Flexible New Deal: providers request passport, driving licence or birth certificate
Post Categories: DWP • Flexible New Deal • Flexible New Deal Sanctions • jobcentre Plus
Tags: birth certificate, driving licence, DWP, es40, Flexible New Deal, Flexible New Deal provider, jobcentre Plus, jsa, passport, signing on book
We have received reports that some Flexible New Deal providers are requesting the following evidence for the initial interview:
- Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) signing book (ES40)
- A passport, driving licence (card type with photo), birth certificate or medical card
Why could this be?
Simple. It is a contractual obligation for providers to recognise whether you are entitled to receive Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). In order to do this they need to check whether the person who attends is the person the Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claim is for and whether they have entitlement to receive Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). They also must at all times verify to see whether they are communicating with the right person so you might be sensible enough to take your passport or birth certificate around with you everytime you go.
What?
Although you have a benefit claim through Jobcentre Plus who have already checked the credentials – what is happening here is you are being vetted *again* – if you refuse or fail to bring in such identification to your Flexible New Deal provider you will lose your entitlement to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) benefit.
This lack a lot of simple common sense (do you ever get to hear the word common sense after the prefix “simple”? you must be aware that some common sense for the DWP is quite advanced) considering you must have sustained a Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claim for between 6-12 months of full entitlement.
It is to kick people off and save money and reduce unemployment (claimants) figures.
Link Summary
17 Responses to “Flexible New Deal: providers request passport, driving licence or birth certificate”
Trackbacks:
Leave a Reply
Please Note: We are an independent website NOT an official Government website or a business or affiliate operating on behalf of. Please consider this before posting any personal information or if for whatever reason thinking this is connected to Jobcentre Plus. (Always look for .gov.uk at the end of the URL which specifys a Government website)
Please Note: This post is over 8 months old. You may want to check future posts in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.
By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your comment(s) and name/web site in attribution. Only comment if you agree with the below rules.
(1) All comments on Flexible New Deal Scandal are moderated for purposes of filtering out SPAMThank you for your attribution to Flexible New Deal Scandal!
(2) I reserve the right not to publish any comment for any reason such as being racist or offensive
(3) I aim to accept comments within 3 hours (but could be up to 24 hours)
(4) I will post any comments not in favour of any article for balance of discussion
(5) I do not edit comments so if the comment is partially offensive it is unlikely to be approved at all
(6) I reserve the right to append line breaks to comments so they are easier to read or remove any link
One of the reasons that providers ask for info again is that they need to know if the person turning up on the programme is who they really say they are.
When I was sent to the torture club (A4e) on the old New Deal all I had was letter of introduction from the jobcentre, that was good enough.
What sort of lunatic is going to voluntary attend a provider using someone else’s identity. Bureaucracy rules supreme!
Exactly. I wonder if this is done in response to the falsified job outcomes etc. of the New Deal. What bothers me about this is, not only do the documents become required initially they coudl be asked for at anytime – ID cards anyone? Carrying a passport around with you etc. is pretty much that happening already.
Talking about A4e… anyone know why Inside Out decided to swap a4e investigation for clouds in yesterdays Inside Out Yorkshire programme?
http://flexible-new-deal.co.uk/2009/12/08/bbc-inside-out-a4e-content-replaced-with-clouds/
I’m about to go onto a Serco course (they’ve now got A4E’s lost contract) on Wednesday and they’ve asked for these documents in the letter. So its perfectly legal for them to ask for these documents is it?
A friend of mine ignored their letters and didn’t go, they sent threatening letters to him for months saying they would stop his benefit. Although so far he hasn’t had his benefits stopped. Is this a scare tactic do you think or was my friend just ‘lucky?’
Interesting. (probably lucky!)
As far as I understand they have no legal ability to ask for such documents and to keep a copy of such. They can sanction you directly now though for Flexible New Deal. Jobcentre Plus has told me that they don’t have the powers to determine whether or not you are entitled to benefit (presumably what the ID is for) however can report you via National Fraud Hotline or contact Jobcentre Plus.
