I'm sure we have all encountered one or two whom we won't feel sorry for...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/12/job-centre-posts-cut-2400 Nick Clegg and David Cameron's efforts to reunite after a fortnight of infighting suffered a setback when it emerged that the loss of 2,400 jobcentre posts is to be announced today, just a day after they jointly announced a £60m youth unemployment initiative. The Guardian has learned that the job cuts at Jobcentre Plus over the next 12 months include the loss of 17 benefit processing centres and five contact centres, representing nearly 20% of staff. The losses are part of a drive to rationalise properties in the jobcentre estate. Officials said that no one would be made forcibly redundant and that no high street jobcentres would be closed. The Department for Work and Pensions said: "We will not comment on leaks. When making any announcement to staff we do so in the proper way." The revelation comes the day after Clegg and Cameron came together for the first time since the battle over the AV referendum to announce a package of measures to fight youth unemployment. Meeting at the Olympic Park in east London, the prime minister and his deputy announced a £60m programme to boost work placements for 16- to 18-year-olds. A subdued-looking Clegg said the government could not "wave a magic wand" to create jobs, but it could "intervene at critical points". He announced a pilot, involving 50,000 youngsters over two years, of six-week intensive periods of support – including help with training, childcare and presentation skills – with a guaranteed job interview at the end. Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, denounced the job losses. "Days after the Bank of England warned the economy is slowing down, the government is cutting the very people helping get Britain back to work." He added: "Nick Clegg tried to relaunch his credibility with a promise to get young people back to work. Why didn't he tell us his scheme was paid for by sacking jobcentre staff?" Clegg and Cameron worked hard to give the impression of a government back on track and functioning as normal, despite suggestions of a more businesslike atmosphere between the coalition partners. After the Lords defeated directly elected police commissioners on Wednesday night, Clegg said he would overturn the Liberal Democrat-inspired decision. The government was defeated largely due to a small group of Liberal Democrat peers voting with Labour. Clegg vowed to overturn the defeat in the Commons, telling his party it had a "duty" to implement policies – even if Tory-led – that were in the joint programme. One frontbench Lib Dem peer, Lord Bradshaw, said he might resign as transport spokesman rather than back down. Giving evidence to the Commons political and constitutional reform committee, Clegg said his commitment to reform was undimmed despite defeat in the AV referendum. He stressed that his imminent proposals on an elected House of Lords will be designed to create an all-party concensus, adding he did not intend to change the powers of the Lords in relation to the Commons. Clegg said: "I am very clear we should not seek to change the functions and role of the House of Lords. It should remain a body of scrutiny and review." He also said he favoured an update of the coalition agreement in the mid-point of the parliament, and would like to see a focus on better work-life balance, as well as a greener government. Some Liberal Democrats fear another coalition agreement will do little to help the party rebuild its identity. Others argue it would be a chance to demonstrate Lib Dem influence on policy. With some polls now showing his party's support dipping below 10%, Clegg said: "Polls go up and down. People's popularity goes up and down, parties' popularity goes up and down. "At the end of the day, how will we be judged? We will be judged about whether we have sorted out the mess we have inherited and restored a sense of optimism, of prosperity, of jobs for this country. It is a job we have started and we are going to see it through." Privately, Liberal Democrats remain shocked at the extent to which they have taken a hit in the polls while Cameron has remained unscathed. The prime minister insisted voters should judge the success of the Tory-Lib Dem partnership on what it had delivered after five years, and not day-to-day "fripperies".

It would only matter if it was a regular payment or took your capital over the limits to claim benefits.

At least people have an outlet on this forum because suffering this alone would be much worse.

I meant under their new guidelines they would have to handle this differently.

