Nice! Would like to see another option along the lines of: I was duped into signing the waiver and would now like to withdraw that permission. May be even a link to a sample withdraw permission letter?
Sorry no link but how about something along these lines:
Re: Data waiver agreement under the Data Protection Act 1998
Dear Pimpo,
As you are aware I have signed the data waiver/consent form thus authorising PIMPO to share my data with other bodies including potential and actual employers. You should also be aware that I have the right to withdraw this consent at any time without giving reasons or explanations.
I understand that such withdrawal does not effect my placement on the Work Programme or any employment or offer of employment made.
Please take this letter as notification of the withdrawal of my consent with immediate effect and alter your records to show that my data sharing consent has been withdrawn. Please sign and date the copy of this letter to acknowledge that it has been received by PIMPO and my instructions will be acted upon.
Yours sincerely,
Gissajob
I acknowledge receipt of the withdrawal of consent and confirm that it will be acted upon without delay.
Can anyone answer this for me? If you can withdraw consent from old pimpo if you’ve signed the data protection waiver, can you not also withdraw the consent you never gave from DWP/JCP to share information with pimpo if/when you sign off?
Hi Agnes – If I understand correctly the answer is “you can try”!. I don’t think that it’s possible to withdraw something that was never given in the first place. The point is that they (the DWP) think they have the legal right to share your information and so don’t need anyone’s consent. I think any “withdrawal of consent” would be rapidly consigned by them to the Waste Paper Bin (hereinafter referred to as the WPB) and you would just get back a snotty letter.
I’ve just been placed on the A4e work programme. As I felt slightly pressurised into signing the consent form, I went along with signing just to end the interview. But as soon as I got home, I’ve posted a similar worded withdrawal letter back to my advisor at A4e.
Am I correct in thinking, that these consent forms are still optional and I can’t be forced to consent?
@Dinkleberry
“Am I correct in thinking, that these consent forms are still optional and I can’t be forced to consent?”
Absolutely correct! You have rights under law (the data protection Act) and no one can force you to give them up.
See this website for more info http://www.consent.me.uk/
I too am consigned to A4greed and have refused to sign a consent form for 3 months now. I think they have given up asking me now!
Thanks for the heads up. Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that I’ve posted a same day dated withdrawal letter then. :p
Faced with a bit of a battleaxe first thing in the morning, isn’t my idea of help to be honest. But at least now with withdrawal letter in place, whatever information they have on me they’ll no longer be able to freely use. I suppose a lot of vigilance is much needed now.
I’m taking another withdrawal letter with me to my next appointment, just in case they say they didn’t receive the first. And I’ll ask to see, and then keep the original documents that I signed.
Been back today.. and my advisor asked, as to what the withdrawal letter they received was concerning. Although it was quite clear in the letter, I again told them it was to withdraw my consent from the data protection waiver. They stared back with a blank look on their face, and asked me “are you sure you can do that?”
I asked to see the original documents that I signed previously, and was told they were unavailable as now at head office. So I whipped out my own print out of the waiver, and showed them it clearly states my consent can be withdrawn. Again, a blank look. But then told by advisor that my withdrawal letter will be forwarded to head office to look at – and then added a photocopy of the print out I made of the waiver. Why include my print out, I haven’t a clue – unless they just don’t expect a dopey unemployed person to know that these documents are available to anyone with an ounce of common sense?
But to my surprise, the advisor then added – No Info To Be Disclosed – to the computer records without being asked to do so. So they clearly knew what I was on about.
All in all. I’m now waiting to hear – or should that be not hear – from head office concerning my withdrawal letter. And if I nothing before my next appointment, I’m thinking about another letter of withdrawal and also a request for the original waiver forms that I signed at the induction.
If you don’t sign or withdraw consent later on, do they still try to send you on all the usual rubbish courses – like the cv writing, confidence building or the voluntary job placement? – Do you still have to participate with them, as it’s a “work-related” activity?
Compulsory confidence building. What irony!
“YOU WILL BE MADE MORE CONFIDENT OR WE WILL STOP YOUR BENEFIT!”
Stuck in a room full of strangers no doubt while some fuckwit pop psycholgoist has you draw happy thoughts. I couldn’t think of anything more appalling than some ‘confidence building’ course run by the likes of providers. I’d rather see a trained objective therapist or doctor.
” I am going to go round the room. I want everyone to introduce themselves to the group and tell us something unusual about yourself.” Utter, utter baloney!
Oh god, I can’t stand that shit. I had that crap when i had a job interview at Woolies years ago. We had to sit and tell the person next to us what our funniest experience was! Utter garbage. Frankly I find it intrusive, but of course if you don’t get into the ‘spirit’ of it you come off the loser.
Well Drew,
I can’t see that not signing the waiver will get you out of the courses. But I would say that you should not “volunteer” for anything! If they want you to go on a course or a job placement then make sure that they mandate you. If they fail to do so properly the DWP will not be able to sanction you for non compliance:
Consequence
If you fail to mandate a participant correctly (as outlined above), or the Mandatory Activity Notification is not recorded in a way that meets the criteria outlined above Jobcentre Plus Decision Makers may be unable to impose sanctions. This will waste both your time and that of Jobcentre Plus. ,
Further to my previous posting above. I had a bit of an interesting development. I was asked to go see my jobcentre manager. Turns out they’ve been contacted by my WP, and told I was seeking to withdraw consent.
I’ve been told, I can’t withdraw consent as not providing information for A4E to use, is a refusal of the WP and could be sanctioned. I pointed out that it doesn’t say that on the DWP provider guidance, in fact it says the complete opposite. The manager insisted that A4E need the information to help me into work, and not giving it is a refusal. After going around in circles for a few moments, I left it at that and left.
Hi Dinkleberry,
You are right – they are wrong! There is nothing that could be clearer than the wording used by the DWP to say that the waiver is not mandatory and that declining to give up your legal rights does not constitute a refusal to participate in the WP. You have pointed this out to both a4greed and the JC there is nothing more you can do – though I guess you could complain to the IOC if you felt up to it . I have also declined to sign a4greed’s waiver and (altough I am marked as a bolshie so and so) there has been no action or threat of action taken against me.
I suppose, like you. I would have tried to explain sloooowly and calmly the error they were making, but after a while probably would have simply left too.
And if they put in a sanction doubt this should be easily dismissed.
The wording is right there for all to see, Decision makers would probably say to the manager that it wasn’t valid for a doubt. I probably would have asserted this at the time in the same situation. They know less than we do. Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not.
This shouldn’t really go anywhere near a sanction doubt! You can still participate in the WP. The provider is seemingly stirring the shitpot a little. Oh no, they’re gonna lose another easier target! Still can participate, just it will be a little bit different.
