Jobcentre Plus unlawfully forces Claimants to sign off
Post Categories: Appeal Tribunal • DWP • Flexible New Deal • Flexible New Deal Sanctions • New Deal • decision maker • human rights • jobcentre Plus • uk government • unemployment
Tags: 2 week sanction, 26 week sanction, 4 week sanction, 6 months sanctions, Flexible New Deal Sanctions, jobcentre plus sanctions, jobseekers allowance sanctions
Flexible New Deal Scandal can reveal that after an year long investigation Jobcentre Plus has been unfairly forcing jobseekers to sign off.
When Income Based jobseekers receive a notification of sanction which specify dates they wont be receiving any money – the following paragraph contains a sentence specifying that they can’t pay the jobseeker any money since the day after the sanctions because they haven’t paid enough National Insurance contributions.
Means tested (“Income Based”) Jobseekers Allowance isn’t based on National Insurance Contributions but the persons circumstances i.e. capital and income etc.
Initially, this might seem like a genuine one-off Administration error. It is not. If you are not getting any money for between 2 – 26 weeks and told you can’t receive any monies afterwards. What is the point of signing on every 2 weeks? Some people will contact Jobcentre Plus who will give in to this – perhaps sending out a new copy of the letter as corrected.
Some people, especially when part of a big dispute i.e. New Deal or Flexible New Deal, wont bother and will sign off or laternatively fail to attend so their claim is terminated.
It might appear to be the jobseeker to blame to whether they intend to sign off or keep signing on for their National Insurance contributions; however, the sentence is kept in to deliberately mislead the jobseeker for the intention of them signing off. This is a black hat technique and should be removed from the notification letters.
We would love to hear comments from blog viewers including those who have received a sanction (past or present) stating such a sentence who are on Income Based.
Link Summary
- Flexible New Deal: Who can award sanction doubts?
- New Labour POLICY requirements: Are they bullshit or not?
- Flexible New Deal Sanction Register
- Jobcentre Plus says administration costs of closing and reopening claims cost up to £130 each time
- Social Security and Child Support Appeal Tribunal: pathetic!
- New Deal Fraud: 4 outstanding fraud investigations
13 Responses to “Jobcentre Plus unlawfully forces Claimants to sign off”
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 6 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
they cannot leave you without money,the citizens advice bureau state they are allowed to reduce it not stop it,normally an interview is arranged for hardship allowance payments’,while an appeal is launched.
mine was overturned before appeal,however this does not excuse misleading statements,normally you continue to sign while claiming reduced payments’ until the appeal.
along with whats been stated you do have to watch the job centre there can be “dirty tricks” that can come to light and their response is not what it should be,this is why its very important to keep records’.some are lapse at this and become entangled.
the behavior and treatment of security staff should also come under the spotlight also,they are all to willing to treat people badly as if they are fools’s and with contempt/tone,interfering in “customers’” requests about their claims with “customer service”,ie putting up barriers where they have no business in the day to day running except largely as a visible presence.
Cheers Ken. They are misinformed… when you are sanctioned your benefits dry up. You have to apply for hardship payments and you can only claim after 15 days of a sanction (Source: Welfare Adviser).
How did you get reduced payments? Also, was it a “variable” sanction of 6 months? This might be different to fixed sanctions.
They are all “dirty tricks”… I have almost exhausted them all. Jobcentre Plus were fine with me and my claim prior to New Deal. As soon as I fell out with New Deal provider YMCA Training (wankers!) who then run crying to Jobcentre Plus who have since held a HUGE grudge against me.
After New Deal – I had like 3 new claims within a month. By the end of the year had 7 claims back-to-back instead of 1. Given appointments which I have attended and been turned away – just to waste my time and money. Had Jobcentre Plus making serious allegations against me. Had to wait 6 weeks for a payment. Cases of being thrown out by security (all of them, not just one) and police being called (threat only). Harrassment by a Manager who was in attendance to all my interviews and briefed me prior to the interview threatening 6 month sanctions. Made to wait up to an hour to sign on every 2 weeks. Increased interrogation when I sign on. Claim forms getting deliberately lost so attended first interviews and asked to fill in the claim form from scratch. Decision Makers making decisions against the guidance (and therefore the law). Abuse from Jobcentre Plus staff. Cross examination to requests.
I am sick of the shit.
