New Deal Travel Deductions: DWP admits £4 deductions are unlawful
Post Categories: DWP • New Deal • New Deal Travel Deductions • jobcentre Plus • uk government • unemployment
Tags: DWP, freedom of information, jobcentre Plus, Jobseekers Division, New Deal, Stephanie Dickinson, £4 travel deductions
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Finally! An update on the DWP and the New Deal £4 weekly travel deductions issue.
New Deal Scandal pointed out that the £4 weekly travel deductions on New Deal was unlawful due to no legislation making provision for such taxation… and DWP have finally admitted:
There is no legislation involved in this decision. The travel contribution has been set at £4 per week since the inception of New Deal in 1998. The New Deal was designed to offer new opportunities to customers who had struggled to find their own employment after some months on benefits. It is not unreasonable to expect customers to contribute towards costs involved in returning to work, including costs associated with travelling to programmes that give them additional help.
I had previously sent letters to the legal department at DWP (letters I will post seperately if you are interested) and neither warranted a reply. DWP made a statement on the WhatDoTheyKnow website in response to someones Freedom of Information Request which is available to read here: There is no legislation involved in this decision.
Please note that since DWP have attempted to revoke the response. (“The sender would like to recall the message, “Freedom of Information – 1221″.”)
This might be an “official secret” however as disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act published to an internet website, it is now “open domain” information so I will not pull this blog article.
The full FoI request response
Website: www.dwp.gov.uk E-mail Ministers at: [email address]
Caxton House, Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA
Mr I Jackson
[[FOI #12493 email]]
Your Reference:
Our Ref: FoI 1221
Date: 21 December 2009
Dear Mr Jackson
I am writing in response to your further Freedom of Information request of 24 June. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. This was due to an administrative error. You asked the following question:-
`I would like clarification on what law states that the participant has to pay the first £4 unless you are a lone parent or on Gateway.’
There is no legislation involved in this decision. The travel contribution has been set at £4 per week since the inception of New Deal in 1998. The New Deal was designed to offer new opportunities to customers who had struggled to find their own employment after some months on benefits. It is not unreasonable to expect customers to contribute towards costs involved in returning to work, including costs associated with travelling to programmes that give them additional help. Nonetheless, to help customers, we pay a top-up towards these and other additional expense costs. That doesn’t apply in Gateway because people are still on Jobseeker’s Allowance at that point and no top-up payment is made. Neither does it apply to lone parents because of additional pressures on their incomes.
We need to manage the Department’s expenditure in line with the resources that are allocated to us. Our arrangements for paying allowance top-ups (and for expecting customers to use part of that to cover travel costs) are part of wider policies that we have developed to ensure that all our customers have a fair deal.
Yours sincerely,
Stephanie Dickinson
Jobseekers Division
£4 deductions are not legal
I have searched through thousands of pages of Social Security and Jobseeker legislation and came to this conclusion. Now DWP have admitted to it themselves. There isn’t much that goes on in Jobcentre Plus which isn’t defined under statutory law either Primary Acts or Statutory Instruments (Secondary legislation such as Regulations and Orders). This means courses like New Deal and Flexible New Deal aren’t just decided by Gordon is-a-Moron Brown down the local pub – legislation is created due to the course being mandatory – otherwise they couldn’t force you on them.
They have absolutely no right creating a behind the scenes internal memo policy of it isn’t unreasonable for such deduction because the person who is in receipt of taxpayers money couldnt find themselves a job. I realise they understand that Lone Parents probably have more “pressures” on their income because of child(ren) although alternative benefits exist for the purpose of the child anyway – I dont for one second state that it is easy for Lone Parents – its not easy for anyone living on below half the poverty line, but whats stopping a jobseeker having debts to pay off etc? As for Gateway not having a deduction because of no “top up” payment… it is assumed that such top up payment is meant to subsidise other costs but again no law states this.
It is known as a Training Allowance and not a Travel Allowance. We couldn’t find a law or informal guideline from Jobcentre Plus stating what the extra payment is for. Until there is ever a law created it cant be expected or assumed that the Jobseeker is willing to subsidise the £4 deduction of travel with the £15 Training Allowance reducing it to £11. I was told by my New Deal Personal Adviser (NDPA) that it was a bonus i.e. incentive… so why do I not only have to use it to cover the £4 travel deduction, but pay for food which cuts in to the Jobseekers Allowance (defined as an allowance which is the minimum required to live on)?
