Jump to content

Skinnered

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. The DWP, on their own admission, have no idea how they are going to handle the transition arrangements from legacy benefits to UC. The date for dealing with it all has been put back again to the Spring/Summer of 2019. They have still only managed to get around 10% of new claimants onto UC. Roll-out slowed to a crawl, even then they aren’t coping. Unclebulgaria, might I submit that the reason why you don’t see many people asking about UC on CAG is because they invariably get fobbed off with unhelpful responses. Ask at your local Citizen’s Advice or MP offices if you think it’s all propaganda spread by the media. As an example please refer yourself to thread: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?483778-EU-national-JSA-to-UC-migration The question being asked was: My questions: - Can I voluntarily ask to be migrated to UC? My work coach says that I would have to quit JSA first and then make a new fresh claim for UC. Is this true? There were 3 responses: 1. Too complicated. Wait till someone else comes along. 2. From you: You did not address any of the points raised or the actual question which was whether he could voluntarily ask to go onto UC and whether what his work coach told him was correct. He gave a history of the problems he had been having which he fears still remain real and that this was his reasoning for asking to go onto UC because he thought that transferring now would avoid any further complications with his current situation only to face the same again if shortly to be transferred and go through it all again. Sounded reasonable to me. Anyway, you asked him why he wanted to transfer. Not only had he already explained it to you, but, with all due respect, it’s none of your business. The answer to his question was "YES". He said that his circumstances were being changed several times. In fact, in some parts to the country he would have been transferred to UC without asking for it, whether he liked it or not. You then went on at length about all the dire consequences of transferring. This is surprising, I mean, how you know all this when the DWP themselves don’t know. on their own admission, how this transition phase is to be handled. God knows, even if you don’t, they aren’t exactly handling the introduction for new claimants very well, are they? 3. Question about housing benefit. Again irrelevant. Answer the questions asked first and subsequent questions when asked. More unnecessary subjective advice on possible difficulties associated with UC, again not what was asked for. The point I am attempting to make is that the claimant who asked the question did not get an answer to his questions from people who are supposed to have been answering questions on here for over 8, 7, and 2 years respectively. I would hesitate to ask another, or as a prospective new member, hesitate to ask any. Neither is it helpful, that is if you wish to attract and encourage members to ask questions, to refer to them as criticising the public sector or moaning. Other parts of the Forum deal with insurance issues, energy, etc. No shortage of corrupt goings on in those services and I’m sure they would benefit from your advice if you feel more comfortable focusing on them.
  2. DEA - Guide for employers may be read/downloaded from this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/direct-earnings-attachments-an-employers-guide It seems that a company has no option but to comply with a DEA notice, no questions asked, or face a stiff fine. Subject Access Request forms may be completed/downloaded on/from this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/subject-access-request-form Guidance on how to go about making the request is provided.
  3. Hello Nikki, Could you say what DEA stands for here? You say the company is yours and that you are a director. Is the company registered as a sole trader, partnership, or what? The relationship between yourself and the company appears to be blurred, are you the employer or the employee? From what you've written it looks like you are both depending on whose perspective you look at it. The fact that they are reluctant to provide evidence sounds dubious. Have you tried demanding what they claim to be evidence with your owner/company head on before a penny is parted with? With your employee head on you could make a SAR request for all records they hold on you covering the period in contention. They are obliged by law to provide same within a month or so.