Is it Flexible New Deal or New Deal?
That is what I thought would be the case. Interesting how you say they could report me via the National Fraud Hotline, I wouldn’t have thought I would be committing fraud by not going to this Serco “course” (I don’t know what you call it really, provision doesn’t sound very good), but I guess its part of the New Deal ‘insult.’
I’m going to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau on Thursday and see if they can offer some suggestions.
I had read on some forum somewhere that someone had got around going to this course by signing off for a week and then making a new claim, thereby cancelling the need to go on the course. Although I take what I read on forums with a pinch of salt these days! lol
Hi Chris
Not the same rules – those 18-24 have one set of rules where 25+ have different rules.
There was a “loophole” between making a “new claim” rather than “rapid reclaim”. If you do a new claim then you are unemployed for a couple of days – if you do a “rapid reclaim” then it continues. You have limited time to do a “Rapid Reclaim” before having to do a new claim. Some BDC’s will reject anyones new claims unless they aren’t eligible for a “Rapid Reclaim” – simply advising you to do a rapid reclaim instead.
Making a new claim even if it gets you out of New Deal will mean waiting 6 weeks for first payment – this seriously sucks. Typically between 4 and 8 weeks.
Most Jobcentre Plus offices will bend the rules anyway; especially if you are under 25… as soon as you have your first appointment and get your new sign on card; your previous New Deal Personal Advisor would pick you up and invite you to be referred back to New Deal for “balance of time”. The difference is by then with a new claim you wont be receiving any benefit (until 4-6 weeks later).
Failure to attend the appointment will get your claim terminated. If you refuse to sign back up you are looking at a 6 month variable sanction. If you sign up and fail to attend the provider you will get your claim terminated after you have been exited and then a fixed sanction (2 week for first offence).
However, if you have been unemployed for 15 years then you are likely to be able to pull it off. Just how DWP works.
With Flexible New Deal it is different… once you are refered to the provider you are there for 12 months. If you signed off and then back on in 11 months time you still have to go to them.
Signing off and making a new claim on Flexible New Deal simply buys time.
You will have a new interview within 2 weeks to get your signing on date… and then your provider will contact you within a week later for an appointment within 2 weeks time. This depends on Jobcentre Plus and your provider.
For example, Jobcentre Plus could notify your provider immediately that you are signed on where you will get a phone call possibly before your initial appointment at Jobcentre for an appointment within the same week. Like wise, your provider might take ages to contact you for an appointment.
You will lose benefit for the duration you are signed off.
Well that sucks, I’m well over 25 as well! They really know how to screw us over don’t they? Its probably pointless contacting my MP to complain about all this then!
I hoped there would be a way to delay the inevitable of going on this course, but I guess I will have to go along with this joke of a provision. I can’t afford to lose out on benefits and if I was to lose my JSA, I would probably lose my Housing and Council Tax benefits too! The end result would be me losing my flat and I really don’t want that.
I’ve been stressing about this course ever since my New Deal advisor told me about it before Christmas (great present eh?) and she didn’t paint them in a positive light. She said in great length that they can stop my benefit for any number of reasons, so as you can imagine I’ve had some sleepless nights over the past couple of months worrying about it.
I would recommend bothering your MP about it, however, don’t expect it to do anything. DWP were clever to this under New Deal and providers now have to alert Jobcentre Plus of any letters from MP’s and get the Jobcentre to tell them what to respond with.
http://feedback.flexiblenewdeal.me.uk/topic/jobcentre-plus-warns-flexible-new-deal-providers-from-responding-to-mp-letters
Well its sad to say that the days on endless benefits including free housing are all over. just visit the DWP website for the full timetable of new benefit rules that are coming into force.
You say the A4E is a program but its not like new deal.Its a strategy, phase 4 of the governments plan to get 5 million(jsa or not) people back into work.phase 5 will Be The next stage after A4E and then Workfare which is the kingpin.You will be required to do at least 30 hours voluntary work a week for your benefits…if you miss one session sancions kick in.that includes HB!!