They don’t like different. They have to actually contemplate thoughts that are off script. I love that, watching them actually thinking. They could be thinking exactly how we’re going to screw this tricky little bastard, or in a much rarer instance you get one that’s still got a little spark of humanity in them and they start to see what they are doing to people. But then there’s that mortgage or car payment, that swish phone tariff to pay for, but some do actually try and be nice as they can be without getting a dressing down for being fair and understanding. Strange race this human.
They say ‘Sanction doubt’ I say ‘Excuse me?’ If they threaten again, depending on your personality, maybe just squash that little sucker (the doubt, not the adviser!) there and then. A manager should really know better, If it was a section manager, see the third party provision manager, or at least ask of them. Ask them to phone the DM.
.
There is the possibility that you may not hear anything more about it. Unless you want to clarify the situation yourself. .
I do rather go on a bit sometimes. Good luck Dinkleberry.
Well, I’m going to stick with it until I’ve actually got an A4E signed confirmation of consent withdrawal or a JC sanction letter – and then, I’ll still argue with them.
I’ve already prepared another withdrawal of consent letter, with added letter to destroy my information from http://www.consent.me.uk/destroymyinfo – which will both be going directly to my WP. But just not sure yet, if to request they destroy all information collected, or change it to request all information not relevant for participation on the WP.
‘We have been asked to hit sanction targets too, although this is nothing new, as JC+ offices have been given targets of three people per week to refer for sanction whether they need to be sanctioned or not, and it’s always the most vulnerable that are the easiest to target.’
I just add my own experience with the poverty pimps.
I am in the late 50’s and have been unemployed for 10 years or so. I went trough a number of “programs” including the “Flexible New Deal” that preceded the “Work Program” with the same slaver firm: A4e.
After 6 months or so of parking in the JC+ “stage 3” I was referred in November last to the WP.
I went through the inane induction and I followed the “parking strategy” and refused to sign the data sharing consent (interesting they had the form booby-trapped with two places to sign with wording that could be construed as an acceptance!).
At the next appointment I was given a personal advisor.
The “advisor” was a young woman (I think from Middle Eastern background) and she did not seem to have a clue about whom I was or even seen the data from the “induction” but against all odds they seemed have retained data from my previous attendance to their former “Flexible New Deal” programme.
As she read what on the screen, I was positioned in a place where could not see the content, she became more and more circumspect. Eventually started saying in a soothing tone that maybe I would benefit from specialist advise but than she simply fell silent and told me that an other adviser would contact me “shortly”.
I imagine that the slaver, as part of their contractual obligation, on paper at least (I think I read it somewhere…too), will have to provide “specialist help” for clients with drug, mental or addiction problems. Of course this type of “clients” are not good for business, therefore I assume they will provide only the semblance of service.
I expect they’ll have few, or more likely one or two, specialist advisers and therefore a very long cue to see them.
Hopefully I have been put on the back-burner.
I was surprised they had some record from the “Flexible New Deal” and thought at the time they kept some kind of database for difficult, dangerous and hopeless “clients”!! A friend of mine however tells me that she had her details on file and that they can and do keep client details for some time.
I did not even have to open my folder with various printouts of relevant rules and regulations or not even asked about the induction papers.
It all looked, heartening, shoddy and disorganised.
Also I noticed that hardly any fellow victims were at the office, that means that they have a policy, possibly in area of high unemployment like were I live, in south London, where they operate a fast in and out policy of “client help advice” and concentrate on the most likely victims.
I am only little worried to be referred to some specialised agency.
I know that there are some, my neighbour, with a story of addiction was been referred to one, but voluntarily. She had however some history of meaningful employment (in addition to a younger age) I find difficult to contemplate the possibility that any agency would want to meddle with an hopeless case.
In the last month I have not heard from them.
Something similar happened in the previous “Flexible New Deal” with less and less frequent contacts. There was a dangerous point however when they reported to the JS+ that I dropped out of the program. At the time I managed to convince the JC+ that they “lost my files” and no sanctions ensued. I had however to restart the program with new inductions etc.
All in all even the second stint was not burdensome and it was left to the JC+ to let me know I finished the program some months later!
None the less I wander if it would be beneficial to pop in voluntarily at the slaver office with some excuse, job search or whatever so that in case of doubts being raised I could argue that I was attending.
Hi, Marcus,
You seem well organised. I would just leave the initiative to them as they seem to be disorganised. So long as you attend the “mandatory” appointments I see no need to “pop in voluntarily” – unless you fancy using their facilities e.g. internet/printer/free coffee!
I have encountered this data retention thing too – apparently as the schemes like FND were partially funded by European Social Funding money they have to hang on to your data for ages (12 years from memory but I’m open to correction). However this is only for audit purposes and does NOT give them the right to use that data for any other purpose e.g. the Work Programme.
I think you’re right about seeing the revival of “creaming and parking” – these are commercial organisations and are in this racket with the aim of making a profit. They will therefore make commercial decisions right down the line to the lowliest of target driven “advisors” – how could it be otherwise? human nature will dictate that the lowest hanfing fruit is the first to get picked.
Yeah, I can see what you mean with regard to your FND experience. However, with regard to your current WP experience I would not contact them, drop in to them, phone them or even think about them if possible. You referred to them as ‘Slaver, so I’m guessing that you aren’t exactly enthralled by the prospect of enduring this WP.
You have been inducted and then had an initial appointment with the adviser who couldn’t deal with you. She has said you will be contacted shortly, I’m guessing you currently have no appointment to see them. If you haven’t, just wait for them to contact you. You could only be sanctioned if you miss a pre arranged appointment in writing, either an appointment card whilst there, or by letter. I think (not 100% sure) it has to be in writing for any doubt regarding non attendance to have any weight. Email? Hmmm? Don’t know?
Have they a phone number, email? If not, all to the better. And we are supposedly within our rights not to supply those. Without penalty! But they will spin it as you being obstructive. Must try and validate all this stuff so one can present such remedy when they start accusing.
Anyway, that’s what i am doing. Let them contact me. In writing. I’m under no obligation. They know where I am if they wish to write to me. I am participating simply by being on the books and awaiting further instruction. And looking for suitable work in the meantime, of course. To meet my ‘responsibility’ to garner my survival payments.
Of course the applications are few and far between these days. And any responses to these applications even fewer! I don’t need a provider hassling me and trying to use me for their employers gain.
I’m not breaking any laws. So stuff them.
Well said Mr. No,
I noticed the a4greed offices were busier yesterday. There seemed to be some new (perhaps “apprentice”?) advisors sitting by their more established colleagues – doubtless learning the ropes. This added to the overcrowding – I could not avoid following the exchanges that were taking place in close proximity either side of me. The poor bloke on my right was being harangued by a young harridan about being enthusiastic about the job interview he was being sent on. “What was this long term, sustainable career that was being offered?” I hear you ask. Well it turned out to be selling some sort of stuff door to door from a suitcase – using the “I’m unemployed and am doing this to make ends meet” approach. And the victim is supposed to be grateful for this opportunity and enthusiastic to boot!
