Flexible New Deal Providers set to defraud Government
Post Categories: DWP • Flexible New Deal • Flexible New Deal Sanctions • Risk Assurance Division • Welfare Reform • new deal fraud • uk government • unemployment • workfare
Tags: Flexible New Deal, Flexible New Deal providers, Flexible New Deal Sanctions
Welfare to Work providers including those delivering the Flexible New Deal are set to gain from a multi-million pound profit windfall by fraudulently taking advantage of a loophole in the system to determine Job Outcomes.
The “off benefit” check
Job Outcomes are determined by a three stage check, initially introduced for Pathways to Work, which is majorly flawed (thats flawed for the taxpayer, providers are quite happy about it!)
- Off-Benefit Check – a computerised check to determine whether or not someone is claiming benefit.
I assume this is a Boolean-like check against a persons National Insurance number. If it returns FALSE, they are no longer claiming benefit; if it returns TRUE then the person is claiming therefore is highly unlikely to be in employment.
- 1 in 10 Job Outcome Check – 10% of job outcomes (which are verified by the Off-Benefit check) to be checked for correct documentation.
- Random Spot Checks – Asking the participant to confirm whether or not they are in work.
The Flaw
The Flaw (known here from now on as a “feature”) is the fact that an Off-Benefit check isn’t significant to prove whether or not someone is actually in employment or not. Benefit fraudsters exist so its not impossible to claim benefit and to be in employment – but for the purposes of this article and the majority of claims, it is deemed not probable to be claiming benefit and working – either one or the other right?
Where is the feature? The feature is this poor checking system is less reliable than getting HM Revenue & Customs to check whether or not someone is paying tax or National Insurance. This also isn’t a 100% perfect reliable method as you would have to be paid £110 or more a week to pay minor National Insurance Contributions and at that amount you would be below the threshold for tax, however, the intention of providers is to get people into full time work.
We reported that New Deal statistics for New Deal for Young People (NDYP) showed that almost a third of those on New Deal went off benefits without securing employment, (31.27% to be exact or 411,190 as a number).
New Deal was mild
Flexible New Deal and Work for Your Benefits is more likely to get more people to sign off (sanction dodging etc.) due to increased period, Employment Officer status of providers (they can sanction you directly) and of course of the workfare shit.
Job Outcome Fraud
The only protection from this is the checks which only affect one in ten claims for a job outcome.
If a provider submits a job outcome which fails (and without the documentation method as a backup) this isn’t deemed a fraudulent claim by the Department for Weak Protection (of taxpayers’ money) – all what happens is the money for that potential job outcome is refused.
This means potentially for 10 false outcomes, there is a 1 in 10 chance of getting caught out. The other 9 should go through with flying colours due to profiling techniques.
Profiling Techniques
Flexible New Deal providers know who can stomach workfare and who can’t.
Flexible New Deal providers can sanction participants for up to 6 months – if you sanction someone that long they are likely to sign off… a backdoor route of receiving a job outcome (as they wont be in receipt of benefit).
Document Checks
Evidence Requirements for Job Outcomes
Primary Evidence
(1) A signed employer verification template stating:
• the participant’s name and National Insurance Number;
• the date the participant started the job;
• *the date the participant increased their hours;
• the minimum number of hours worked per week;
• that the job is expected to last a minimum of 13 weeks;
• the employer’s name; the employer’s address; the employer’s telephone number; and the employer’s contact name.
• the employer verification template must be obtained on or after the start date of the job(s).This must be supported by one of the following:
A company letter headed paper, compliment slip, company stamp or business card which:
• clearly identifies the business;
• must be signed by the same person within the employers organisation signing the stencil;
• ideally has the address of company;
• ideally linked to the person signing e.g. named individual printed on business cardAlternatively
(2) A signed participant verification template stating:
• the participant’s name and National Insurance Number;
• the date the participant started the job;
• *the date the participant increased their hours;
• the minimum number of hours worked per week;
• that the job is expected to last a minimum of 13 weeks;
• the employer’s name; the employer’s address; the employer’s telephone number;
• the participant verification template must be obtained on or after the start date of the job(s).This must be supported by either:
A contract of employment or pay slip which contains information to support the job outcome definition above.