They dont understand the concept of “customer service” which is all too well as although classified as “customers” we are just claimants.
this was off of new deal,where additional rules are placed,with the sanction i faced i was given an interview where i was advised to attend.
new deal however seems to bring with it a “they can say what they like” attitude,and get away with it.
an immediate threat to health and crisis payments should be sought,these are loans that need to be paid back,the above sounds very typical of their behavior,as i have mentioned i was once told “the system can mess you around” as the above tells’ on new deal.
while the standards you can expect is published as anyone who has attended this course know is completely not true.they take a serious attitude against anyone who criticizes’ the new deal program again as we know the effects on some people have not been positive,the flexible new deal carries on the tradition of the last only with more extensive against the claimant consequences’ for those it regards as a problem.
you can simply be a victim of being verbally attacked suddenly out of the blue minding your own business,simply because they feel like it because your on new deal.
Was this a sanction where you were still required to attend New Deal?
I agree with all you say. I dont know why they targetted me.
no it was not.
the fact someone is targeted is just one of those things’,i could say the same thing it could be that that person is seen more likely to take a stand against new deal and what it supposedly stands for.
certainly the body language of job centre staff to any criticism suggests that to be the case.
its just plain abuse of power/bullying that’s what it amounts too,the reality is its down to the individual not them (to a certain extent),of course that by no means guaranteeing any employment.let alone sustainable employment the market in this country does not allow for that anyway,such as hire and fire.unemployment is a always going to be a fact of life the jobs of the past are no longer there and this has been whats referred to as a generation on the scrapheap.
the one sided service economy has not helped either in any outlook and gives rise to jobs that perhaps have attracted immigration as we have seen such as Calais and the former eastern bloc.
as the person is perceived on new deal as being capable and perhaps they can do something with also plays a role and has no health problems.
i had exactly the same threats to call the police although they never were either,i could have called them myself a few times with the treatment i received.
its not you as such its this blasted attitude that prevails within the dwp towards people on benefits,many times i have sat there and waited to be seen with looks of total contempt from behind the desk opposite sums it all up.
of course the long term effects on those exposed to this behavior is not recognized often making situations worse rather then better and exposes the individual to problems like anxiety and depression making employment prospects harder,you cannot paper over this despite the dwp’s attempts to do so as you are very highly making your application to be rejected.
its just a vicious circle exacerbated by those on employment support allowance now being thrown into the ring also.
discarding people through overcrowding and appearance is also unacceptable and also a indication of preference towards some,those are likely to face the bullying and pushing for results.
as new deal continues to fail it can be expected to only get worse.
New Labour POLICY requirements: Are they bullshit or not?
Regarding the question of “Bullying” by the D.W.P, I believe many unemployed people are getting themselves into lots of unneccesary trouble by allowing themselves to be pressured into signing draconian “Your ass, our hands”-type contracts with PRIVATE-SECTOR “service” providers in the belief that this is a LEGAL requirement for continued receipt of state benefits. I have read (or at least tried to read) the relevant benefit LEGISLATION and can find no such stipulation anywhere – the nearest thing to it seems to be a requirement to attend “courses” for the purpose of helping you find work, which by no stretch of the imagination amounts to the same thing. Of course, these legislative documents are a combination of legaleese and buraucratese, making them largely inpenetrable to the layman/sucker – one suspects they may be written this way quite deliberately, allowing ponderous incomprehensible word-salad to be interpreted as meaning whatever the “proper authorities” want it to mean…
My own experience less resembled bullying than a scam, hustle, grift, etc. First, I was told I had to attend an interview to discuss my “options” – turned out I didn’t have any but they were “delighted” to inform me I was required to attend my New Deal course placement or lose benefit entitlement – they then told me I was being signed-off JSA. I specifically stated that I was still elegible for JSA and I did not want to be signed off but they said I had no option. Ok…
thankfully, this time around they haven’t done that to me, but my god they are hard work!! by the way can you tell me, if want to hyperlink your blog in to mine (if i’m allowed lol) how do i do it? i’m not the most technically minded of people.
Go to your wordpress admin panel.
Click links on the left navigation.
Click “Add New” on the form do the following…
In name type “Flexible New Deal” (without quotes)
In web address type “http://flexible-new-deal.co.uk” (without quotes)
In description type “Flexible New Deal” (without quotes)
Tick the blogroll tickbox and click Add Link (to the right)
(You can copy and paste instead of typing)
Thanks for the offer and link – I appreciate it. I hope the instructions help!
Look on eBay for those cheap, black “Spy pens” with 2GB of memory and a USB plug.
There are two types – a really cheap one (a few pounds only) which simply records sound (as long as the internal rechargeable battery lasts out!.
***About 5 hours-worth)!***
They will also play MP3 files all day when you’re not suffering the Jobcentre’s Inquisition……
The other type records sound AND ***pictures*** but costs a lot more.
WITHOUT FAIL, I have my recorder in my pocket, and activated to record all aspects of my trips to both Jobcentre AND anywhere else they insist on sending me. When I get home, I back up the files, chronologically.