If this is the sort of crap that comes out of the pimps’ black boxes they can shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
I think I’m right in saying, that most of these new “apprentice” advisors, will probably be in fact people who used to be on the Work Programme. It’s a way for the provider to get free workers, and get paid for them in the process.
I think there might be something in what you say Dinkleberry, but from my observations it would appear, to me at least, that these providers usually put their ‘customers’ to work (experience!) on reception and general basic admin duties. Because they cannot get them anything else! And they need those boxes ticked.
Though desperate times might call for them to resort to such desperate measures.
It would be a very interesting ‘experience’ for someone, who may possibly share our kind of views, being put beside an adviser while they are ‘advising’, if you see what I mean?
I reckon that perhaps what Gissa witnessed was simply new recruits being shoddily brought up to speed because of the large amount of referrals that they greedily took on for the attachment fees.
I wouldn’t have thought they would let the ‘scroungers’ that side of the desk. Just in case some of them were rather opposed to the whole thing and were making careful observations. And also perhaps due to data protection/privacy issues they wouldn’t be allowed to do such. But as we know, they often try it on and attempt to do as they want anyway!
Mind you, as to what you state above, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they have encountered and employed (to whatever degree?) a few suitably morally bereft individuals who were our side of the desk once, who were easily indoctrinated and
wiling to be a cog in their insane corporate machine.
Yes, Mr.No. I think you are generally correct. I wasn’t thinking however to ask for an appointment or contact anyone with the A4e slavers. Just to more or less anonymously pop in their offices and write my name on their log book. Just to have maybe additional leverage if they falsely report I dropped out of the program. It is a very moot question, though. When I signed on I was told by the JCP that A4e have reported I started on their program from yesterday!! I pointed out that I started officially last November and I already had induction. the JCP employee was aware but repeated that I was confirmed on the slaver WP. I cannot really make sense of it. It is however more likely that there is no sense. They really seems to make it up as they go along.
They do not have the resources for meaningfully fulfil their contractual obligations (without going bust) so they must have some kind of make believe, just on paper sort of thing, the type of “parking” we so far managed to achieve.
Some glimmers of explanations are given in Work Programme Provider Guidance (from the DWP)
.Ch1 section 16
.16. You [ie the slavers] are required to deliver your minimum service offer to all referred .claimants whilst they remain on eligible benefits provided it is both feasible and reasonable in .the participant’s circumstances. Where it is not possible to deliver your minimum service .because of a participants circumstances you are expected to look to alternative approaches to .satisfy this requirement.
in the same guidance is interesting ch 15
.Minimum performance levels and incentive payment model
.The minimum performance and trigger level for incentive payments will be based on the .conversion rate of referrals to job outcomes in the respective years as calculated by DWP. .This level has been calculated based on:
.• the expected non-intervention performance on a cohort basis;
.• the profile for the length of time taken for a start to become a Job
.Outcome; and
.• expected referrals.
.Any Provider who does not deliver the expected minimum proportion of job
.outcomes to referrals in a given year will be defined as not meeting minimum
.performance standards. Minimum performance standards apply to payment…
meaning as I understand it, that they have to provide to their own masters (DWP) some kind of guaranteed results to get paid. Therefore whatever resources they have they must concentrate them on most likely candidate/victims.
The more difficult problem would be the actual slave work (however it seems they do not have the obligation to refer people to work activities apart for Mandatory Work Activity ordered by the JSP).
1- they seems at liberty to impose the type of program they wish both in term of duration or the chosen activity (the legislation is based on a concoction of tree different legislations but the time limits or repetitions are fuzzily defined)
2- they use a set of fixed subcontractors.
3- stand to reason but I could not find documentation for it (apart for guidances for the Mandatory Work Activities -a de facto punishment from the JCP) that the contractor has to accept the candidate for placement.
So if the contractor may think that the candidate is unsuitable because for example may suspect may harbour infectious diseases or is mentally unstable or such it is possible that the candidate may be referred back.
Yet I only catching at straws here and a good strategy that avoid the Raising a compliance doubt has not yet materialised.
It’s normally obnoxious to see an animal devouring its own offsping but I urge you to make an exception today. The Daily Heil has decided to do a hatchet job on Enemma Harrison here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html.
I know this is against the principles of most of us but have a read – and especially the comments.
When Middle England turns against the WP (albeit for some strange motives) it really is on the verge of collapse.
Enjoy!
Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, they haven’t criticised the WP yet. But the key is to make clear what a waste of TAXPAYERS money the programme is. It seems that’s how you get the likes of the Mail onside. The article names her as the families tsar, not the head of the WP/provider.
Wow! A DM story that has some validity. And one that alludes to the fact that the scroungers are getting a very raw deal at the ‘expense’ of the greed of these people.
That woman is just a little bit strange. Just without the ‘just a little bit’!
Having had the displeasure of enduring the shoddy treatment of her nice little earner of a company I cant say I have much sympathy for the odious woman.
Mind you, I don’t think she will really care too much about such stories.
She may be a little dismayed and maybe even utter a slight ‘Oh damn, oh well… Darling, is the Audi on the drive?’, but at least a mainstream paper, even one as dire as the DM,has served to bring at least a little closer to the surface what all those supposedly crazy, lazy, unemployed, paranoid people have been saying for years. I’m hoping that one day the scam will finally be outed for what it is and there will be a fuss comparable to the MP expenses scandal, or the phone hacking scandal. But that is rather optimistic at best.
Though I’m sure the DM and their ilk will soon be back to bashing the unemployed soon enough.
Anyone heard of the Work Choices programme? Apparently an alternative to the WP for people with health issues. Locally it’s run by someone called Pluss.
Oh dear! I seem to have been “unparked”! Letter telling me to attend A4greed’s INSPIRE(!) course through door this am. it states “we agreed a range of activities…..” TRUE but going on this pointless bit of tomfoolery wasn’t one of the agreed activities! Still as it’s “mandatory” (that terrible overused word again – could they not use a thesaurus and come up with a few synonyms like “compulsory” just to ring the changes?) I guess I’ll have to go.
God help them.
Hi everyone sorry to hear about your course gissajob ,the pimps have been fine with me so far, I keep filling in my job search and giving the little twat as much bull as I can but last week after telling him I have been in the building trade for 30 years he tries to get me on a how to lift safely course I looked at him and said come on mate 30 years building I should know how to lift safely fair play he backed down but goes to show what fucking idiots we are dealing with
the irony here (well one amongst many) is that some complete twat is going to be paid a huge wedge to teach people how “lift safely”. Lift what exactly? Pauline’s pens?
Hey Gissa. That is you isn’t it? Difference being G?
Sorry to hear about your ‘unparking’. What ‘range of activities’ was agreed? Or are they simply being the tricky idiots they always are? I won’t agree to anything that’s generalised. Was it more a case of ‘We will agree a range of as yet undetermined activities? Hmmm? Just typing thoughts!