  4. I agree with you that 5 weeks is a long time to wait when one has no income and no savings to fall back on. The costs of living and having to pay the bills are not put on hold. The arguments that are put, rightly or wrongly, to support the case for a 5 week wait are; 1. that UC payments cover a month in arrears and the time is necessary for collecting and calculating any and all income details or changes in circumstances in that month that may have a bearing on the benefit entitlement for that month. Since this is how UC works and for as long as it continues it is difficult to see how this delay can be circumvented. 2. that new claimants would have the wages and/or severance pay from their recent employment to tide them over. Irrespective of those arguments new claimants also need to be aware that an advance of up to a month’s benefit can be paid within a week of making the claim. This help has not been available in the past and information on such help as there was in place was not generally given or explained to claimants. The other improvement to this concession is that the claimant now has a full 12 months to pay back that advance, which is still classed as a ‘loan’. Another aspect of UC that does not appear to be widely brought to the attention of claimants is that the benefit can be paid fortnightly in cases where the circumstances of the claimant make it feasible. Much of the hardship and anxiety suffered by claimants can be attributed directly to the fact that they are kept in ignorance, in my opinion deliberately, of their full entitlements. This is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, I can see no excuse for it. I await with keen anticipation the statement of the Secretary of State just after mid-day today to see if any further light can be shed on the points raised in this post. Doubtless important issues for further discussion will be raised.
  5. Thanks for posting this. Some very useful information well presented. The Scottish Government and their local councils have done a lot to soften the worst excesses the UK Government's austerity programmes. Some of the stuff that is mentioned in this document may not be applicable/available in England.
  6. Many of the programmes that have been introduced by DWP over recent years have been subsidised by the European Social Fund. As with all other government or official documentation the ESF has volumes of bumf attached containing all sorts of rules and regulations, does and don'ts. There is an interesting document titled "European Social Fund Operational Programme 2014-2020" that could answer most of your enquiries. You can read/download it at - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461596/ESF_Operational_Programme_2014_-_2020_V.01.pdf If you have experience or evidence of programmes that you have been obliged to participate in that have been funded wholly or in part by ESF, that did not conform or comply with the stated aims or outcomes set out and agreed as being a condition of the funding being allocated, then there is no reason why you could not use the law to seek redress. The idea that setting out on this course of action is beyond you financially is fanciful. A formal letter to the organisation that you are in dispute with setting out your case and leaving them in no doubt that you intend to take the matter to the limits allowable under the law is usually sufficient to end the treatment of which you complain before it gets anywhere near the stage where you need to start thinking of costs.
  7. Waiting time before first payment of UC is made down to 5 weeks, that's if no other delaying tactics are used. The 7 day wait after claiming before payment can be applicable in the first place to be abolished. The payment to be applicable from day 1 of claim. A full month's payment to be given if needed in cases of hardship within a week of making the claim to tide the claimant over that first month and a full 12 months to be allowed for repayment of this advance. Housing benefit continues to be paid for the first two weeks of transition periods between other benefits an UC. It does not address the many issues related to UC but it will ease and relieve the initial hardship it causes as it is currently applied. Work & Pensions Secretary to spell out the details of this announcement in Parliament tomorrow (Thursday), including the dates on which those changes come into force.
  8. Do you mean that employees who refused a request to hand over their shoes to their employers could technically be dismissed? How does technical dismissal differ from actual dismissal? I had not realised how base employment law had got.
  9. Could you name the law that states what you are claiming so the lass can refer to it if necessary?
  10. BazzaS, If you care to read the thread 'Overtime not offered to all' you may appreciate my reluctance to comply with your request. I was treated with what can only be described as vilification and abuse. No attempt was made to qualify the comments of those who scorned mine despite several requests to do so. By the end of the exchanges some comments led me to the view that continuing our 'robust discussion' might lead to my being silenced permanently. I thought that if I set out my response as I have done it would allow those who I am advised are more qualified and knowledable to give considered, qualified responses. We shall see if their credentials live up to their boasts. I thought that if I set out my response as I have done it would allow others who I am advised are more knowledgable than I to give considered, qualified responses.
