Harassment and victimisation by Jobcentre

[Bazooka Boo]

Any further news on the benefits side of things? Are they still not paying? Have you sought help from the CAB or your local MP?

[Patma]

No further news so far I'm afraid. He's not received any money although he's owed 2 weeks and there's been no response to the complaint letter.

He's also not had any housing benefit for over a month (about 2 payments have been missed) , but no-one has written to him about it.

He has spoken to the CAB again. Apparently his caseworker was away for for a few days, but is going to get get on the case urgently now.

 

He asked his MP for help when he was left 10 weeks with no money earlier in the year and he did precisely nothing to help other than writing to the Jobcentre asking what was going on. He eventually sent my friend copies of the correspondence between him and the Jobcentre, which revealed that he (the MP) and the Jobcentre manager are on cosy first name terms.

[Patma]

Still no communication from the jobcentre not even telling him his claim is closed due to not signing on, or in response to his letter of complaint He hasn't received the money he's owed either...zilch

[Bazooka Boo]

How long has it been since the initial complaint was made?

I know that they do take time in responding to complaints, although my LA is quite quick now in responding to my complaints Not that I've made hundreds!

 

Have a dig around on their website and look at their complaints procedures, the time limit is normally 3 months before you can escalate it further.

Heres the DirectGov website, and heres the Local Government Ombudsman website.

[ErikaPNP]

In regard to the MP - they will most likely be on first name terms with the person they are communicating with. Each department has a person assigned to dealing with MP representations. The MP will most probably have liased with this person on a regular basis.This person will not be dealing with the claim his or herself but will get in touch with the section who has been dealing with the claim asking for information on the case and will relay this to the MP. The first thing the MP has to do is establish what has happened since the reciept of the claim, so I when you say all he did was write to them asking what was going on, I'm not exactly sure what you were expecting from the MP? Once the MP has established where the case rests, he can only push matters if the JCP has erred in law.

 

The money he is owed from JSA that you state - has a decision actually been made on his claim as yet? I ask because in your first post you state

From the moment he signed back on he was treated badly and to date has still not received any JSA, although they have failed to give any written reason. He has rquested an emergency payment over a week ago and nothing has happene

but in a later post you state:

He now faces sanctions apparently, which will no doubt mean his benefits is stopped

 

So I am trying to work out whether he has received a written decision yet as to whether he is going to be receiving payment and if so if he has recieved any of those payments, because until a decision is reached as to whether or not he is to receive the benefit and provided with a start date, JCP are under no obligation to provide him with a payment in respect of the benefit.

 

In response to this:

Still no communication from the jobcentre not even telling him his claim is closed due to not signing on

 

SandySue stated earlier:

The only point at which he will not receive a letter telling him his benefit has stopped because he has not signed on will be when his claim has been closed. If he didn't sign on then his claim will be closed after close of play at the end of the fifith working day after he was due to sign. In reality, these aren't getting closed as quickly as that but if he then contacted the office, his claim would be closed. No warning letters will be sent because all of the requirements are explained in the JCP40, which is the signing on booklet issued at every interview.

so I think that should cover your query re no communication - it may well be the case that they have closed his claim if he has refused to sign on or has not appeared at the JCP to sign on at the alloted time.

 

What is the sanction for? Failing to sign? A sanction basically means that they can stop payment of benefit or if the claim has not yet been decided, delay payment of the benefit for a period of time. It is not the same as the claim being closed.

 

Regarding the Housing Benefit, he would need to contact his local authority about that as it is they who deal with housing benefit, not JCP - this is the main reason I am asking if he has actually received a decision notice about his JSA. If his housing benefit is payable dependent on his receiving JSA as is often the case, if the JSA ceases, the housing benefit will also cease if it is linked.

 

Has your friend or CAB contacted the JCP regarding this since he complained to find out where his case sits, or whether he needs to reclaim?

[Patma]

The initial complaint was made on 22nd April.At that point he had received a notification that he was entitled to jobseekers allowance and he has received 2 weeks JSA. Since he didn't sign on due to the dispute he hasn't been paid any more money although he is currently owed a further 2 weeks.

The Cab have written to ask what is happening.

 

The first thing the MP has to do is establish what has happened since the receipt of the claim, so when you say all he did was write to them asking what was going on, I'm not exactly sure what you were expecting from the MP? Once the MP has established where the case rests, he can only push matters if the JCP has erred in law.

Actually the point is, Erika that the JCP had erred and it wasn't until the CAB took up the case that this came to light. I would expect an MP to represent the interests of his constituent and to use due diligence to establish what might have gone wrong, and then seek to ensure matters are corrected.

 

What is the sanction for? Failing to sign? A sanction basically means that they can stop payment of benefit or if the claim has not yet been decided, delay payment of the benefit for a period of time. It is not the same as the claim being closed.

