Sadly not. But it does mean that potentially Deloitte stand to gain more than their administration fee from HMV’s demise.

I reckon that I’m safe in saying that it’s not a shocking revelation to most folk in this thread that in reality providers provide solutions on a majority-rules cost basis rather than the claimed provision of solutions that fit the individual client. Providers tend to be very coy in admitting their limitations in servicing their assigned client base to anyone, which is unhelpful for all concerned.

I politically incorrectly dub the CV Ingeus made for me the "retard one". I try to use my own CV as much as possible, and I’m somewhat wary of letting them apply for stuff for me, although I’ll indulge them for their "own" sourced vacancies. Can’t say I have all that much faith in an outfit who think it’s acceptable to pepper their official client correspondence with misspellings of basic words, typos and poor grammar. As it indeed it inevitably would. The type of work isn’t to blame: you just had the wrong person doing it and under the wrong circumstances from their point of view. If Ingeus and their ilk were dating agencies they’d mostly set up gay guys and women with straight women, and straight guys with everyone; and then be stumped, stressed and angry with their clients over why so few of these matches successfully worked out. Indeed. A scant 15 years ago my first employer took me on and paid me a training wage at first. It wasn’t much, but it acknowledged that I was worth something. I worked hard, tried to become as good as I could at the job, and worked hours and days I wouldn’t have done otherwise. He then gave me a raise that he felt matched my work ethic, willingness, reliability and improved skill level – and remains the only employer I’ve had since then to give me a raise that wasn’t just a result of inflation. The job itself wasn’t anywhere near a career choice for me but I would love to work again for an employer who genuinely knows their business and values their workers. Whilst you’re not every employer you are one, so thank you. A large lack of confidence in the jobhunting arena has prevented me from doing something like this thus far (continual rejection kinda does that to a fella), but your advice does echo what I’ve heard elsewhere.

I’d take an educated guess that they bothered to do their homework and worked out their own potential value to the company from the DWP’s publically available material on this issue. Are you seriously trying to argue that all benefit claimants are acting illegally? Because that is simply factually wrong. Assuming that you’re arguing more from a moral standpoint though, let’s throw out a hypothetical for you: How would you feel, having put money aside for some time with an insurance firm, if when you made a legitimate claim after something bad happened to you that they then changed the policy overnight so they wouldn’t have to pay out, or demanded that you scrub their toilets for them for a specified period of time in order to get them to pay out? You then find out that said firm has decided to use that money towards paying for tropical fish for the office and helping out a wealthy mate of theirs with a gambling problem who lost quite a bit at a wild night out in a casino. Do you think that this would be right? Would you be happy? If I were a betting man I’d confidently wager a large amount that you’d be livid to the point of going purple in the face if this did happen to you, shouting and screaming how that insurance firm were a bunch of crooks who had robbed you. You may even come to a place like this to do so. Most people who are claiming benefit have been “forced” to put their money into the system already, a system that was created to tackle general poverty, and for the occasional rainy days and the inevitable infirmity that most of us suffer. Improving that system to ensure that the resources are used effectively to achieve the originally intended aims is very laudable. Demonising anyone legitimately using it for its intended purpose in an attempt to deny them their own money, whilst simultaneously endorsing publically-funded payouts many times that of any individual claimant to wealthy, irresponsible, inept businessmen so that they can keep being that way despite creating a widespread “rainy day” for everyone else, however, is not. Neither is throwing our money at smooth-talking charlatans who make no real improvement despite costing more. I don’t avoid work... because I like doing stuff and achieving results. When required I quietly work hard and long (ooer, missus), but I much prefer to work smart. What laziness I do have translates into me trying to find easier and better ways to do things for whoever I’m doing it for. This work ethic is a fundamental part of me: I even apply it to stuff I don’t get paid for. Interestingly, over the years I’ve observed that a lack of work ethic afflicts people whether they’re employed or not, and that those who blow the most hot air (either through whining or boasting) when doing a task tend to be the ones who do the least. There are more than a few people in jobs that don’t deserve to be in them on account of their lack of effort, good attitude or competence. Are you amongst them, Scotadvisor? I also try to see reality as it really is rather than what I would like it to be or just from my individual perspective. The truth is that the Welfare-to-Work sector won’t be effective until it stops operating on the erroneous assumptions that unemployment is solely down to the unemployed; that all of its clients are useless, clueless morons; and that there is a universal aptitude for any type of work. In addition, W2W is inherently ultimately self-destructive: successful achievement of its task will result its own demise. I have one, thank you very much. Admittedly not the one I would like though. Since being made redundant two years ago when the company I worked for finally mismanaged itself to death, barring the odd exception here and there, I have had to deal with a succession of inept, box-ticking monkeys using all sorts of b.s. excuses as to why they’re not going to hire me, and those are just the ones who bother to observe the basic courtesy of replying. There’s certainly employment being advertised – genuine and fake. Sadly, there’s not enough genuine employment for everyone: there’s large variation in different areas – both geographical and industrial; and if you’re not the perfect fit or some mythical ideal candidate then employers tend to not hire you... even if it means keeping the vacancy open and ultimately undermining their own business by not addressing that particular need. And yes, I’ve encountered that last lunacy first hand. Personally, I’m glad that people do take the time to share their experiences at places like this – makes me feel less alone in my own situation and better informed overall. Of course there are always people who hate and fear others talking to one another in relative freedom because it reveals truth, destroys dearly-held mistaken beliefs, and gives ordinary folk more power...