I wonder how they would handle someone who calmly advised them that they had decided a 'rational suicide' was preferable to dealing with them or living at such a reduced level. I'm also very curious as to why this has not had more publicity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/08/jobcentre-staff-guidelines-suicide-threats Staff working for jobcentres and other Department for Work and Pensions contractors have been given guidelines on how to deal with suicide threats from claimants as the squeeze on benefits takes hold. A document sent to jobcentre staff in April details what it calls a "new policy for all DWP businesses to help them manage suicide and self-harm declarations from customers". The guidelines include a "six-point plan" for staff to follow which says: "Some customers may say they intend to self-harm or kill themselves as a threat or a tactic to 'persuade', others will mean it. It is very hard to distinguish between the two … For this reason, all declarations must be taken seriously." The internal document was sent to the Guardian by a senior jobcentre employee who has worked for the DWP for more than 20 years. It was accompanied by a letter from the source that said: "Absolutely nobody has ever seen this guidance before, leading staff to believe it has been put together ahead of the incapacity benefit and disability living allowance cuts." The employee, who asked to remain anonymous, said: "We were a bit shocked. Are we preparing ourselves to be like the Samaritans? The fact that we've dealt with the public for so many years without such guidance has made people feel a bit fearful about what's coming." The DWP said that the new guidelines were not related to any recent policy changes and had been in development since 2009. "This guidance is about supporting our staff and ensuring we can help our customers. "It is right that a customer-facing organisation that serves over 20 million, including the most vulnerable in our society, has guidance such as this in place." The team leader said the guidance had alarmed people in their team: "We've suddenly got this new aspect to our job. The bigger picture is people here are wondering how savage these cuts are going to be. And we're the frontline staff having to deal with the fallout from these changes. " Julie Tipping, an appeals officer for Disability Solutions, represents claimants who try to overturn decisions made following work capability assessment tests that they are fit for work. She says that in the last year, two of her clients have made "real attempts" at suicide after a decision was made that they were fit for work. Both were taken to hospital and subsequently sectioned. "It's real and true. A lot of people think these people are crying wolf to get their money, but that's not the case. They are suffering from real problems and can't face it any more." Tipping said the pressure on vulnerable clients was "the cumulative effect of all these welfare changes. The test is simply not fit for purpose for assessing mental health problems. That's on top of moving people on to jobseeker's allowance, and all of the conditionality and risk of sanctions that goes with that." The Guardian revealed last month that some jobcentres were setting targets for advisers to stop people's benefits for not meeting conditions attached to their jobseeker's allowance. A whistleblower said that the pressure on staff was leading to vulnerable claimants being targeted for sanctions. The targets have since been removed. But thousands of claimants of incapacity benefit and employment support allowance are being reassessed to see if they should be considered fit for work and moved on to jobseeker's allowance. Another jobcentre adviser said: "People have been coming off sickness benefits and thrown onto jobseeker's allowance. It's problematic because some customers are clearly not fit to work, and they are clearly very distressed. When you sense this you feel really upset because the system is allowing them to get like this and you feel part of the processing machine."Eleanor Lisney, of Disabled People Against Cuts, said that the thought of being moved on to jobseeker's allowance was like a sword hanging over the heads of disabled groups and she feared an increase in related suicides

And another Angela Hairs Your message To: Info; Sales Dept Subject: FAO Compliance Department Sent: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:00:01 +0100 was not readSat, 30 Apr 2011 02:32:29 +0100਍ There is something seriously wrong with this organisation, as if that's news

'revert' they can't even speak English Lol.

Of course they have, that's all they are interested in, they don't care whether you owe it or not. Don't pay them anything, put them to strict proof of your liability. When did you last make a payment on this, any chance it is statute barred?

Don't be silly! I was referring to YOUR situation as set out above. I thought you were seeking help dealing with DCA's?

Any judge would only be concerned with the matter in hand and his/her interpretation of the letter of the law. They would have no interest in how you are handling your other alleged debts. I would never pay a penny without all the evidence being laid before a judge and a subsequent court order instructing me to do so. But that's just me

And even after the letter quoted above yet another not read receipt this time from: Victoria Oliver Your message To: Info; Sales Dept Subject: FAO Compliance Department Sent: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:00:01 +0100 was not read Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:23:19 +0100਍ What a bunch of tossers!

UDS were Eons in house *so called* DCA last time I checked. It sounds to me like they are having a final stab at collecting old alleged debts. I would ignore it especially if all they have is your mobile number.

May I ask why you would like to know?

It only took a week from the first call, just go straight for the jugular and they run away.

Received this morning - (so much for all those unread receipts): 'Dear **** ****** We refer to your recent communication. Please note that we are no longer instructed in connection with this matter and I have returned the account to our client. Yours sincerely. Fredrickson International Ltd. Bye then.

They have already sent me a snail mail letter and I responded with a comprehensive 'go away' via email. Over a period of several days an ever increasing number of 'Freds' people claim to have not read it, for an unread email it is certainly doing the rounds! They also got blasted after the first telephone call and have written to me to confirm they will not call me again. I am simply awaiting their next written contact so I can refer them to my allegedly unread 'Final Response.'

And the morning tide brings yet another 'Freds' employee who has allegedly not read my email. David Bradley Your message To: Info; Sales Dept Subject: FAO Compliance Department Sent: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:00:01 +0100 was not read Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:19:22 +0100਍

It looks like an unsigned application form to me .

Don't bin it file it and NEVER set up a DD with a DCA.

Oh yes, everything is filed away.

If someone comes to the door you tell them to leave, if they don't then you call the police and advise them there is a breach of the peace taking place. Then you throw a bucket of offal into the face of the door stepper (if they are stupid enough to still be there) and no I am not joking. They have no right to harass you in your home. As for payment yes take it down to a £1.00 a month , a court would rule the same and they will have to pay to take you to court with the same end result. In fact I would prefer to have a court order in place, then if they try it on you just refer them to the court ruling.

Not specific to this strike but all call centre work is hideous these days with what feels like every breath being monitored, it is inhuman, I used to do it but could not do it now because I know it would make me ill (again.) Frankly anything which draws attention to the appalling working conditions in these places is good.

[email protected] Your message To: Info; Sales Dept Cc: Subject: FAO Compliance Department Sent: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:00:01 +0100 was deleted without being read on Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:04:16 +0100 _______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet Mail Scanner, powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive email security service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.uk.clara.net They really don't care for compliance do they? I simply don't believe no one has read it so I await their response with interest