I am not familiar with Jobcentre terminology, but the manager we spoke to when I accompanied the friend in question to the Jobcentre, referred to the applying of sanctions if he did not sign on.I assumed that the "sanction" referred to was the stopping of the benefit.

[ErikaPNP]

That's different. If they had erred in law, the MP should have taken this further. I had assumed (wrongly) from your post that the MP had done his job and that nothing more could be done.

 

I wondered what the reason for sanction was, just in case it had been applied wrongly, but they can sanction benefit for failure to sign. Sanctions as explained are the stopping of benefit for a period of time - the period of time relates to the severity of the reason behind the sanction. If someone has had a sanction, the JCP do not repay that money to the customer, so if it is a sanction, he will not be owed money unfortunately, nor will he be if the claim has been closed, unless again they have erred in law, or applied the sanction incorrectly.

 

Could the CAB perhaps phone the JCP as your friend's representative, to at least find out why no money for two weeks? I know it is better to have everything in writing and that they have written already however as he has been two weeks without money the need to know is urgent. It could well be another 2 weeks before they respond and maybe further time after that to sort the matter out. If they have closed his claim and disclose that on the phone, at least he will know without having to wait for a response and can submit a rapid reclaim to get some money to survive.

 

If they try to fob the CAB off on the phone because they are "not the customer" (as often happens), quote their own policy on implicit consent. The policy link is below, and is current. So long as implicit consent can be established, they must disclose.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/repsguide.pdf

 

Hope this helps a bit.

[Patma]

If someone has had a sanction, the JCP do not repay that money to the customer, so if it is a sanction, he will not be owed money unfortunately, nor will he be if the claim has been closed, unless again they have erred in law, or applied the sanction incorrectly.

 

The money owed to which I referred is for the period before the dispute began, so surely they cannot refuse to pay that, as he complied fully with all the requirements.

His claim began from 25th March and he had a letter telling him he was entitled to JSA from that date, but in fact he was only paid once, receiving 2 weeks money. He signed on normally on 25th March and again on the 8th April. The dispute arose on the next signing date 22nd April, because he had received a letter the day before accusing him of being a potential threat. He was so upset by this and so worried because he had no idea to what this was referring that he felt unable to put himself at risk of being accused of something else. The letter threatened that the police would be called immediately and, whether coincidentally or not, there was a police presence there, which I saw for myself when I accompanied him to sign on on the 22nd.

Thanks for your suggestion about asking the CAB to phone the Jobcentre, it sounds like a good idea. So far the letter they have sent has not produced any response at all. I have been giving him food, but I know he is really struggling.

[ErikaPNP]

JA is normally paid in arrears, not advance. Not always but normally so it depends on how they are paying him, but no they cannot sanction him for a payment period in which he complied with the conditions of claim. They can only stop payment once the sanction is in effect.

 

I hope the CAB get somewhere on the phone but like I say if implicit consent can be established they cannot refuse to disclose. Obviously there is certain information they can NEVER disclose such as bank account details they hold etc. They have to work with representatives to the "benefit of the customer", and that policy is a national one therefore must be incorporated across jobcentreplus. There has NOT been a change in policy with regard to implicit consent, despite what you may be told. If they refuse to comply with the implicit consent policy or insist that there isn't such a thing, ask to be referred to a manager. Some of the people who work on the phone lines are temporary staff who have not had sufficient training and obviously they err on the side of caution when it comes to disclosing personal details and they'd rather be safe than sorry. A manager however should be aware of the policies and able to advise his or her staff accordingly of the process.

[patrickq1]

Patma, the only problem I can see there is that if he refuses to sign on for whatever reason, even if it is a good reason, it is very likely his claim will be stopped. Depending on which department he spoke to the call may have been recorded so he could obviously follow the usual channels mentioned in the previous post. He can refute the allegation and he should make a written complaint while he is awaiting the outcome of the SAR. I really wouldn't recommend him not signing on though. That letter sounds like the standard letter that goes out when an incident is noted.

 

I really resent the comment in the previous post. While you are entitiled to your opinion and can obviously express it in this open forum, I do resent it greatly. Please remember that people from this very agency, myself included, come on here to try and help people. It's not at all helpful to anyone, even the OP and just generates rants like mine!

