scum.


      January 30, 2019 at 1:33 pm

  17. They are back to their old tricks: fictional people played by actors:

    Andrew Coates

    January 30, 2019 at 4:16 pm

  18. So what is the solution to Violet’s seemingly intractable problem? Sign/accept the cc regardless but reserve the right to not carry out the demand? This ‘workaround’ means that the joke shop can’t arbitrary close the claim down and puts them in the position of having to issue a doubt for any subsequent failure to comply with the cc. Or have we reached the stage where claims are being closed on alleged breaches of the claimant commitment? What’s happened to ‘doubts’, mandatory reconsiderations, appeals. Denying claimants the right to state their case, an appeal to an independent tribunal and the right to arbitration goes against every law of natural justice. How can a human being’s sole means of support be removed on a whim of a civil servant? What is the UN rapporteur on human rights saying on this. Where is doug when you need her?

    Bernadette Stravoski

    January 30, 2019 at 5:05 pm

    • You be expected sign anything that is unlawful,the Jobcentre will say “you signed it” many times these commitments are not explained to changes made also avoid the journal.Unfortunatly if you put the devil on horse back he’ll ride to hell.

      There is no easy answer to this behaviour but these companies’ that are supposed to helping the unemployed won’t get paid,the bullying didn’t work.At the end of the day this behaviour belongs in a court room which costs even more money.All we have see is more division in society something the Tory party are very good at.This will go on and on.

      Violet today us tomorrow.



      January 30, 2019 at 6:20 pm

      • Too right, ken. The joke centre will laugh in your face: “Well,. you signed it”. 😀 “You choose to sign the contract” 😀 “Nobody twisted your arm up your back and forced you to sign it” 😀 “You were warned that if you failed to participate your money would be stopped.” 😀 “But you still signed the contract.” 😀 “And now your money has been stopped because you failed to participate.” “It is all your own fault.” “You have no one to blame but yourself.” 😀


        January 30, 2019 at 11:58 pm

      • Too right, ken. The joke centre will laugh in your face: “Well,. you signed it”. 😀 “You choose to sign the contract” 😀 “Nobody twisted your arm up your back and forced you to sign it” 😀 “You were warned that if you failed to participate your money would be stopped.” 😀 “But you still signed the contract.” 😀 “And now your money has been stopped because you failed to participate.” “It is all your own fault.” “You have no one to blame but yourself.” 😀 ..


        January 30, 2019 at 11:58 pm

  19. When is ‘Stepping’ going to be on to rant on about how the ‘Government is killing the disabled’. Stepping, someone who admits to fraudulently trousering over 320 nicker (in real terms) a week for decades uninterrupted for decades. All we hear in the media is how badly treated the ‘disabled’* are.
    But it is those like Violet who are being picked off by the DWP. But we never hear about the Violetss in the mainstream media. Violet needs to get herself a wheelchair and start ranting on about how the DWP has left a ‘disabled’ person penniless and facing homelessness. That might elicit some public sympathy.
    And, in any case being left without any income and facing homelessness would make anyone severely depressed and filled with stress and anxiety. Time to put in some sort of claim for ‘disability’.

    * ‘Disabled’: a broad term which include a broad range of people, all the way from quadruple amputees, people who are terminally ill and ESA claimants, and those with a ‘bad back’. We also have the physically and mentally disabled. Mentally disabled includes the ‘depressed’ and those ‘suffering’ with ‘stress’ and ‘anxiety’.


    January 30, 2019 at 5:22 pm

    • All we hear in the media is how badly treated the ‘disabled’* are treated by the DWP.


      January 30, 2019 at 5:23 pm

  20. All

    Does anyone here know if you can upload Word or PDF documents to the work search evidence section of the Universal Credit Journal and/or the messaging section to your coach?

    jj joop

    January 30, 2019 at 7:20 pm

    • I don’t think so, copy and paste from word into
      Work search notes. or whatever it’s called

      Thought Criminal

      January 30, 2019 at 8:37 pm

  21. Have you written to the Queen, Violet? Her Maj is simply superb at sorting out benefits problems.

    Wills & Kate

    January 31, 2019 at 1:11 am

    • Yeah she should know about taxpayers money!

      The Queen’s taxpayer-funded costs rose by 13% in the past year, partly due to the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.



      January 31, 2019 at 12:54 pm

    • Her Maj is also in receipt of ‘Winter Heating Allowance’ 😉

      Land Rovered

      February 1, 2019 at 3:38 pm

  22. UK council tax benefit cuts resulted in surge of unpaid bills, new research finds

    The rate of non-collection of tax is around 10 times higher than the 2.5 per cent under the old system

    another element of the coalition government’s austerity programme, designed to slash the UK’s deficit, has delivered something of a false economy, along with cuts to housing association grants and personal independence payments.



    January 31, 2019 at 1:02 pm

  23. That evil old b@stard is getting millions more this year… all the money from sanctioned benefit claimants I bet!


    January 31, 2019 at 1:19 pm

  24. DWP’s treatment of benefit claimants bordering on inhumane, MSPs told


    January 31, 2019 at 3:08 pm

  25. I am not recieving confirmation emails from reed, is anyone else having this problem?.


    January 31, 2019 at 7:15 pm

    • Same here. Not receiving confirmation emails from reeddotcodotuk but receiving confirmation form employers.

      Bird Seed

      January 31, 2019 at 8:05 pm

    • Same here. Not receiving confirmation emails from reeddotcodotuk but receiving confirmation from employers.

      Bird Seed

      January 31, 2019 at 8:06 pm

    • Correction: Receiving confirmation from Reed. Email client was a bit slow, that’s all.

      Bird Seed

      January 31, 2019 at 8:10 pm

  26. ha ha the below job interview sounds mild compared to a Job Centre visit- a shame the media have no interest in exposing what goes on there.

    Olivia Bland’s Web Applications UK interview ‘humiliating’

    A woman who claims she was subjected to a “brutal” two-hour job interview has said the company’s CEO “tried his best to intimidate” her and “assert power”.

    Olivia Bland’s account of the interview at a UK tech firm in Oldham, Greater Manchester, provoked outrage on social media.

    She made the claims on Twitter after the interview at Web Applications UK.

    The firm’s CEO Craig Dean apologised and said he had “no desire to see anyone hurt”.

    On Twitter, Miss Bland wrote she felt Mr Dean “tried his best to intimidate [me] and assert power”.

    The interview had begun in an “utterly bizarre” fashion, she said, in which picked on her music tastes before revealing he was scrolling through her Spotify account.

    He then asked “a lot of personal questions”, she said, before “tearing apart, line by line” everything she had submitted in the written part of the application process.

    “Later in the interview he asked me: ‘How do you think it went?’

    “He said ‘I’ll tell you how it went’ and listed off everything bad he thought I did in the interview.

    “He told me everything I did was wrong, everything I said, the way I sat, my body language, everything that he could do to attack me.”

    She later revealed she was actually offered the position but declined to take it.

    Thought Criminal

    January 31, 2019 at 8:13 pm

    • What happened to the days when all they said was can you do the job, when can you start followed by taking you to an area to prove it.
      I hate to say this as it does not mean all men are bad at it but women are often better at giving interviews (ie the interviewer).
      I have to wonder if a lot of what has to do with the change is that of all this psycho babble bull managers and owners are feed on these stupid courses they go on. Its as though you buy a merc and because it never let you down its just easier to keep buying future mercs. Its very typecast and creates drones which has killed a lot of individuality and creativity in the workplace.


      February 1, 2019 at 12:07 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: