To be honest, I'm quite happy to keep receiving the texts (to delete takes 10 seconds!) because I know I am wasting their time and saving some poor soul from the Ingeus experience for at least half an hour. It's if letters and/or phone calls start is where it becomes a problem for me.

I thought I was free of Ingeus as I found employment and have been working now for ten weeks or so. However, on New Year's Day I had a text saying my appointment with [old adviser] was tomorrow (2/1/14) at x o'clock. I ignored the text thinking it was a mistake, and then today I received another text saying my next appointment is scheduled for tomorrow with [old adviser] at x o'clock. No idea why I've received these two texts, but I know for sure I haven't been contacted prior to the "appointments" being arranged. Also, I haven't been on JSA since I found work so it's not like I have to attend these dubious appointments anyway.

Thanks. Feels great knowing I won't be stepping into one of their offices for a while, or hopefully ever again.

Haven't posted on here in a while. One reason I won't divulge but otherwise because I changed adviser and I've been there like twice in five weeks. Anyway, I start employment next week so it's arrivederci Ingeus.

I forgot to mention earlier that I was in my local Ingeus office today. I overheard two advisors talking to each other. One was bragging how they were close to achieving "gold" standard for the month. Sounded like they had nearly met the top target needed for returning clients to work, picking up a nice bonus along the way. The other advisor spoke of numerous warehouse vacancies becoming available and that they had sent all her best available clients already, and was only left with the "dregs", of whom they had no intention sending forward for interview. Send your best clients for interviews so you can hit targets and get your bonus. "Park" those who need the most support and then brand them as "dregs" because you don't have the skills to work with such clients. Way to go Ingeus.

Quelle surprise! Had a letter through this morning from the DWP stating that the recent doubt against my claim now no longer exists. Again, the mandatory 4-page letter with a booklet instructing me how to appeal. I'll just pop it in my drawer with the other 4 DWP letters I've had recently...

Unfortunately yes, but only if they mandate you to do so. Taken from an FOI request - "Providers have the discretion to mandate participants to undertake activities whilst on the programme and this may include keeping records of job search activity."

I can't help but notice their presentation slides are riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

I ended up being in there almost three days every week when I first started. Certainly two days at least. I started questioning the effectiveness of what I was being assigned to do, and showed I wasn't happy with it, and things suddenly changed to once a week. I would guess they would put you on the standard workshops as so-called "motivational tools" and then have you send out a ridiculous and unreasonable amount of speculative letters and CVs. At the same time, having one-to-one advisor appointments to work on your CV and cover letter etc. Just make sure you keep a record of everything, because if you read through my recent posts, they have tried to screw me over twice very recently. Firstly by raising a doubt over a non-mandatory activity I didn't attend (didn't follow DWP guidelines, so the doubt was dropped) and very recently, saying I didn't attend a job search appointment even though I did. (waiting the outcome of this). And with that, I wish you good luck in getting away from here ASAP!

My advisor was reworking my CV a couple of months ago thinking they were something special, then I pointed out a simple grammatical error. Using "where" instead of "were". I could see them shifting awkwardly, whilst I felt about 7 feet tall in my chair.

It's something I will certainly consider. To be honest, I'm expecting another letter through in the next few days saying that the doubt no longer exists, but the fact is, it should never have been raised in the first place. Funny you should say that, as Ingeus and my local MP share the same building!

Another letter this morning and another doubt raised about my claim. This time it was for an appointment I did attend (job search) but my advisor had left before the appointment for whatever reason. Seems to be just an oversight where my advisor has forgotten to go back and record my attendance. I will fill the in good reason letter and post it off tomorrow. This is twice in the last few weeks where they have raised a doubt when they shouldn't have. Ingeus is a joke.

I retracted that before you even commented.

Then put your money where your mouth is and stop accusing me of being part of the "abusive" culture towards DWP staff. not too much to ask, really, is it?

Contributing to a culture? Seriously? Where else have I been posting? Nowhere but here. Are they all being driven away because of a thread about Ingeus? Somehow I doubt it. Like I said, go concentrate on people who are genuinely abusing DWP staff. I used no bad language and no derogatory terms, so give me break, please. Unless you wish to censor every "opinion" on the site, which surely goes against the very existence of the site in the first place.