 

you must be living on cloud cuckoo land to beleive that things cannot go wrong in the JSA dept...

i am going through what one can only describe as hell...

years of abuse from the very people who are their to help...

i now have a questionaire aSKING ME WHEN DID I HAVE MY EXTENTION DONE ,WHY DID I HAVE MY EXTENTION..WAS IT NECCESSARY ,WHY DID I WANT AN EN SUITE ..HOW MUCH DID MY KITCHEN COST WHY DID I WANT A BIGGER KITCHEN...WHY DID I MOVE THE ELECTRIC GAS ETC...WHY DID I MOVE THE DRAINAGE ..AND FOR WHAT REASON DID I WANT THE EXTENTION...

all this was done in 1991...and they are asking for receipts struth

once you are in the firing line you are open to all sorts of deliberate harrassment...as for subject to access what a joke they have a policy of only allowing the bare minimum of information you have to ask for the information under the banner sec 31.14 cpr otherwise they will only supply the barest of data ...i went through all this and i had to point out to my MP in the end just what they were doing...so however good intentioned you may be just look a little deeper and see that the grass has changed colour and that some nasty vindictive people from all walks of life exist and do operate ...especially at they or in the GOVERMENT DEPARTMENTS ..protecting their jobs is what it is all about

RANT OVER...

[ErikaPNP]

I don't see where Sandysue stated that things cannot go wrong?

 

No-one has disputed the fact that there are some people who think they are judge, jury and executioner and yes that some of these people are employed within government. All Sansdysue pointed out was that some people from the agency come on the forums to offer help and that they shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush. Not that there was any need to in the first place, seeing as Bazooka clearly stated that he was not doing so, and made a point of saying so.

 

Whilst we're on the subject of playing judge, jury and executioner, who made you all three?

[patrickq1]

i went for an all works test,with ATOS ORIGON all well and good i could hardly walk but not to worry they have the information in front of them........i was passed fit seems they were in disbeleive that i was ill

cardio vascular disease is invisabble ..so my specialist wrote the DWP a letter explaining the illness and what i was to have done...DWP ignored the letter as ATOS ORIGON own accounts were to be beleived

two weeks later 8 hour operation to stomach and both legs hey new veins..sadly they have stopped working so i am again going through more ops last one was some six weeks ago ...and i am still awaiting the INFORMATION under the FOI act that the DWP have yet to reply on ,besides destroying all the data because it was after 14 months ..this is without sanctions from any legal body to destroy this information...

so if i was to be a judge and executioner i would string up half of them and put them in jail for treating human beings like animals whatever posseses people to deny others of their rights what some people have worked for all their lives i have over 30 years stamps and tax self employed and they found i missed nine stamps ...but would not allow me to pay for them..so as for judge and jury some people do not even deserve the right to exist on this planet i know rules are rules but we dont have a gravy train to rely on...we dont work for bonuses i know some people are good intentioned perhaps they would like to work from within their own system and clean up the DWP get rid of the jobsworths and make them see the real world some of these people take great pleasure in causing hurt and denying truthfull claims

[stardust_john]

Noticed in the paper one dwp minister felt it necessary to do up home with many a grand. Dont quote me but I believe it was about 3 times what the average low income family is expected to live on. The minister should maybe ask how we manage repairs to eg council houses, that dont get done. Oh yes we eventually have to give up asking! because of the stress of it.

 

We are all equal, but not as equal as mp's

 

ps. Sorry for hijacking thread, just bitter after reading paper that these eg dwp ministers sit in judgement of us and what they say goes in effect to impact on our lives and yet they feel they can blame so called rules and say we acted in the rules. Where is their morality.

 

Keep fighting it Patma x

Edited May 10, 2009 by stardust_john

[Patma]

ps. Sorry for hijacking thread, just bitter after reading paper that these eg dwp ministers sit in judgement of us and what they say goes in effect to impact on our lives and yet they feel they can blame so called rules and say we acted in the rules. Where is their morality.

 

Keep fighting it Patma x

Hi Stardust john, You're not hijacking, the more the merrier.

I couldn't agree with you more about people hiding behind "the rules". I hope more of the decent people who work in places like Jobcentres and DWP are going to start realising that.

I think threads like this where people like you and Patrick and my friend can have their stories told can only help to bring out the truth of what's happening to many people.

I don't doubt that a lot of people are getting a good service (at least I hope they are), but there are far too many cases of maladminstration and appalling treatment.

 

My friend still hasn't had any word from the Jobcentre.....no reply to his complaint, delivered on 22nd April. That's a long time to leave someone hanging in limbo without a penny. If he didn't have a sympathetic landlord,and being given food by friends, he'd probably be on the streets by now and he's done nothing wrong.