As for ‘mandatory and compulsory, it used to be compulsory, but they changed that. Whenever they say mandatory to me, i say compulsory, just for a laugh!
Is INSPIRE a group session? I’m sure you will be taking the time to have a chat to any fellow detainees who are willing to listen. Are you going to question this supposedly agreed activity?
Hi Mr No, I’ve been enjoying your posts here and elsewhere.
The INSPIRE thing wasn’t agreed by me and wasn’t on my action plan at my last advisor meeting. It has never even been discussed with me. So – if it is on my action plan now it has been put there without my knowledge, consent or agreement! It just materialised by a standard letter – effectively demanding my attendence for the best part of a day.
I am torn between doing nothing for the sake of a quiet life and firing back a caustic e-mail (I have drafted such). I think the lesson here is not to sign the action plan (I have up till now as it’s contained nothing offensive) and ask for a copy of it for your own records – I will certainly be doing this in future at every appointment.
I am guessing that it’s a group session. My money is on the usual half baked, wafer thin, amateur pschobabble that seems to be an a4greed speciality. Probably delivered by a callow youth with a degree in media studies from a sub red brick uni. You know the sort of thing it leads to statements like: “You can be anything you want”, “Improving People’s Lives!”, “Doing well by doing good!” etc. etc. etc.
PASS THE SICK BAG!
Just started with INGEUS at the end of 2011, they haven’t contacted me since November and out of the blue I get a letter telling me to attend an interview next week. They are completely useless in every way imaginable. A 45 minute bus journey for a 10 minute talk with some moron about how I can help myself look for work.
Is there ANY way I can get off this WP and back to just signing on every fortnight? Ive had jobs in the past and not one of them has been from a WP, and Ive been on a few now!. I’m well aware how to use a PC to look for jobs as well as a telephone to phone companies and recruitment agencies!.
Please someone give me good news, I cant stand being on this WP any longer.
Is there ANY way I can get off this WP and back to just signing on every fortnight?
If there was a way then I think we’d all have taken it by now! The only way off is to get a job and sign off – even then these pimps will own you for the forseeable future – 2 years or until they have milked every last penny out of you that they can.
Your best bet is to do as much research as you can in the hope of minimising their involvement and the damage they can do to your health and prospects. Read the posts on this site and on the consent.me site.
Don’t sign the data consent form.
Read the six tips to WP survival here: http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/index/main-forum.html
Console yourself with the fact that it could be worse – you might have been consigned to A4e.
Just a quick question.. Am I under any obligation to supply my WP, with a list of the jobs that I’ve applied for in between appointments? – I haven’t done so, as I said I’ve withdrawn consent for them to use any of it. And I’ve told them I supply that information to the jobcentre when I sign on. They didn’t like it, but said they want it next appointment.
Careful here Dinkleberry! If they ask for the information then I would give it to them. Presumably they are only asking at each appointment that you show them such a list and not asking you to e-mail it in on a more frequent basis. This doesn’t sound too onerous to me – it is no more than the JCP ask for (usually) when signing on there. Just make sure that your list covers the requirements as set out in your Job seeker’s agreement and resist any bullying to try to get you to agree to apply for (and evidence) a greater number.
If you wanted to be a bit more stroppy show them a list of say 3 jobs for which you have applied and say something like “this covers the minmum activity as agreed with JCP and evidenced by my formal agreement with them”. It could be that you have applied for more – shouldn’t matter as you have met the minmum, required. This is not a data protection issue and the fact that you haven’t given consent won’t help you with this particular issue.
Right, bareface minimum it is then on that issue.. Thought I might of been pushing it. :p
It all got a bit heated tbh, as they are still refusing to acknowledge my withdrawal of consent letter. And I was threatened yet again, that withdrawing consent is a refusal of the WP. I pointed out & showed them that I haven’t refused anything, it’s just a withdrawal of consent to share or use info as stated on the DWP Provider Guidance – It all got into a bit of a you have to do this, you can’t do that in a tedious roundabout of huffing & puffing. Anyway, I left with no sanction. And another letter direct to A4e is now on route yet again. Next step will be complaint if that’s ignored.
Dinkleberry – A quick question perhaps, but one that is so very important with regard to our general getting through this awful regime. I must say that I often find myself in broad agreement and often aligned with the very good comment and ideas from Gissa. Good on that man!
At my ‘induction’ it was asked of me to bring in ‘the last 3 jobs i applied for’. I asked for the addition of ‘If possible’ and they obliged, ta very much!
It was a similar thing on FND, where they would have this sheet that you were meant to fill in with the full details of the applications. the company, contact details, job description contact name at company etc. I only ever saw such twice, never filled it in. Never told them fuck all! How did I achieve this? To be honest, I don’t know! Too busy arguing about me not supplying a CV I suppose?
Anyway, back to WP. When I am unfortunate enough to be ‘unparked’, I’m sure this issue will be raised. Seems Dinkleberry has fended them off till next time at least.
I think the only vacancies i will be supplying will be ones that I have applied for where enough time has elapsed to assume one hasn’t been successful.
Even then I will be giving the scantest of details. And only 3, if possible!
If they start with the 10 per week stuff, I’m sure I will be highly amused and will spend several minutes explaining to them that one isn’t actually obliged to apply at all. And if there is nothing suitable, even more so. Many weeks go by without an application, then like buses 3 might come along at once. But as long as you are seeking/available for etc… Then stuff ’em. Whatever the JC accepts, so can they.
They know the score, they just got to earn there dollar and aren’t too fussy when it comes to what they do for said dollar. As we know.
Supplying ‘pending’ job applications could be risky due to the fact that if one is lucky enough to apply for and get an interview and get the job, we will not (if we can help it) be wanting the provider or JC to know. Get job, sign off!
If one is only in receipt of JSA and nothing else it is far simpler to just sign off without reason.
So they cannot pester the employer that you probably found without the pimps help!
That’s the bit that really pisses me off!
I mean, if they themselves actually found me a decent job that was suitable and i was agreeable to the vacancy I could (almost!) not mind them getting their outcome payment.
But they only have retail and security and free labour so fat chance!
Also, if ones appointments are on average 4-5 weeks apart i would only ever consider letting them know about applications in the fortnight proceeding a pimp appointment. And only ones that were ‘spent’, so to speak. For reasons I mentioned above. The less info we volunteer the less they can use against us. A barefaced bare minimum indeed! They will be persistent and invasive and one ultimately has to have ones wits about one throughout the duration of any and all interactions with the pimps.
thiefofbaghdad.wordpress.com 
Nice! Would like to see another option along the lines of: I was duped into signing the waiver and would now like to withdraw that permission. May be even a link to a sample withdraw permission letter?
Good idea. I think I can add that. Have you got a link to a sample letter?
Sorry no link but how about something along these lines:
That’ll do nicely and I’ve amended the poll. Thanks for that.