  11. Common decency is a virtue that employers who behave in the way you describe do not possess in any great quantity. Here is my own opinion for what it's worth. I do not wish to raise your expectations unduly. If you choose to take action know that the process can be full of all sorts of obstacles, it's not an easy option, you have already been advised to accept your losses. From the moment you accepted the offer of employment a contract of employment exists. The terms and conditions of a contract of employment include the procedure to be followed in cases like yours. I can't say I've ever heard of a case where an employee's first inkling that they were no longer employed was their P45 from HMRC. It would not make matters any worse if you wrote to your employers and told them that you did not think much of the way you were dismissed and informed of it. You could also say that you are in the process of seeking advice on your rights under your contract of employment, whether the way you have been treated constitutes a Breach of Contract and whether you have any grounds on which to take your case to an employment tribunal. There is nothing dangerously antagonist there, you are not making demands, threatening or issuing ultimatums. Those sort of people who think they know the law and can get away with treating people like dirt usually know enough to recognise certain words that ring alarm bells in their heads. One thing you can be sure of is that the very mention of terms that sould like legal jargon will have them rushing off to consult solicitors. At the very least you will cause them days or weeks of anxiety and probably a hefty solicitor's bill.
  12. I would. Let me know which questions you seek clarification on and why you believe clarification is necessary. This is the first time I've seen such a request from the sit team despite the fact that there has been serious misrepresentations of the law by some. I have been uber careful in this post not to give anyone any false sence of hope. If the questions can be answered and the answers backed up then this OP will have his/her advice.
  13. Did ACAS explain what grounds the employer thought he had to strike out the case or that they would be successful if they tried it on?
  14. Hello A Olive; Here are a few questions the answer to which might influence your next move. You may be able to answer some of them but I’m hoping that the other contributors to your thread so far might have a go too with references. 1. What do you take ‘probation period’ to mean? 2. Could it mean a period where your performance in the job was to be assessed? 3. Did it involve any sort of supervision to monitor performance or progress? 4. Was any training given or corrective actions suggested? 5. Is it not still the case that a contract of employment exists from the time the offer of employment is accepted? 6. Is it not still the case that the terms and conditions of an employment contract apply from the moment the contract comes into existence irrespective of when a written copy is received? 7. Does that not include terms relating to the procedures to be followed in the event of an employee being dismissed? 8. Is it not still the case that an employee is entitled to a written copy of terms and condition on request, especially when facing disciplinary action or dismissal? 9. Where the contract term categorically says ‘1weeks’ notice’ can it be altered arbitrarily to ‘1 weeks’ notice or anything else we choose to add’? 10. Is it not still the case that there is no requirement that an employee should have been employed for any particular period of employment before bringing a claim of Breach of Contract before a tribunal? I would advise you get answers to those questions from Citizens Advice or an employment solicitor if you can afford it. I could answer them here and now for you but you can’t imagine the convulsions of apoplexy that would be liable to cause.
  15. The definition of 'discrimination' extolled in the preceding posts and 'set out in law' is the definition used in the Equality Act 2010. If the definition is used in any other Act I'm sure I'll be informed. In one of my first posts I wrote: Somewhere along the way someone has decided that the term I used 'discriminated in favour of' was intended to mean what 'discrimination' means in the Equality Act 2010. That was an error promulgated by those who asumed it, not by me. Bearing in mind that nobody, at that stage, had mentioned the law or legal action, the layman reading this, not conversant with employment law or legalise as opposed to general day to day language, would not immediately jump to the conclusion that my term and the EA 2010 definition were the same. Only someone too clever by half would assume that everyone else is going to jump to the conclusions that they erroniously jumped to. The advice to handle the matter under discussion here informally has been taken, for better or worse. It seems that is not enough for some, they feel compelled to attact the integrity, vilify, insult, abuse and silence anyone proposing an alternative course of action. As for 'people in stressed positions': There seems to be only one person here in that state and self confessedly 'wound up'. Suggest you take a chill pill. Atlas01, no ofence intended and thanks for taking my comment as it was intended, without malice. I sympathise with you if you had to go through situations similar to those we hear about on here. Suffice to say some others of us have spent many years on the front line too representing our fellow working man and witnessing how the sort of management sometimes held as paragons of virtue on here ground them down, in some cases to an early grave. But this is not about us, or is it? Some seem to think so.
×
×
  • Create New...