Anyone want to know what I and they said on any particular day? I can produce a recording from the moment I left home, until the moment I got home again.
All of it!
You’d be AMAZED at some of the things which the Jobcentre Inquisition dopes say and do – not realising that (like Fergie?) they’ve been recorded for posterity. Note that such things, in my honest opinion, are most DEFINITELY in the Public Interest!
I know, I know….. would the evidence be admissible?
Well, if a judge is prepared to dismiss it MERELY because he finds entrapment of such devious, self-serving “public servants” somehow “unpalatable”, I suspect that the Daily Mail et al will have a field day tearing them apart.
It would also be a bit difficult for them to explain it away when/if it got onto UTube.
OK, you might think this is a bit extreme…. but trust me, anything and EVERYTHING they say to you when you’re on your own with them is controlled and managed by them ALONE!
Unwitnessed.
You have ***no*** legal recourse UNLESS you can show that they misbehaved or even broke the Law.
***Get smart, get even!***
Information is Power.
Everyone can access these POWERFUL tools to bring these lowlifes to Justice – either conventional (Courts) or Information-Age (Press, UTube etc). As long as it evens up the scales again, that’s ALL that matters!
My 5p: Recordings are fine unless you are trying to get a reaction or getting someone to say something they wouldnt normally otherwise say. This includes being yourself. You aren’t to record to prove a point and to prompt a response of some kind – you are just creating a clear record of events and conversation “as is” that will contradict with any lies Jobcentre Plus and its providers throw at you. So try and forget about it (make sure you set it to record though).
Most of the time you wont notice anything significant but every other time there is chance of Jobcentre Plus tricks etc. cropping up. So dont ask any questions you wouldnt normally do as its more likely to be disregarded.
Avoid secret video recordings. Most solutions are rather simple to spot (in particular when attached to a person instead of hidden around a room) especially when the small lenses are aimed towards a persons face (to actually capture them – not a wall or ceiling) and would result in the police being called and/or the device being taken.
Direct quotes on what a person say is very powerful. Even if you use a prefix phrase of “If I recall correctly, along the lines of…”.
I have had prior experience of using “direct quotes” and Jobcentre Plus hates that. At the appointment I was setup to discuss some issues outstanding, the hesitant manager wasn’t sure if I was bluffing or not – stating about the legalities of such. After a few minutes of talking he directly asked what I meant in my complaint (I didn’t state specifics such as video or sound recording) which I downplayed, after a few minutes waiting to stretch it out seeing him sweat, saying that I didn’t have any physical evidence of such and that I had a good memory of what happened, that was a big relief for them (alternatively I could have stretched it out saying I have such evidence and get sanctioned for it or my claim messed up – as this wasnt regarding a sanction this wasnt in my best interests)
I agree with your 5p…….
The reason I record from leaving home all the way to returning is to have a COMPLETE audio record of several hours, which INCLUDES time spent at the Jobcentre. It is a fair argument that if such recordings are made “as a matter of routine” (and they are!) there can be no question of deliberately asking “loaded” questions to elicit a desired response. People simply don’t work that way! No-one is going to spend all of their time following a Life-Script of entrapping others.
It helps that I’m a trained listener and tend to listen most of the time, asking open questions in preference to closed ones. That keeps THEM talking and me discovering!
I’d think that a dossier of gaffes, or even downright illicit remarks, made by JC+ staff would be a powerful weapon in asserting that the JC+ ***routinely*** applies consistent, and (by examination of the wordings used) LEARNED techniques to achieve its unpublished and potentially highl;y biased goals.
Customer knowledge of multiple versions of the same items would enable us to determine ***all sorts*** of USEFUL information for defence purposes?
We could probably generate a “hot topics – here’s what the JC+ are trying to construct this week” knowledge base.
Just maybe they can see such things developing, and that may be why they all wear badges with only (their???) first name on them. Perhaps they are fearful of anyone tying down a JC+ statement to a specific individual? So it might pay to also NOTE their names, and write out a brief description of their physical appearance, where they sit etc…
im on a new deal course and have used bad language, they said i will get sanction now, does anyone know how long for this is my first time ive been in trouble????
I beleive it is for 2 weeks for the first offence sliding quite quickly upto 6 months. I can’t be certain as I haven’t been sanctioned myself.
Yes swearing and threatening behaviour can get you a sanction so can a lot of other menial things. The problem is you appeal and that means you have to support yourself whilst your going through the process. You can ask for crisis loans and other items to try and help. But I would suggest you complain to your mp and write letters the more letters the merrier it might not help you but in the long run it will help to make their systems unworkable.