Can anyone answer this for me? If you can withdraw consent from old pimpo if you’ve signed the data protection waiver, can you not also withdraw the consent you never gave from DWP/JCP to share information with pimpo if/when you sign off?
Hi Agnes – If I understand correctly the answer is “you can try”!. I don’t think that it’s possible to withdraw something that was never given in the first place. The point is that they (the DWP) think they have the legal right to share your information and so don’t need anyone’s consent. I think any “withdrawal of consent” would be rapidly consigned by them to the Waste Paper Bin (hereinafter referred to as the WPB) and you would just get back a snotty letter.
Thanks Gissa, you do understand correctly, I thought that might be the answer. Aah well back to the drawing board.
I’ve just been placed on the A4e work programme. As I felt slightly pressurised into signing the consent form, I went along with signing just to end the interview. But as soon as I got home, I’ve posted a similar worded withdrawal letter back to my advisor at A4e.
Am I correct in thinking, that these consent forms are still optional and I can’t be forced to consent?
@Dinkleberry
“Am I correct in thinking, that these consent forms are still optional and I can’t be forced to consent?”
Absolutely correct! You have rights under law (the data protection Act) and no one can force you to give them up.
See this website for more info
http://www.consent.me.uk/
I too am consigned to A4greed and have refused to sign a consent form for 3 months now. I think they have given up asking me now!
Thanks for the heads up. Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that I’ve posted a same day dated withdrawal letter then. :p
Faced with a bit of a battleaxe first thing in the morning, isn’t my idea of help to be honest. But at least now with withdrawal letter in place, whatever information they have on me they’ll no longer be able to freely use. I suppose a lot of vigilance is much needed now.
I’m taking another withdrawal letter with me to my next appointment, just in case they say they didn’t receive the first. And I’ll ask to see, and then keep the original documents that I signed.
You could also ask them to note on your action plan that consent has not been given
Been back today.. and my advisor asked, as to what the withdrawal letter they received was concerning. Although it was quite clear in the letter, I again told them it was to withdraw my consent from the data protection waiver. They stared back with a blank look on their face, and asked me “are you sure you can do that?”
I asked to see the original documents that I signed previously, and was told they were unavailable as now at head office. So I whipped out my own print out of the waiver, and showed them it clearly states my consent can be withdrawn. Again, a blank look. But then told by advisor that my withdrawal letter will be forwarded to head office to look at – and then added a photocopy of the print out I made of the waiver. Why include my print out, I haven’t a clue – unless they just don’t expect a dopey unemployed person to know that these documents are available to anyone with an ounce of common sense?
But to my surprise, the advisor then added – No Info To Be Disclosed – to the computer records without being asked to do so. So they clearly knew what I was on about.
All in all. I’m now waiting to hear – or should that be not hear – from head office concerning my withdrawal letter. And if I nothing before my next appointment, I’m thinking about another letter of withdrawal and also a request for the original waiver forms that I signed at the induction.
If you don’t sign or withdraw consent later on, do they still try to send you on all the usual rubbish courses – like the cv writing, confidence building or the voluntary job placement? – Do you still have to participate with them, as it’s a “work-related” activity?
Compulsory confidence building. What irony!
“YOU WILL BE MADE MORE CONFIDENT OR WE WILL STOP YOUR BENEFIT!”
Stuck in a room full of strangers no doubt while some fuckwit pop psycholgoist has you draw happy thoughts. I couldn’t think of anything more appalling than some ‘confidence building’ course run by the likes of providers. I’d rather see a trained objective therapist or doctor.
” I am going to go round the room. I want everyone to introduce themselves to the group and tell us something unusual about yourself.” Utter, utter baloney!
Oh god, I can’t stand that shit. I had that crap when i had a job interview at Woolies years ago. We had to sit and tell the person next to us what our funniest experience was! Utter garbage. Frankly I find it intrusive, but of course if you don’t get into the ‘spirit’ of it you come off the loser.
Well Drew,
I can’t see that not signing the waiver will get you out of the courses. But I would say that you should not “volunteer” for anything! If they want you to go on a course or a job placement then make sure that they mandate you. If they fail to do so properly the DWP will not be able to sanction you for non compliance:
See Chapter 3 of DWP guidance to Providers here:
Click to access wp-pg-chapter-3.pdf
Further to my previous posting above. I had a bit of an interesting development. I was asked to go see my jobcentre manager. Turns out they’ve been contacted by my WP, and told I was seeking to withdraw consent.
I’ve been told, I can’t withdraw consent as not providing information for A4E to use, is a refusal of the WP and could be sanctioned. I pointed out that it doesn’t say that on the DWP provider guidance, in fact it says the complete opposite. The manager insisted that A4E need the information to help me into work, and not giving it is a refusal. After going around in circles for a few moments, I left it at that and left.
Hi Dinkleberry,
You are right – they are wrong! There is nothing that could be clearer than the wording used by the DWP to say that the waiver is not mandatory and that declining to give up your legal rights does not constitute a refusal to participate in the WP. You have pointed this out to both a4greed and the JC there is nothing more you can do – though I guess you could complain to the IOC if you felt up to it . I have also declined to sign a4greed’s waiver and (altough I am marked as a bolshie so and so) there has been no action or threat of action taken against me.
Hi.
Yes, you are indeed correct Dinkleberry.
I suppose, like you. I would have tried to explain sloooowly and calmly the error they were making, but after a while probably would have simply left too.
And if they put in a sanction doubt this should be easily dismissed.
The wording is right there for all to see, Decision makers would probably say to the manager that it wasn’t valid for a doubt. I probably would have asserted this at the time in the same situation. They know less than we do. Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not.
This shouldn’t really go anywhere near a sanction doubt! You can still participate in the WP. The provider is seemingly stirring the shitpot a little. Oh no, they’re gonna lose another easier target! Still can participate, just it will be a little bit different.
They don’t like different. They have to actually contemplate thoughts that are off script. I love that, watching them actually thinking. They could be thinking exactly how we’re going to screw this tricky little bastard, or in a much rarer instance you get one that’s still got a little spark of humanity in them and they start to see what they are doing to people. But then there’s that mortgage or car payment, that swish phone tariff to pay for, but some do actually try and be nice as they can be without getting a dressing down for being fair and understanding. Strange race this human.
They say ‘Sanction doubt’ I say ‘Excuse me?’ If they threaten again, depending on your personality, maybe just squash that little sucker (the doubt, not the adviser!) there and then. A manager should really know better, If it was a section manager, see the third party provision manager, or at least ask of them. Ask them to phone the DM.
.
There is the possibility that you may not hear anything more about it. Unless you want to clarify the situation yourself. .
I do rather go on a bit sometimes. Good luck Dinkleberry.
Well, I’m going to stick with it until I’ve actually got an A4E signed confirmation of consent withdrawal or a JC sanction letter – and then, I’ll still argue with them.