Summary
- Weak system by DWP – no one at DWP realises its a big concern
- Flexible New Deal providers have the ability to ensure sanctions (encouraged pissed off claimants to sign off) and use inside information (profiling participants – willingness etc.)
- Flexible New Deal regime and Work for Your Benefits will ensure a lot of participants sign off (figures from New Deal showed this as a major problem – 3 in 10 people – set to be worse!)
- Flexible New Deal providers mix genuine job outcome claims with false job outcomes with selected participants that they are sure will likely sign off and pass off-benefit check
- Flexible New Deal providers have defrauded the system; yet the DWP is none the wiser as job outcomes are not all checked – only limited spot checks.
Link Summary
- Flexible New Deal: Who can award sanction doubts?
- DWP Risk Assurance Division receives 60 New Deal Fraud allegations
- Jobcentre Plus unlawfully forces Claimants to sign off
- Flexible New Deal Sanction Register
- Manchester Jobseekers: 40 hours week workfare for 6 months
- Warning about new Jobseeker Agreements
13 Responses to “Flexible New Deal Providers set to defraud Government”
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 4 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
Well that doresn’t surprise me one bit FND. The providers are run as a profit therefore their has got to be shortcuts taken. Carpet baggers of the worst kind in my opinion.
Dear Kyron
I have investigated the issue regarding claiming travel expenses when you attend a meeting, you are right you can claim for the following: up to £3.30 if travelling by bus(day saver rate) plus additional train fare for your return journey, alternatively if travelling by car 25pence per mile.
job centre staff tried to get me to go to A4e,i wont be going after the discussion i had.
what happened Ken? Any chance of some more details. Sounds very interesting.
i complained about A4e to the job centre kyron and i was not happy about going there and are being sent elsewhere. with the controversy/scandal as a disabled person myself its unacceptable to be placed in that uncomfortable position.
a guy has been hassled at the job centre locally,the desk clerk commented “you could have wrote this this morning” what i could see,they are not looking on his jobsearch positively and it looked pretty full apparently he didn’t mention site names,he was up saying why am i being hassled like this every time and the security guard was following him around the job centre,this is not a suitable environment for vulnerable people.
over at employment support allowance there isnt any better news,people are being classed as “fit for work” when there in a what appears to be anything but the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8580936.stm
This is a very interesting point to raise.
When someone is mistreated and out on the spot it isn’t so obvious about the specifics. This is because after the bullying the person loses all confidence. If you have a mental disability etc. this becomes a lot worse!
Myself personally: if I am nicely asked about what I have done to look for work its not a problem. When asked in a negatively bad tone of voice of what jobs I have applied for – this becomes difficult for me.
You should see their faces they love this interrogation. You know what? I love what happens next … after a few “erms”, pull out a list from my pocket… “I am glad you asked…” (seeing their faces drop is a classic – I wish I could plug a USB cable in the back of my head and upload the footage to the internet lol!)
I then eye up and down the list for a few to choose… sometimes they will be picky and ask for specifics… “How many hours is it?”. I up the stakes by ignoring their question, responding with the jobcentre plus reference code (when applicable)… followed by in depth details “It is ABC/12345…” saying whether its fulltime or part-time, temporary or permanent, how I applied for it, who the company is and where its located.
The great part of this actually is.. I am not reading the list at the time and its assumed that I have just jotted down a few job titles…actually I have specified the other details in case I forget them under pressure. I just read them, memorised a few details and presented them. It is rare they ask for another, but when they do I pick a non-JCP advertised job I have applied for so it doesn’t sound like I have done a quick few minute rush job search on the jobcentre website before I left home.
