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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Could you name the law that states what you are claiming so the lass can refer to it if necessary?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Guidance on Gov UK site:

The point I am making is that Tribunals ARE STILL obliged by law to take ACAS guidelines into account in cases where they are relevant. That means that as far as tribunals are concerned those guidelines have legal status. Their contents HAVE to be considered. Obviously if some other terms and conditions are spelled out in employee contracts then those have to be considered also, but in the context of reasonableness and fairness, which is the prime duty of the tribunal to determine.

Caring Guy, You have been very patient bearing with us throughout this exchange of views and opinions. Especially when most of what you initially enquired about seems to have been overlooked or forgotten. That initial enquiry was: You have since explained why you feel aggrieved about this: (a) The extra work was offered to one person without any opportunity given to anyone else who might have been interested or equally, or even more, entitled to be offered it. (b) No reasonable explanation has been given to justify the manager’s decision despite informal conversations and questions among those concerned. The first question then is; do you have a grievance? I say you do. (i) Because you believe you have and you say you have. (ii) You raise and discuss the issue with colleagues who are equally put out. (iii) You have taken the time and trouble to seek advice about the course of action you should take on this forum. I have yet to hear what this is if not a grievance. The next question is; how to resolve your grievance? (i) Do nothing; put it down to bad luck and get over it. This is not an option unless you are prepared to accept being treated like a doormat. (ii) Try to have the matter resolved informally. You are being advised to take this course.But you have already tried this option; you have said repeatedly that you have tried over a period in conversations and informal enquiries to have your concerns and questions answered, to no avail. I see no point in continuing to advise this course. A reasonable manager would have set your mind at rest at this stage. (iii) Put your grievance on a formal footing by invoking the grievance procedure.Employment law gives you the right to pursue your grievance through a formal grievance procedure. This could hardly be described as the action of a nonconformist or a revolutionary. At the end of the day all you want at this stage is an answer to your grievance. It may be that you will get an answer that is quite reasonable and will persuade you that your grievance is unfounded. It may be that the answer you get will lead you to believe that you have grounds for taking the matter further. Either way you need to take the first step before you begin seriously considering the second. It seems to me that you have already come to the conclusions and are more or less following the process I have outlined above. The law lists some forms of discrimination as being more serious than others. This is not to say that suffering unfavourable treatment is not discrimination. I suspect Atlas01 has lost the plot. He begins by advising caution and suggesting that making an official complaint might be going too far and has since progressed to advising CG to get his colleagues organised, sort of unionised, act as shop steward with authority to go to management with ultimatums. Of all the advice proffered I find that of the ‘manager within the care sector’ not only sad but worrying and anyone with such an attitude should not be in a position of authority. It shows two traits that are unacceptable in a manager entrusted with responsibility. Firstly, too incompetent or too lazy to set up a fair rota system for overtime, especially since, on his own admission, the need for it comes up all the time. Secondly, what sort of a shambolic setup is he creating and running when his main concern when making decisions is to do the first thing that comes into his head in order to get it out of the way. I hope and pray that I or mine are never in the situation where he or anyone with similar ideas on how to manage has any influence. Anyway Caring Guy, it seems from your last post that you are getting close to a resolution, here’s hoping.

I am mortified that you should think this Emmzzi. What I do believe is that managers and employers of the type complained of on this site are beneath contempt. I think that is what I conveyed. By no means are they all bad; the good ones will not act in such a way as to be complained of on here in the first place. All employees have the right to reasonable notification and meaningful consultation. In this case they could hardly suggest alternatives when they were not consulted or even informed until the deed was done and dusted. Why does ACAS publish this in its guidance then? I can’t figure out the constant assertion that the employment rights every employee is covered by no longer apply or my interpretation of them is unsound. I make no apology for inspiring some hope where there is despair, particularly when there is always hope. But how can wrongly asserting that the laws and procedures to which aggrieved employees have recourse no longer apply be justified?

As to the original query; you have a right to assume what you like, that's up to you. Remember however that at formal meetings or hearings decorum is the order of the day, moderation in all things especially in the language you use.. At the risk of being shot down in flames I would say that; (a) I assumed that the position was that an employee facing a disciplinary hearing can take along a representative or witness of their choice. If your wife turns up with a rep of her choice the ball would be in their court, they would have to make the decision whether to proceed or cancel. All your wife could be accused of is asserting a statutory right. The manager can also take in whoever she wants to take the notes, this could be beneficial to your wife and her colleage who could then concentrate on what was being said rather than writing stuff all through the meeting. (b) The whole point of the hearing is to establish the veracity of the charges. your wife could put her case and answer any charge made. She would be entitled to a transcript of the proceedings the veracity of which the person she took with her could then confirm. If the matter was not amicably resolved at this meeting I presume that in those organisations it is still the case that she would have the right to appeal the decision.

