Flexible New Deal: TNG & YMCA Training approve someone with serious mental health issues to Dencora House
Post Categories: DWP • Dencora House Detention Centre • Flexible New Deal • Flexible New Deal complaints • Ipswich • TNG • Training Network Group • Welfare Reform • YMCA Training • human rights • jobcentre Plus • uk government • unemployment
Tags: Dencora House Detention Centre, Flexible New Deal, health and safety, jobcentre Plus, restraining order, TNG, YMCA Training
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Flexible New Deal Scandal has received details of a tip off that someone with serious mental health issues is being made to attend Flexible New Deal at YMCA Training’s Dencora House this week.
Serious Mental Health Issues
Our intention isn’t to create a hate campaign towards anyone and the concern primarily is the person in question (who we will not name) is in need of treatment for serious mental health issues and should be on Disability Benefits not Jobseekers Allowance (JSA).
Therefore should be receiving specialist treatment NOT forced on to Flexible New Deal for 12 months.
Restraining order for stalking a woman
The person has a restraining order for stalking a woman (thats just for starters) and no other TNG Flexible New Deal participants including women attending YMCA Training’s Dencora House detention centre are aware that they could be in danger because of it.
Health and Safety
We have all heard how a certain someone was exited from Dencora House in 2009 for saying “Storm Dencora House!” after 30 minutes under Health and Safety grounds. Without going into the details of this, how can such a phrase be a Health & Safety concern BUT a person with serious mental health issues in need of individual help ISNT?
Ironically, the majority of staff are female, however, this said they wont be in a situation to stick themselves at risk unlike for example walking to the bus stop and having to wait for the bus.
Liability
TNG and YMCA Training holds full responsibility for the attendance of such person and therefore any consequences of such a decision. TNG and YMCA Training are fully liable for any harrassment, assault, stalking, sexual assault or rape; which comes as little comfort as any amount of financial damages obtained by TNG and YMCA Training as compensation couldn’t put right such an avoidable and preventable attack.
This said we are not incriminating the person in question stating how likely any of the above acts against humanity are as we simply dont know, regardless of this the person shouldn’t be on the Flexible New Deal scheme.
Advice to Flexible New Deal participants
If you are concerned for your safety, send a letter to TNG, YMCA Training and Jobcentre Plus highlighting your concerns. You can use the same letter for all of them addressing them to different people. You can then refuse attendance until it is put right. You have “good cause” to refuse to attend Dencora House whilst such person is in attendance – especially if you are female.
This is a concern regarding TNG and YMCA Training… it isn’t the person in questions fault. It is unlikely the person wants to attend more than you do. I ask that if you manage to single out a few people who might match the description to leave the persons alone.
Feel free to pass this information on.
Popularity: unranked
What about contacting your local press?
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
while concerns are understandable,they cannot discriminate on grounds of health if the person has a disability.
if there are issues that come to surface it could be argued later that the interests of the group were placed at risk.
normally if the person is considered a danger the provider will not except them,its very clever of the dwp to use contractors as they can point the finger at other people and use the “blame them” excuse if problems do occur.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Completely right Ken! No one should be discriminated amongst because of a disability they have, however, saying this, the person in question should NOT be on Jobseekers Allowance but a disability benefit. This means if the person was receiving the right benefit (instead of the more cheaper cost-effective JSA) then the person wouldn’t be eligible for Flexible New Deal.
It could be argued that the person in question isn’t eligible for Jobseekers Allowance if it could be deemed that such a person doesn’t have the mental capacity to be actively seeking work or if such a disability makes the person not available for work.
We recently discovered that pregnancy makes you unable to actively seek employment. See http://www.newdealscandal.co.uk/flexiblenewdeal/2010/01/20/welfare-state-needs-responsibility/ . We can all understand that being pregnant might make you not employable however doesn’t stop you actively seeking employment. Everyone has a grace period of 2 weeks holiday a year (if I recall correctly) therefore the woman and her child who died was unnecessary.
Back to the subject…
We don’t think people such as the person referred to above, should be stuck on cheaper benefits just to try and offset the rise in benefit claims over the years by kicking thousands of people off disability on to Jobseekers Allowance.
As for safety, someone having mental health problems might not be a serious threat and it could be argued that they shouldn’t be segregated, however, this person has a Restraining Order which, in my eyes, coupled with the serious mental health problems, makes the person unsuitable for Flexible New Deal.
Lets not forget that last year we reported that writing “Storm Dencora House!” on a blog before attending was a dismissable offence for Health & Safety.
Why would this be less severe?
I think Jobcentre Plus is liable for sticking the person on the wrong benefit, however, TNG and YMCA Training are liable for accepting the person.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it is a difficult one,mental health does fluctuate,and given the history of new deal this could be considered a stressful environment (an understatement) which could act as a trigger for problems’.
unfortunately common views doesn’t always prevail at the dwp with the “official line” and back to “another world” as my GP said,many would agree with that statement.it would be agreed also placing people onto disabled benefits in the past for minor problems to cut “official figures” is also true.
they (dwp) have shifted responsibility by contracting outside companies’ to “do the dirty work” on claimants’ while fully colluding behind the scenes,if problems do arise they will stand the distance to avoid any redress.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How does this problem apply in reverse?
What if a person with a history of social phobia or mild autism is required to attend a New Deal programme that is being flooded with aggressive young louts from NDYP?
Does that person have any rights as regards his personal safety and mental well-being?
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Bob
I must say it depends on the provider and Jobcentre Plus discretion in your locale (i.e. New Deal manager/District Manager could withdraw someone from the need of attending).
At YMCA Training Dencora House this isn’t the case… I received a 2 week sanction for my rights on personal safety when I was threatened by a member of staff. I of course didn’t have any disability. This highlights a greater concern as people are forced off disability benefits (you might have heard how ironically the claimant account was on the rise rather recently) and on to Jobseekers Allowance having to attend an unsuitable environment – and in the case of this post stuck on a course which doesn’t adhere to the persons needs. It is a disgrace!
The unemployed person doesn’t have any “enforceable” rights (as I found out) although they have (in theory) “good cause” under law for stopping their attendance without any sanctions applied. This depends on the Decision Maker – in most cases being exited (dismissed) from New Deal where a New Deal provider wants the person sanctioned; the person ends up being sanctioned even if the law gives good cause.
Social Security Appeal Tribunals don’t have the ability to look at the decision and determine whether or not the Decision Maker made a sanction in error – therefore if it was found to be unfair for the sanction to be refunded (its around 6 months after the sanction).
This is similar for Flexible New Deal… the system doesn’t give you any rights which you can rely on. You can claim Human Rights (as it is a Government scheme) however its provided by a PRIVATE provider which exempts them from it in the first instance.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Many thanks for your reply, which is very depressing.
I started a New Deal 13 week programme with Kennedy Scott and within the first week I’d witnessed a fight and been threatened by a School Leaver’s claimant. The idiot concerned was dismissed, but he’ll be back in two weeks time. The staff don’t seem to be able to cope with the sheer volume of young claimants – many of whom are very angry.
I’ve also had to sit there trying to complete an online application form while the fellow claimants sitting 6 inches behind me spend two hours talking about their supply of drugs or pester staff and young women for sex.
I have a medical history of social anxiety disorder (which I try not to use as an excuse) but this course really does make me feel ill.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry for my depressing reply – its the truth sadly…
Thats the problem… everyone rounded up into a detention centre (or similar) for being unemployed. It is a punishment. Some of the young claimants probably can’t stand being locked up for certain hour of the day and week at those places, however, its unfair on everyone else (like you) who then have to put up with their childish – very immature behaviour.
(Quote Post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0