After receiving three letters exactly the same, and somebody else experiencing the same thing, I cracked a joke which I then retracted. I'm really driving away all the DWP staff who post here! Seriously, go find those users who are genuinely abusing the DWP staff and leave me alone. I've heard plenty of offensive things said by claimants. I also know of claimants being targeted or victimised (just read other websites for that). Things go both ways.

You can say that about a lot people though no matter what they do, "just guys and gals trying to earn a living". You can say that about staff at ATOS, or Ingeus, or A4E etc. It doesn't justify what they sometimes do. There's plenty more I could add, from experiences of people I know and from reading this forum and others, but I wish not to detract from this thread.

To be fair, I was probably being harsh with the training chimps comment. This is the work of Iain Duncan Smith and his ideological zealot, swivel-eyed loon friends looking to run the DWP into the ground so they can bring in the likes of Serco to run Job Centre Plus around the country. Now that thought does frighten me...

Same office! You could probably train some chimps from Chester Zoo to do a more competent and efficient job!

Tell me about it! I received another two letters today, one dated 09/09 and one dated 10/09 telling me that the doubt no longer exists. Again, both four-page letters with the "disagreeing with a decision" booklet enclosed. What an absolute waste.

Oh I love Ingeus. I went for an appointment there yesterday just to do a general job search. At the end of it, I was handed a couple of letters stating that because I had missed the said activities (the non-mandated ones I had a doubt raised for, and then dropped), I had been booked on them again. Only this time I have been mandated to attend, and my advisor had even HIGHLIGHTED "this is a mandatory appointment." Strangely amusing, but somewhat annoying.

Well, I'd been notified verbally and that's it. Doesn't meet any of the DWP guidelines. I got a four-page letter telling me that the doubt no longer applies. It's like it was a sanction letter, but with no sanctions in it! It also states that I can appeal and they've even disclosed the "disagreeing with a decision" booklet. How bizarre!

No, it's only if you haven't signed up to UJ. They can only access your UJ with your permission. Strangely, I had a letter through this morning from the DWP saying there is no longer a doubt against my claim. Dunno what's happened there???

Yeah, certainly. Purposely withholding information to get claimants to sign up to things they needn't do so is a sly trick. I don't know if it's a national thing, or just a local thing, but my job centre makes you print out copies of your job search if you haven't signed up to UJ. I've never had a problem with my local job centre. They all seem reasonably in-tune with what's happening with regards to high unemployment etc. The problem is with those at the top; people like Iain Duncan Smith spinning the old "scrounger" myth week-in, week-out. I've found this site to be a great help with regards to Ingeus. It was good to do some homework before I started there. I was willing to give them a try and at first they were pretty helpful in enhancing my CV and covering letters. But recently, as I am viewed as one of my advisor's "top" clients, I'm being pushed and pressured into being subbed for jobs I don't want. I am resisting though and just saying I am not interested. So then I got the talk I need to broaden my horizons and look at various job roles in different areas, but I was just lacking confidence and needed a push. A load of crap. I know what type of work I am looking for and I won't be bullied or pressured into looking at things I'm not interested in. At the end of the day, they don't care about you. Their goal at Ingeus is to force the better clients into work as quickly as possible so they can claim a "success" and get their taxpayer-funded reward from the government. I do genuinely feel sorry for the people who get "parked" on the WP. The ones who need the most support are the ones they neglect the most, because it's harder for them to find a job in comparison to a "good" client.

Thank you. I filled in the back of the (rather crappy) "Good Reason" letter with all the relevant information and explained that Ingeus had failed to mandate the activity, failed to issue a letter and failed to give details of any sanctions which may arise for non-attendance. They all breach the DWPs own guidelines, so I'm confident of a positive result. For evidence, I also enclosed a copy of the letter they did issue that day, but for a different activity. I mentioned this earlier, but one thing I did notice is that the "Good Reason" letter offers no advice and no guidance whatsoever. It's pretty plain they don't want people to offer any defence so they can sanction as many people as possible.