The Coalition are more concerned about less public spending than wiser public spending. Indeed. Poor grammar and spelling on applications is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) moans of employers. Yes, it should. But some see it as a way to make their clients easier to manage so they can further their own ends.

Indeed. I'm experienced in retail and back this up totally.

Had one of their "advisors" suggest something similar to me, and then patronisingly attempt to explain how having a degree would intimidate potential employers. After my initial surprise my response was twofold: 1. What would you fill the gap with? 2. Why not approach employers who valued what I had to offer? It’s not as if there’s a shortage of them. That more or less ended that discussion. I didn’t even get to mention how unethical and counter-productive to keeping a job lying to a potential employer is – a point just about every decent organisation is happy to reinforce when given the chance. There are better and more honest ways to address the potential of over-qualification. She also pitched hilariously unsuitable (and always low-paid) vacancies at me, and deliberately ignored interview and application feedback I received from my own efforts. This"advisor" is the stuff of comedy legend amongst my family and friends, who metaphorically tore her to shreds to me when they were trying to counteract her negative effect on my self-esteem and confidence. No doubt she’s from a sales background too – may even be the same person. For her, it wasn’t about helping the client into sustainable employment but about maximising the potential for a quick result, presumably so she could collect an Ingeus "Star Employee of the Month" cookie. And Ingeus rewrote my CV when I first started with them, which I then had to rewrite to correct the spelling and grammar in order to make me sound less of an illiterate moron. I later rewrote my own CV, and use that for non-Ingeus related stuff. I’m lost for words for how utterly moronic an answer that is from your "advisor". It’s very Pauline Campbell-Jones (The League of Gentlemen).

More accurately playing on the conditionality of benefits is a way of getting compliance, and that letter’s exact wording in that bit is part of the standard Ingeus client letter template. Your MP is right, as long as you satisfy your JSAg conditions and turn up for your mandatory appointments you should be fine. Just be prepared for continued pressure from the Ingeus peeps to get what they want though. Despite the job title you should see them less as genuine advisors and more as sales people. Please do follow the advice given by others above and arm yourself with knowledge of consent and your rights. That extensive information request from Ingeus is to do with their false assumption that the only reason that people are out of work is because they are doing something wrong (Ingeus and the like are deniers of poor economic conditions and possible "specialness" of people involved in recruiting), and so they need as much information about and from you as possible so they can identify it and fix it. When you finally land a job it’s also easier for them to claim payment from the government if they know who you’re working for and for how long. You don't have to provide them with in-depth information - just the bare bones as you would for the Jobcentre. Although some "advisors" are less gentle than others, in general they all seem to possess a knack of not listening. I’ve found the best way to deal with such people is let them have their way to a certain extent and let the inevitable consequences unfold. For example, I told the Ingeus peeps that going back into the same employment I had just been made redundant from wasn’t a good option because permanent work in that area was decreasing drastically. They then spent most of their time trying to get me work in that exact field, eventually only getting me a temp job. As a result I’m still in the exact same situation I was when I was referred to them a year ago, still a problem for them, still costing them money, and they’re still unable to claim sustained employment payment from the government – just as I politely told them (on several occasions) would happen if they went down that road. Hope you'll be able to sleep better. And stay strong!

It does, and thank you for posting it. It is quite a long read, but IMO it does successfully expose how specific corporate interests have been the prime mover of welfare reform rather than the interests of the individuals on welfare or society in general.

I’m guessing that in the absence of you providing info that they made it up either because their system is unable to progress or just to make it look as though they hadn’t struck out. Totally hetero, if you’re using the Kinsey Scale. However, I suspect for Ingeus it simply means they don’t know which way you swing. Not sure why sexual orientation is relevant to employment in anything other than pointless stats though.

Ingeus are a private company who exist to help people get into sustainable employment, or so they claim. Towards that end they’re supposed to cover the cost of their client’s travel and retraining – under the usually correct assumption that the overwhelming majority of people on welfare aren’t exactly flush with money. Ingeus refused to cover the cost of Masso’s Personal License (only eventually grudgingly being prepared to go half way after Masso stood up to them) – purposefully ignoring his inability to stump up the cash himself – which is very much against their purpose and mission statement, and makes no economic sense for them in the long run as it would cost more for them to pay for future meetings with Masso, indefinite travel to those meetings, future applications and future retraining. I’d say it was a great example of the jobsworth, short-term mentality, insincerity and general idiocy sadly dominant in the welfare-to-work sector rather than that all young people expect to be handed everything. In fact, when it comes to the current younger generation: they have to pay the entire cost of their own further education (which you didn’t); they have longer than you to work until they can claim a State pension, and probably for less value than you will be able to; the shrunken labour market they’re entering into has become competitive to the point of lunacy and loaded against them; and all to pay for the public money spent on you or propping up failed businesses to stop you from dropping into utter ruin. So WHO exactly is expecting everything to be handed to them on a plate?