I’ve already prepared another withdrawal of consent letter, with added letter to destroy my information from http://www.consent.me.uk/destroymyinfo – which will both be going directly to my WP. But just not sure yet, if to request they destroy all information collected, or change it to request all information not relevant for participation on the WP.
Just found this over on http://indusdelta.co.uk/discussion/there_any_shred_humanity_work_programme/8788
‘We have been asked to hit sanction targets too, although this is nothing new, as JC+ offices have been given targets of three people per week to refer for sanction whether they need to be sanctioned or not, and it’s always the most vulnerable that are the easiest to target.’
Tread carefully everyone
Good find. But that’s still no cause to sanction someone that hasn’t broken the rules. If they say you can withdraw consent…bingo!
I just add my own experience with the poverty pimps.
I am in the late 50’s and have been unemployed for 10 years or so. I went trough a number of “programs” including the “Flexible New Deal” that preceded the “Work Program” with the same slaver firm: A4e.
After 6 months or so of parking in the JC+ “stage 3” I was referred in November last to the WP.
I went through the inane induction and I followed the “parking strategy” and refused to sign the data sharing consent (interesting they had the form booby-trapped with two places to sign with wording that could be construed as an acceptance!).
At the next appointment I was given a personal advisor.
The “advisor” was a young woman (I think from Middle Eastern background) and she did not seem to have a clue about whom I was or even seen the data from the “induction” but against all odds they seemed have retained data from my previous attendance to their former “Flexible New Deal” programme.
As she read what on the screen, I was positioned in a place where could not see the content, she became more and more circumspect. Eventually started saying in a soothing tone that maybe I would benefit from specialist advise but than she simply fell silent and told me that an other adviser would contact me “shortly”.
I imagine that the slaver, as part of their contractual obligation, on paper at least (I think I read it somewhere…too), will have to provide “specialist help” for clients with drug, mental or addiction problems. Of course this type of “clients” are not good for business, therefore I assume they will provide only the semblance of service.
I expect they’ll have few, or more likely one or two, specialist advisers and therefore a very long cue to see them.
Hopefully I have been put on the back-burner.
I was surprised they had some record from the “Flexible New Deal” and thought at the time they kept some kind of database for difficult, dangerous and hopeless “clients”!! A friend of mine however tells me that she had her details on file and that they can and do keep client details for some time.
I did not even have to open my folder with various printouts of relevant rules and regulations or not even asked about the induction papers.
It all looked, heartening, shoddy and disorganised.
Also I noticed that hardly any fellow victims were at the office, that means that they have a policy, possibly in area of high unemployment like were I live, in south London, where they operate a fast in and out policy of “client help advice” and concentrate on the most likely victims.
I am only little worried to be referred to some specialised agency.
I know that there are some, my neighbour, with a story of addiction was been referred to one, but voluntarily. She had however some history of meaningful employment (in addition to a younger age) I find difficult to contemplate the possibility that any agency would want to meddle with an hopeless case.
In the last month I have not heard from them.
Something similar happened in the previous “Flexible New Deal” with less and less frequent contacts. There was a dangerous point however when they reported to the JS+ that I dropped out of the program. At the time I managed to convince the JC+ that they “lost my files” and no sanctions ensued. I had however to restart the program with new inductions etc.
All in all even the second stint was not burdensome and it was left to the JC+ to let me know I finished the program some months later!
None the less I wander if it would be beneficial to pop in voluntarily at the slaver office with some excuse, job search or whatever so that in case of doubts being raised I could argue that I was attending.
Hi, Marcus,
You seem well organised. I would just leave the initiative to them as they seem to be disorganised. So long as you attend the “mandatory” appointments I see no need to “pop in voluntarily” – unless you fancy using their facilities e.g. internet/printer/free coffee!
I have encountered this data retention thing too – apparently as the schemes like FND were partially funded by European Social Funding money they have to hang on to your data for ages (12 years from memory but I’m open to correction). However this is only for audit purposes and does NOT give them the right to use that data for any other purpose e.g. the Work Programme.
I think you’re right about seeing the revival of “creaming and parking” – these are commercial organisations and are in this racket with the aim of making a profit. They will therefore make commercial decisions right down the line to the lowliest of target driven “advisors” – how could it be otherwise? human nature will dictate that the lowest hanfing fruit is the first to get picked.
Hello Marcus. Et all.
Yeah, I can see what you mean with regard to your FND experience. However, with regard to your current WP experience I would not contact them, drop in to them, phone them or even think about them if possible. You referred to them as ‘Slaver, so I’m guessing that you aren’t exactly enthralled by the prospect of enduring this WP.
You have been inducted and then had an initial appointment with the adviser who couldn’t deal with you. She has said you will be contacted shortly, I’m guessing you currently have no appointment to see them. If you haven’t, just wait for them to contact you. You could only be sanctioned if you miss a pre arranged appointment in writing, either an appointment card whilst there, or by letter. I think (not 100% sure) it has to be in writing for any doubt regarding non attendance to have any weight. Email? Hmmm? Don’t know?
Have they a phone number, email? If not, all to the better. And we are supposedly within our rights not to supply those. Without penalty! But they will spin it as you being obstructive. Must try and validate all this stuff so one can present such remedy when they start accusing.
Anyway, that’s what i am doing. Let them contact me. In writing. I’m under no obligation. They know where I am if they wish to write to me. I am participating simply by being on the books and awaiting further instruction. And looking for suitable work in the meantime, of course. To meet my ‘responsibility’ to garner my survival payments.
Of course the applications are few and far between these days. And any responses to these applications even fewer! I don’t need a provider hassling me and trying to use me for their employers gain.
I’m not breaking any laws. So stuff them.
Well said Mr. No,
I noticed the a4greed offices were busier yesterday. There seemed to be some new (perhaps “apprentice”?) advisors sitting by their more established colleagues – doubtless learning the ropes. This added to the overcrowding – I could not avoid following the exchanges that were taking place in close proximity either side of me. The poor bloke on my right was being harangued by a young harridan about being enthusiastic about the job interview he was being sent on. “What was this long term, sustainable career that was being offered?” I hear you ask. Well it turned out to be selling some sort of stuff door to door from a suitcase – using the “I’m unemployed and am doing this to make ends meet” approach. And the victim is supposed to be grateful for this opportunity and enthusiastic to boot!
If this is the sort of crap that comes out of the pimps’ black boxes they can shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
I think I’m right in saying, that most of these new “apprentice” advisors, will probably be in fact people who used to be on the Work Programme. It’s a way for the provider to get free workers, and get paid for them in the process.
I think there might be something in what you say Dinkleberry, but from my observations it would appear, to me at least, that these providers usually put their ‘customers’ to work (experience!) on reception and general basic admin duties. Because they cannot get them anything else! And they need those boxes ticked.
Though desperate times might call for them to resort to such desperate measures.