Good evening again Sidewinder, please advise; The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 give ACAS the statutory right to issue codes of practice on matters relating to employment relations etc. Those codes are then sent to Parliament and if passed they become statutory instruments. The same law makes it clear the extent to which tribunals can refer to and rely on those codes in determining issues before it, indeed it makes it a requirement for them to do so. It also gives tribunals the power to penalise anyone for non-compliance. This brings us back to the reasonableness and fairnesss of the issue being heard, which is the tribunal's primary object in determining. The tribunal holds that the codes are fair and reasonable until, in the particular case before it, it can be persuaded otherwise. Deviation from contractual terms of employment, or in their absence, the ACAS codes, has to be justified as being fair and reasonable under the circumstances by the one doing the deviating. The aim of the other party is obviously to persuade the tribunal otherwise. My question is, if the above mentioned law has been revoked what law revoked it and what law has replaced it?

Sidewinder, You are basically agreeing that the points I make are valid but you advise caution and say what I think in whispers. Advice well taken if I was in an actual formal meeting. I give more credit to those seeking advice than to suppose they would go barging into formal meetings and adopt a bombastic confrontational tone. My method of presentation here is to inspire into action, add conviction, if you like, to what the questioner actually believes should be done but is either unsure or not confident enough to go ahead and do it. If he/she decides to make a stand they should be prepared to give as good as they take. The man or woman on the other side of the desk is not going to be impressed by submission or a limp defence, nor are they going to give a hoot about your feelling or state of mind.

Read the ACAS guidance on redundancies. Genuine meaningful consultion must take place whether it is 100 or 1 involved. Telling someone he's out is not consultation. The man is now jobless. His manager told him he was being made redundant. His job is still there as are other jobs he could have been offered. If he was told that he was redundant when there was no redundancy situation then there must have been some other reason for his dismissal of which he was not informed. Ipso facto, unfair dismissal? If a selection process is to be used the criteria should be agreed with those involved. The opportinity of taking up other jobs within the organisation should be given if other jobs were available to be filled. Correct redundancy procedures were not followed in this case, ipso facto, unfair dismissal.

What ErIndoorz is asking is whether or not it would do any good to ask for reimbursement for losses resulting from what she has had to endure through no fault of her own, losses she can probably ill afford and probably take some time to recoup. There is no reason that I can see why she should not. What’s the worst that could happen? They could say NO. They could hardly be so stupid as to dismiss her just for making a request. To suppose that she would be thought better of by saying nothing by managers stupid enough to put an ignoramus in charge is fantastical.They could probably not care less. Their decision to act on previous grievances was more than likely their only option since doing nothing could have compromised their own positions. Going into a paroxysm of medical jargon is unnecessary at this stage; she is making a request, not building a case for a tribunal.

In post one CG asks whether or not the additional hours of overtime, 3 months worth, be shared more equally. I say yes. I also say I would demand to know why it was not. The second post he writes, No 11, he says that the manager for whom that person is to work for was not consulted and that he did not want the person to be inflicted on him anyway. CG also says that this person is not qualified whereas he and his colleagues are. CG and his colleagues who are qualified have been discriminated against in favour of someone who is unqualified. That is an incontrovertible fact. Why were they discriminated against is the question.How can you guys claim that there was no discrimination that could be actionable unless you are told why the decision was taken in the first place? What was done and the way it was done stinks and CG and his colleagues are rightly miffed. All I’m suggesting is that CG make a formal complaint and have his grievance put on the record. The management will then have to respond.What response is required? An explanation for why the selection was made in the way it was made, where’s the crime in that? I’m not suggesting starting a general strike. The opinions I have of the type of management that is regularly complained of on here are my own. I am not insisting that anyone else subscribe to those opinions. I am beginning to suspect that there is a coven of such management active on here. Having decided now that it is for the best to let this manager get away with his action without so much as a by your leave, you are now suggesting that CG is too stupid to make his own mind up and definitely rising above his station in raising his grievance in the first place. Anyway he has now had the benefit of two extreme options; lie down and die or get a life. I am confident that, having weighed his options, CG will do what he considers is best for him. By your logic Atlas01, it is pointless asking on here for advice; it is stupid to consider it, and those of us who propose being positive rather than give up had better not bother taking part at all.