Sometimes.. (the length of interrogation is based on who has the ball in what side of the court… it could be 10 minutes if they are walking over me; if I am in control its more like 30-45 seconds.) I go the step further… I create a discussion regarding how excited I am to apply for some great company, how its close to where I live or within easy reach of public transport. Then if thats pissing off the “adviser” enough I go further (theres no point otherwise, be my time I am wasting) saying how my skills etc. are a perfect match and how I should be the ideal candidate… “Its like they wrote the Job Description around my CV… ” how great it would be to have a job instead of relying on jobseekers allowance to scrape by… obviously not forgetting some sarcasm, some intended empathy for myself and some depression for good measure.
It really fucks them up for the rest of the day. They see you as a benefit scrounger who doesnt want to work, no aspirations etc. so when you do the above act correctly they actually feel party sorry for you and realise how DESPERATE you seem to want to secure employment. Knocks them down a step of confidence.
If you go somewhere else make sure it’s not Working Links. My experience with them was a joke last year. Total waste of time, no help and a terrible attitude.
Are we even living int he 21st century these days? Makes me wonder.
PS does anyone know a good website with a disucssion forum for these issues. I’ve had no luck finding a site dedicated for people dealing with this horrendous system and it’s masters to talk about their issues and help each other (god knows noone else will).
If I am the “1 in 10″ randomly to be checked, I think I will be saying “no” whether I am working or not.
sitting opposite someone in the job centre is never easy especially as mentioned someone with a mental health problem,the vibes all around are negative and any stutter in reply brings about a grin from staff hovering around in the background.
they do look on everyone as a dosser,which is with hindsight the easiest thing to do,despite the reteric over the years such as the famous john gummer “safety net as a hammock”.these are the real people to blame for the total disintegration into the current mess the aftermath is often the worst period and in this case has continued to last.
as mentioned this has now spilt over to those who are denied access to employment support allowance this was discussed on local radio a question is do you attend church the the object being you can stand Neel and sit a woman who said she attended lost points’ and money was stopped two days’later,however after relapse after surgery attended the job centre on crutches was taken into a room and told you are not fit for work this is clearly ridiculous’.
This is the problem with modern bureacracy: the drones are cowed into being unable to apply common sense or any degree of internal wisdom. They can’t think for themselves, everything is scripted and woe betide anyone who bucks this trend. Consequently peopel are afraid of losing their jobs and people who need help suffer like this. It’s not the so-called nanny state (a media construct) that’s the problem, it’s the bullying bureacracy that ties people up in rules. Jobsworths rule.
if they are forcing you to do the work then what is wrong. nothing is free in life. your arguments are baseless. just grow up and earn money by doing hard work.
Spot on, nothing is free in life including labour.
With workfare you aren’t earning any money at all.
When you work (I am not sure if you have a job) you first put in the hours, then get paid. With this you are paid benefit by default, then made to work for nothing to avoid a sanction.
I might be missing something but not sure how your comment is related to the article on providers defrauding the tax payer.
.-= *** Last post: Workfare: Unenforceable *** =-.
As someone who works his arse off as an employee of a charity that provides (among other things) FND and pathways to work, some of your sweeping generalisations are hard to swallow.
I have NEVER seen any evidence of mixing false claims with valid claims (the DWP are swift enough to knock claims back for the tiniest of errors and so everything has to be spot on, including the employers statement that employment is expected to last 13 weeks or more).
We DO NOT sanction benefits – only the DWP can do that, which they only do if we inform them a client has failed to bother to attend an interview.
As a charity, any money we make via ESF funding is ploughed straight back into providing training for people (FLT Licences, SIA Licences and do on.
I have no doubt some FND providers are more interested in figures and profits, but don’t tar us all with the same brush – some of us are working damned hard in generally thankless conditions (putting up with the backlash of poor DWP service even though we aren’t DWP!) to try to help people back into employment.