It would be a very interesting ‘experience’ for someone, who may possibly share our kind of views, being put beside an adviser while they are ‘advising’, if you see what I mean?
I reckon that perhaps what Gissa witnessed was simply new recruits being shoddily brought up to speed because of the large amount of referrals that they greedily took on for the attachment fees.
I wouldn’t have thought they would let the ‘scroungers’ that side of the desk. Just in case some of them were rather opposed to the whole thing and were making careful observations. And also perhaps due to data protection/privacy issues they wouldn’t be allowed to do such. But as we know, they often try it on and attempt to do as they want anyway!
Mind you, as to what you state above, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they have encountered and employed (to whatever degree?) a few suitably morally bereft individuals who were our side of the desk once, who were easily indoctrinated and
wiling to be a cog in their insane corporate machine.
Yes, Mr.No. I think you are generally correct. I wasn’t thinking however to ask for an appointment or contact anyone with the A4e slavers. Just to more or less anonymously pop in their offices and write my name on their log book. Just to have maybe additional leverage if they falsely report I dropped out of the program. It is a very moot question, though. When I signed on I was told by the JCP that A4e have reported I started on their program from yesterday!! I pointed out that I started officially last November and I already had induction. the JCP employee was aware but repeated that I was confirmed on the slaver WP. I cannot really make sense of it. It is however more likely that there is no sense. They really seems to make it up as they go along.
They do not have the resources for meaningfully fulfil their contractual obligations (without going bust) so they must have some kind of make believe, just on paper sort of thing, the type of “parking” we so far managed to achieve.
Some glimmers of explanations are given in Work Programme Provider Guidance (from the DWP)
.Ch1 section 16
.16. You [ie the slavers] are required to deliver your minimum service offer to all referred .claimants whilst they remain on eligible benefits provided it is both feasible and reasonable in .the participant’s circumstances. Where it is not possible to deliver your minimum service .because of a participants circumstances you are expected to look to alternative approaches to .satisfy this requirement.
in the same guidance is interesting ch 15
.Minimum performance levels and incentive payment model
.The minimum performance and trigger level for incentive payments will be based on the .conversion rate of referrals to job outcomes in the respective years as calculated by DWP. .This level has been calculated based on:
.• the expected non-intervention performance on a cohort basis;
.• the profile for the length of time taken for a start to become a Job
.Outcome; and
.• expected referrals.
.Any Provider who does not deliver the expected minimum proportion of job
.outcomes to referrals in a given year will be defined as not meeting minimum
.performance standards. Minimum performance standards apply to payment…
meaning as I understand it, that they have to provide to their own masters (DWP) some kind of guaranteed results to get paid. Therefore whatever resources they have they must concentrate them on most likely candidate/victims.
The more difficult problem would be the actual slave work (however it seems they do not have the obligation to refer people to work activities apart for Mandatory Work Activity ordered by the JSP).
1- they seems at liberty to impose the type of program they wish both in term of duration or the chosen activity (the legislation is based on a concoction of tree different legislations but the time limits or repetitions are fuzzily defined)
2- they use a set of fixed subcontractors.
3- stand to reason but I could not find documentation for it (apart for guidances for the Mandatory Work Activities -a de facto punishment from the JCP) that the contractor has to accept the candidate for placement.
So if the contractor may think that the candidate is unsuitable because for example may suspect may harbour infectious diseases or is mentally unstable or such it is possible that the candidate may be referred back.
Yet I only catching at straws here and a good strategy that avoid the Raising a compliance doubt has not yet materialised.
It’s normally obnoxious to see an animal devouring its own offsping but I urge you to make an exception today. The Daily Heil has decided to do a hatchet job on Enemma Harrison here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html.
I know this is against the principles of most of us but have a read – and especially the comments.
When Middle England turns against the WP (albeit for some strange motives) it really is on the verge of collapse.
Enjoy!
It was a headline newsstory – but it’s been dropped to a miniscule filler story, and hidden at the bottom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099062/Fury-families-tsar-gets-8-6m-ONE-YEAR-bulk-comes-taxpayer.html
Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, they haven’t criticised the WP yet. But the key is to make clear what a waste of TAXPAYERS money the programme is. It seems that’s how you get the likes of the Mail onside. The article names her as the families tsar, not the head of the WP/provider.
Wow! A DM story that has some validity. And one that alludes to the fact that the scroungers are getting a very raw deal at the ‘expense’ of the greed of these people.
That woman is just a little bit strange. Just without the ‘just a little bit’!
Having had the displeasure of enduring the shoddy treatment of her nice little earner of a company I cant say I have much sympathy for the odious woman.
Mind you, I don’t think she will really care too much about such stories.
She may be a little dismayed and maybe even utter a slight ‘Oh damn, oh well… Darling, is the Audi on the drive?’, but at least a mainstream paper, even one as dire as the DM,has served to bring at least a little closer to the surface what all those supposedly crazy, lazy, unemployed, paranoid people have been saying for years. I’m hoping that one day the scam will finally be outed for what it is and there will be a fuss comparable to the MP expenses scandal, or the phone hacking scandal. But that is rather optimistic at best.
Though I’m sure the DM and their ilk will soon be back to bashing the unemployed soon enough.
They’ve only gone and reprinted the same story with todays date. Only now with no comments : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099651/MPs-probe-Emma-Harrisons-salary-ocketed-8-6m-year.html – The previous link is still accessible though with 800+ comments.
Anyone heard of the Work Choices programme? Apparently an alternative to the WP for people with health issues. Locally it’s run by someone called Pluss.
Can you give some links?
Oh dear! I seem to have been “unparked”! Letter telling me to attend A4greed’s INSPIRE(!) course through door this am. it states “we agreed a range of activities…..” TRUE but going on this pointless bit of tomfoolery wasn’t one of the agreed activities! Still as it’s “mandatory” (that terrible overused word again – could they not use a thesaurus and come up with a few synonyms like “compulsory” just to ring the changes?) I guess I’ll have to go.
God help them.
I’d just take the opportunity to “Inspire” others who they’ve kindly gathered, and tell them to withdraw their consent.
Hi everyone sorry to hear about your course gissajob ,the pimps have been fine with me so far, I keep filling in my job search and giving the little twat as much bull as I can but last week after telling him I have been in the building trade for 30 years he tries to get me on a how to lift safely course I looked at him and said come on mate 30 years building I should know how to lift safely fair play he backed down but goes to show what fucking idiots we are dealing with
the irony here (well one amongst many) is that some complete twat is going to be paid a huge wedge to teach people how “lift safely”. Lift what exactly? Pauline’s pens?
Hey Gissa. That is you isn’t it? Difference being G?
Sorry to hear about your ‘unparking’. What ‘range of activities’ was agreed? Or are they simply being the tricky idiots they always are? I won’t agree to anything that’s generalised. Was it more a case of ‘We will agree a range of as yet undetermined activities? Hmmm? Just typing thoughts!