Better get a job than be forced to work for nothing.eh!
not painting them in a positive light seems to be part of the tactics and is common on the first new deal interview.its seems strange others have had the same threats made in other areas to but did not materialize.beware of the two faced situations on new deal.
going to great lengths to reflect on peoples benefits is a cheap and nasty tactic,this reflects also the tactics that these people use to prop up this scheme and it shortcomings,while you might have problems securing any employment during this time they appear not to have any problems securing benefit sanctions,possibly by acting provocatively for no reason,being picked on out of the blue/constantly bullied/harassed/embarrassed exe.
unemployment is a time of great stress and these actions are open to widespread abuse,while masking the true reasons for being out of work,the fraud controversy of providers.
the focus is on benefits because its the easiest and cheapest situation for them and causing hardship to those effected,they will make the most of these sanctions however the money spent setting up these providers isnt so widely discussed.given some of the conditions some have been put through people crammed in a single room little or no jobsearch facilities,poor hygiene. the what appears to be non existent facilities for the disabled also is not high on the priority list.
there is not anything to suggest that those that found employment would not have secured outside of these schemes’,while some not so lucky run the real risk of benefit problems,there is also a risk that some will offend because of this sanctions to make ends meet also overlooked.
its a sad reflection that it has happened,tackling employment is not easy,some have considered it a price worth paying for economic policies that have been grinding away for the past decades’ into everyones lives and pockets,issues that have been pushed aside knowing they are not going to just disappear and then at a later time abuse those a victim at the receiving end also pointing an accusing finger at them shows how ridiculous the whole situation has become.
Remember for those caught up in the loop there is always an alternative to scraping by on JSA and HB… prison.
The next time your New Deal representative or Personal Adviser on Flexible New Deal takes the piss… see red and sort them out.
There is no chance of luxuries in prison going a miss because someone civil servant decides you are the random person to have your claim terminated this week.
You never know it might not even be a custodial sentence!
there is a great scene of anger after being on this program,the aftermath.
treating people badly and getting treated like some one is a idiot is not a good course,its a constructive practice of humiliation and mistreatment on a vulnerable person.
this is why i do not like these practices as there is a real chance someone will lose control out of the blue given the stress and this on top.
often a police car outside the dwp my first thought is what have they said now to upset someone,its no use hiding behind the law when human rights are being trampled on left right and centre,someone has to been at the end of it to fully experience this.the feeling of anger and injustice is felt for a very long time.
i had my first interview today and got asked for id. when i told my dad he got it spot on. he said why would anyone who doesnt have to be there, be there? is there anyone out there who has a mate stupid enough to go along in their place?
Mark: Ingeus don’t ask for ID. So who is your provider?
It would be helpful if other contriubutors to this thread, gave the name of their provider, for the benefit of readers, so we could get some idea of which providers are the worst offenders.
Reading posts on this site and similar sites has confirmed the information I had previously received from people who are actually attending FND “training” schemes at the moment.
It seems clear that employees of these providers have no qualms about using their positions to report real and often false allegations about claimants and thereby putting claimants in danger of being sanctioned. So telling lies about claimant’s is now a working reality for the providers and their employees.
From the instant that their economic interests (meaning how much revenue can rake from the DWP) thse people will probably start up a campaign of misrepresentations and outright lies against the claimant.
I would not advocate a claimant to make false statements but it would be understandable claimants pursued a reactive approach to lies told against them…… “When in Rome …….”
The reason for taking action such as this, and I appreciate that same that some claimants may be uneasy about taking such drastic action, is so that claimants can bring their circumstances within the protection of “good cause” as mentioned in The Jobseeker’s Act and Regulations.
In my experience DWP staff waste no time in telling you all about your responsibilties under the Act and Regulations. And it’s no exaggeration to say they will do so at any and every opportunity. At the same time though these people remain completely silent on the fact that these same laws give you rights, including for example “good cause”, which can prevent sanctions from being imposed.
Just having some knowledge of the kind of situations where “good cause” will keep your benefit in payment is certainly helpful.