Please delete this thread. Thanks. Owen.

I don't mean literally 1,000, just an example to illustrate point. It won't be JC staff, it'll be automated, matched to your CV etc. Job Centres won't be Job Centres anymore. They'll be Sanction Centres. And they're going to be full of angry and desperate people once this all kicks in properly, and most people having to sign on don't know what's about to happen as they think they're just signing up to a job brokering service. JC staff must know what's coming and know the real impact this is going to have on people, and them to, because they'll be the ones dealing with the human fallout face to face. It's a disaster of epic proportions for all concerned, including the Job Centre themselves.

It's all very interesting, isn't it? When your advisor recommends a job at the job centre you must apply, or have good reason not to. This is not about how to avoid applying for jobs by the way, but those who say they have no problem with this consider it more carefully. It is being made mandatory to register in reality. But you don't have to allow access. So you register etc. Now, look at the vacancies. You have the option to apply or 'tell us why you do not wish to apply'. Why? Sanctions will become automated too, and what recourse will you have then. As for the 35 hour per week job search, this will be enforced through monitoring of your activity on Universal Jobmatch. What if the job centre 'match' you with, and send you a thousand applications a week (not likely but illustrating point) you'll be there from dawn till dusk, or 'tell us why...' You see? There will be alot of people suddenly finding themselves with a sanction. Or two, or three. That'll be the welfare bill dropping by a few quid, eh? Well done Ian Duncan Smith, what a clever fellow. That is why I object, because it is not merely a job matching service at all.

I've just read a document to contractors running UJ which states: "10.7 When the Services are implemented, Jobcentre Plus customers (including potential jobseekers) will not be mandated to register and create a profile. Discussions are ongoing with the Authority and Ministers, and requiring customers to use the services may be introduced at a later date. The Contractor shall ensure the design of the Services is such that they are scalable in the event of such a change in policy. 10.8 At implementation of the Services, Jobcentre Plus customers will be encouraged to use the Services, via their ongoing interactions with Jobcentre Plus staff. 10.9 For the avoidance of doubt, there is no requirement to migrate any Jobcentre Plus customer information to the Services to create a profile/record." Unless this has already changed. It appears they are saying one thing while doing another. They can't have it both ways. It either is mandatory or it isn't. If it is mandatory then that would surely breach the data protection act. What about the coming mandatory 35 hour per week job search which will follow on the back of registering with Universal Jobmatch, which will be enabled by that? How on earth will anyone be able to comply? If they don't/can't it'll be be 3 year sanctions all round. That will create an army of desperate and angry people with absolutely nothing left to lose.

Are there guidelines that refer to this, where does it say that claimants will have to print off jobmatch activity or else? Not being sarcastic, just interested. Also just saw on twitter a recent letter from Lord Freud to another MP about Universal Jobmatch saying that claimants would be encouraged to create an account but would be their own choice whether to give the job centre access to that account.

There's alot going on online regarding this at the moment. It may be that creation of a Universal Jobmatch account will be mandatory BUT signing consent/giving permission to the job centre to access and use your account cannot be mandatory under threat of sanction as this would contravene the data protection act. They may play this down, the form I have seen so far does not give the option not to sign consent, perhaps relying on ignorance re the data protection act. None of this is yet certain however as the DWP and job centre appear to be moving the goal posts in their favour. I don't really see how they can demand consent to use of personal data though. A very good source of information re this and related matters is consent.me.uk (hope I'm allowed to post that link, I'm not affiliated with this site, it is just a very good resource).

Ok, will do, thanks again!

Which letter should I send in response to HL Legal?

Thank you! Owen.

Hi Folks, I have recieved a letter from HL Legal regarding an old overdraft debt of just over £3,000. I am also being chsed by Lowell for a credit card debt of £7,000 - this has gone from Lowell to Moorcroft and Wescott, and back to Lowell, all of which have been ignored as I am in no position to pay. This really has been ongoing for the last 3 years, I am 2 years away from Statute Barred status on both. We have moved a couple of times in the last 3 years but they have caught up with us at our latest address already. I am wondering whether perhaps now is the time to defend these. The HL Legal letter seems different than the usual threatogram, or is it? (see below). I am wondering what I should do now in regard to HL Legal. I imagine if I do respond in writing and challenge them that it will confirm my residence at this address to both HL Legal and Lowell. Any help and advice on this would be greatly appreciated. I rent my home, have no car, no savings, no antiques stashed away, I am also unemployed and therefore have no income. Thanks in advance, Owen.

I think that's what I'll do. I'm not going to bother negoitiating with the DCA. Maybe they are inhouse because the debt was sold on very quickly, or so they say, but then Scottish Gas say I don't owe them the money now so who knows? Maybe that's the standard approach. Either way I'll just stick with the payment cards. Thanks folks.

Hi folks, First time poster, long time lurker:) Scottish Gas sold our dept of around £500.00 to a DCA called Credit Resource Solutions CRS. I had an original agreement with Scottish/British Gas to pay it at £50 per month - this is from our previous address, we have a different supplier at the new one. This agreement was defaulted on as I have only just been able to begin paying the agreed amount. I did call the dca, which in this case I wasn't bothered about as I had called the utility company and told them when payemnts would begin. More texts etc later from the dca prompted a further call to them, they advised me to contact British Gas, which I did. British Gas said the money was no longer owed to them but to the dca to whom the debt had been sold. But I can continue to use their payment cards and they will notify the dca of payments but I could still incur charges from the dca to whom this money is now supposidly owed. I won't deal with the dca, I will continue to pay the original debt on the payment cards given by British Gas. What I'm wondering is, is there anything that can be done in regard to getting the dca's mucky hands off and/or challenging any charges they might like to dream up? Also is there anything I can do to contest this issue with the gas company, or is this as they claim no longer their debt? I do have other debts and have had a load of threatograms over the last couple of years which have been ignored, that's another issue, but I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest either lol! Any help advice greatly appreciated, Cheers.