As for ‘mandatory and compulsory, it used to be compulsory, but they changed that. Whenever they say mandatory to me, i say compulsory, just for a laugh!
Is INSPIRE a group session? I’m sure you will be taking the time to have a chat to any fellow detainees who are willing to listen. Are you going to question this supposedly agreed activity?
Take care mate.
Hi Mr No, I’ve been enjoying your posts here and elsewhere.
The INSPIRE thing wasn’t agreed by me and wasn’t on my action plan at my last advisor meeting. It has never even been discussed with me. So – if it is on my action plan now it has been put there without my knowledge, consent or agreement! It just materialised by a standard letter – effectively demanding my attendence for the best part of a day.
I am torn between doing nothing for the sake of a quiet life and firing back a caustic e-mail (I have drafted such). I think the lesson here is not to sign the action plan (I have up till now as it’s contained nothing offensive) and ask for a copy of it for your own records – I will certainly be doing this in future at every appointment.
I am guessing that it’s a group session. My money is on the usual half baked, wafer thin, amateur pschobabble that seems to be an a4greed speciality. Probably delivered by a callow youth with a degree in media studies from a sub red brick uni. You know the sort of thing it leads to statements like: “You can be anything you want”, “Improving People’s Lives!”, “Doing well by doing good!” etc. etc. etc.
PASS THE SICK BAG!
Hi all,
Just started with INGEUS at the end of 2011, they haven’t contacted me since November and out of the blue I get a letter telling me to attend an interview next week. They are completely useless in every way imaginable. A 45 minute bus journey for a 10 minute talk with some moron about how I can help myself look for work.
Is there ANY way I can get off this WP and back to just signing on every fortnight? Ive had jobs in the past and not one of them has been from a WP, and Ive been on a few now!. I’m well aware how to use a PC to look for jobs as well as a telephone to phone companies and recruitment agencies!.
Please someone give me good news, I cant stand being on this WP any longer.
Hi Alex
you say
If there was a way then I think we’d all have taken it by now! The only way off is to get a job and sign off – even then these pimps will own you for the forseeable future – 2 years or until they have milked every last penny out of you that they can.
Your best bet is to do as much research as you can in the hope of minimising their involvement and the damage they can do to your health and prospects. Read the posts on this site and on the consent.me site.
Don’t sign the data consent form.
Read the six tips to WP survival here:
http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/index/main-forum.html
Console yourself with the fact that it could be worse – you might have been consigned to A4e.
A4e making headlines in the Mail yet again. Now being investigated for fraud.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103252/Back-work-tsar-centre-fraud-probe-claims-funding-went-jobs-lasting-just-day.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103522/Suspend-work-tsar-MPs-demand-action-fraud-probe-job-placement-scheme.html
Just a quick question.. Am I under any obligation to supply my WP, with a list of the jobs that I’ve applied for in between appointments? – I haven’t done so, as I said I’ve withdrawn consent for them to use any of it. And I’ve told them I supply that information to the jobcentre when I sign on. They didn’t like it, but said they want it next appointment.
Careful here Dinkleberry! If they ask for the information then I would give it to them. Presumably they are only asking at each appointment that you show them such a list and not asking you to e-mail it in on a more frequent basis. This doesn’t sound too onerous to me – it is no more than the JCP ask for (usually) when signing on there. Just make sure that your list covers the requirements as set out in your Job seeker’s agreement and resist any bullying to try to get you to agree to apply for (and evidence) a greater number.
If you wanted to be a bit more stroppy show them a list of say 3 jobs for which you have applied and say something like “this covers the minmum activity as agreed with JCP and evidenced by my formal agreement with them”. It could be that you have applied for more – shouldn’t matter as you have met the minmum, required. This is not a data protection issue and the fact that you haven’t given consent won’t help you with this particular issue.
Right, bareface minimum it is then on that issue.. Thought I might of been pushing it. :p
It all got a bit heated tbh, as they are still refusing to acknowledge my withdrawal of consent letter. And I was threatened yet again, that withdrawing consent is a refusal of the WP. I pointed out & showed them that I haven’t refused anything, it’s just a withdrawal of consent to share or use info as stated on the DWP Provider Guidance – It all got into a bit of a you have to do this, you can’t do that in a tedious roundabout of huffing & puffing. Anyway, I left with no sanction. And another letter direct to A4e is now on route yet again. Next step will be complaint if that’s ignored.
Hi folks.
Dinkleberry – A quick question perhaps, but one that is so very important with regard to our general getting through this awful regime. I must say that I often find myself in broad agreement and often aligned with the very good comment and ideas from Gissa. Good on that man!
At my ‘induction’ it was asked of me to bring in ‘the last 3 jobs i applied for’. I asked for the addition of ‘If possible’ and they obliged, ta very much!
It was a similar thing on FND, where they would have this sheet that you were meant to fill in with the full details of the applications. the company, contact details, job description contact name at company etc. I only ever saw such twice, never filled it in. Never told them fuck all! How did I achieve this? To be honest, I don’t know! Too busy arguing about me not supplying a CV I suppose?
Anyway, back to WP. When I am unfortunate enough to be ‘unparked’, I’m sure this issue will be raised. Seems Dinkleberry has fended them off till next time at least.
I think the only vacancies i will be supplying will be ones that I have applied for where enough time has elapsed to assume one hasn’t been successful.
Even then I will be giving the scantest of details. And only 3, if possible!
If they start with the 10 per week stuff, I’m sure I will be highly amused and will spend several minutes explaining to them that one isn’t actually obliged to apply at all. And if there is nothing suitable, even more so. Many weeks go by without an application, then like buses 3 might come along at once. But as long as you are seeking/available for etc… Then stuff ’em. Whatever the JC accepts, so can they.
They know the score, they just got to earn there dollar and aren’t too fussy when it comes to what they do for said dollar. As we know.
Supplying ‘pending’ job applications could be risky due to the fact that if one is lucky enough to apply for and get an interview and get the job, we will not (if we can help it) be wanting the provider or JC to know. Get job, sign off!
If one is only in receipt of JSA and nothing else it is far simpler to just sign off without reason.
So they cannot pester the employer that you probably found without the pimps help!
That’s the bit that really pisses me off!
I mean, if they themselves actually found me a decent job that was suitable and i was agreeable to the vacancy I could (almost!) not mind them getting their outcome payment.
But they only have retail and security and free labour so fat chance!
Also, if ones appointments are on average 4-5 weeks apart i would only ever consider letting them know about applications in the fortnight proceeding a pimp appointment. And only ones that were ‘spent’, so to speak. For reasons I mentioned above. The less info we volunteer the less they can use against us. A barefaced bare minimum indeed! They will be persistent and invasive and one ultimately has to have ones wits about one throughout the duration of any and all interactions with the pimps.
Just more ideas for the pot.