If a law doesn’t exist under Statutory Law to the contrary, anyone signing up to New Deal who had been advised by their NDPA that such extra payment is a bonus, such advice makes up the agreement which would fall under contractual law largely defined in Common Law. Just like when you go and buy something in a shop you contractually agree to their Terms of Sale. When you go to a club etc. you agree to their terms of entry. If you park your car on private land where a sign exists regarding clamping etc. you agree to a contract – same as with CCTV signs… that gives permission for you to be filmed. It is a common misconception that contracts have to be writen agreements that are signed – most these days they are verbal requiring no signature. In this case under principle anyone in receipt of Training Allowance shouldn’t have to spend it on food and travel.
As such deduction is illegal and enforced by New Deal Providers under their contractual obligations with DWP/Jobcentre Plus (you aren’t a party of the contract so you dont wave goodbye to your rights to that £4 each week) you have every right to ask the provider for your money back. Their contract with DWP is private between them which means technically the £4 travel deductions are theft. They have taken your property (Capital – being of money to £4 per week) and have no intention of returning it and so have kept it. Providers may also have a case against DWP for being misled.
FoI reply Revoked?
It seems this information didn’t reach clearance. They want to remove the information from the internet.
Talbot Gina WWG PPSD
Department for Work and Pensions21 December 2009
The sender would like to recall the message, “Freedom of Information – 1221″.
Conclusion
Have a Happy Christmas and New Year. In the New Year we will state how you can take direct action against your New Deal provider to claim your money back. This scam has been going for 10 years – think of all the millions that have gone on New Deal where most would fall under this mostly all losing out on £52 per year. Not to be sniffed at especially when most people have been on New Deal like 3 times! But its not solely down to you getting your money back (plus interest) but for YOU to have the power of closing down this Jobcentre Plus endorsed scam by cutting into the profits of the private businesses that have in effect stole your money… by deception (you though it was legal) so becomes fraud as well as theft. I have no doubt that this was added in after consultation prior ot the scheme with the providers… a way of making them more money then service fees and outcome bonuses. An bonus incentive (if you like). Lets not forget most providers turned round and said it was for admin costs which is also deceptive lies as no where does it state that it is what such deduction is for. A way to shut you up and keep your money. Lets face it the big providers made millions out of this.
Popularity: unranked
Link Summary
- http://flexible-new-d...ikely-owed-50-pounds/
- http://www.newdealsca...o.uk/flexiblenewdeal/
- http://www.newdealsca...ikely-owed-50-pounds/
- benefits
- http://www.whatdothey...kson%20final.doc.html
- http://www.whatdothey...wances#incoming-61159
- Flexible New Deal
- taxpayers money
- Department for Work and Pensions
- fraud
- Flexible New Deal subcontractors 'not readily available'
- Flexible New Deal scandal seeks travel deduction victims
- New Labour POLICY requirements: Are they bullshit or not?
- Flexible New Deal: TNG can't spell success - Jobseekers doomed!
- New Deal 13 week Course, Skills Training Ltd, Hounslow
- New Deal: wasn't designed for the "highly skilled"
I have just contacted the fraud squad at the dwp about this issue. I was there for 13 weeks so I am owed £52. I have told the dwp that they are allowing fraud to be committed. Furthermore I told the fraud squad I will contact the Newcastle Chronicle to expose this scam
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Damian
Do you want to be involved in the investigation of such illegal deductions?
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
can i claim the £52 back one year after leaving that shit hole action for exploitation? I have already emailed ndpa and asked for money back
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There should be no limitation as to duration afterwards.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I work for my benifit I start at 5am and finish a 3pm I like the work too.
I pick up and deliver furniture
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You have not provided a legal case. Do you imply that as no DWP regulation exists that they will not fund your monthly Sky payments that you should claim this also? You are given extra money as bonus for not working? I wish to claim from you a new car. Please point me to the legislation that negates your responsibility to provide this.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you claim WTC or CTC?
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The more I think about this issue the more convincd I am that unless you have some sort of legal advice to support your campaign that the £4 deduction is illegal I think you are flogging a dead horse.
But good luck anyway.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
£4 travel deductions are unlawful.
In order to take any legal action over it (i.e. therefore it to be found as such via the courts) you need to have a certain amount of cases to look at while going down that route. Hence the post on getting people all over the country to come forward about it.
There are obvious time factors to this such as providers responding to Data Protection Act 1998 requests showing that such £4 deductions were taken. This is required in addition to a copy of the Provider Guidance.
Any details of any legal action will only be disclosed nearer the time of a decision – hence why there is much silence around this at the moment.
Any persons whom want to be one of these cases can still join to help out giving us a greater sample of this unlawful activity.
Thank you for your understanding.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0