[ErikaPNP]

With all due respect, "the rules" are defined within legislation. The people employed in Jobcentres have no choice but to follow them. They don't make them, and a large majority of people I deal with who work in jobcentres, in the course of assisting others personally disagree with some parts of the legislation, but they do have to implement them. I've spoken to many a jobcentre employee who does not agree with a piece of legislation but has to implement and I can tell you that affects them too. Some are perfectly aware of the impact the decision will have on that person's life, they have to go home thinking about that. Yes there are jobsworths there, I've come across aplenty but I have also come across some wonderful people who will twist and turn a case every which way if it means they can help someone who is genuine. Not every piece of legislation carries a factor of discretion, although some do. It is the discretionary areas which cause the issues, as they are so often open to different interpretations, depending on the personal opinions of the person looking at your claim. If you are uncertain of a "rule" ask them which legislation they used, what act, direction or regulation - they are duty bound to tell you. You can then look it up for yourself, and see for yourself whether or not they have applied the legislation correctly. If you are still unsure, you can go to a variety of organisations for clarification such as Welfare Rights or the CAB. If the legislation has been applied incorrectly, then usually there is a right to challenge it via either review or appeal. The law volumes are available to view online to the public, here: DWP - Advisers

 

Left hand side of the page.

 

I agree that there is a hell of a lot of cases of maladministration and poor training leading to incorrect procedure. This is where people need to go higher with their complaints. Moaning on a forum does nothing to change matters. All that does is **** off the people such as Sandysue and Insyder who come on here day after day to help people, long after their working day is done. That is not the actions of people who are out to screw the public whichever manner they can. It is the actions of people who care about their public so much they spend their OWN time trying to offer advise and inside knowledge.

 

Patma, did CAB manage to phone the jobcentre to find out anything?

[Patma]

Patma, did CAB manage to phone the jobcentre to find out anything?

So far the CAB have not achieved anything other than sending a letter on 22nd April to which no response has been received to date.

The really helpful person at the CAB has been off sick and only come back today, so I'm very much hoping she might be on the case again tomorrow.

Thanks for your link to the rule books btw. I've been having a look. So far I've seen that nothing seems to have happened in my friend's case as it should have done. He should have received some sort of response to his complaint and explanation as to why he didn't sign on, within 7 days and if his reason for not signing on was accepted as reasonable, he should still have been paid. He sent a further letter over a week ago now and no response to that either.

 

With all due respect, "the rules" are defined within legislation. The people employed in Jobcentres have no choice but to follow them.

I understand what you're saying, Erika and I sympathise with those who work in Jobcentres and are expected to implement rules with which they may not agree, but at the end of the day they have to answer to their own consciences.

[patrickq1]

which legislation they used, what act, direction or regulation - they are duty bound to tell you

you do of course know their is two different interpretations concerning the freedom of information to be passed to the general claimant who ask's for it....

not even my EMP knew of this policy and here it is just in case you are unaware of it s existance...also anyone who gets fobbed of under the foi can see this below they have the information and if you are not receiving it ...i wonder why not...

Atos Healthcare is not required to keep paper copies of the medical reports. All such medical reports are returned to the DWP following the completion of the medical assessment. However, Atos Healthcare is required to keep electronic information that allows a copy to be regenerated at a later date, as required by the DWP. This is retained for as long as there is a business need.

6 years as per the case of Kerr v DWP

[patrickq1]

oops lost the link will post it tomoz

[patrickq1]

Freedom of Information Act Awareness Guidance No. 11

Time for Compliance

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has produced this guidance as part of a series of good practice guidance designed to aid understanding and application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The aim is to introduce some of the key concepts in the Act and to suggest the approaches that may be taken in response to information requests.

The guidance will be developed over time in the light of practical experience.

Awareness Guidance No 11 takes the form of FAQs on a range of questions relating to the time for compliance with requests.

1. What is the time limit for responding to a request for information?

A public authority must inform the applicant in writing whether it holds the information requested and if so, communicate that information to the applicant, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after receipt of the request; section 10(1).

2. When does the 20 working day clock start?

The 20 working day clock starts:

• the day after the public authority receives the request. According to section 10(1) the time limit for compliance is the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.

or

• the day the authority receives further information it reasonably requires in order to identify and locate the information requested; section 1(3).

Please refer to question 4 below, regarding the effect of section 1(3) of the Act.

Version 1 1 (Updated Jan 2006) Freedom of Information Act - Awareness Guidance No 11

3. When is a request received by the public authority?

A request is received when it is delivered to the public authority, or when it is delivered to the inbox of a member of staff. The date of receipt is not the date the request is passed to the appropriate person for processing.

In respect of e-mails, however, where an automated ‘out of office’ message provides instructions on how to re-direct a message, the request would not be ‘received’ until it was re-sent to the alternative contact.

It is in the interests of the public authority to ensure that mail is distributed, and acted upon, promptly. Public authorities will also need to give thought to their procedures for dealing with communications where a member of staff is unexpectedly absent. (See also question 10 below – ‘What happens if a public authority does not respond within the time limit?’).

Public authorities may wish to consider the following good practice points:

• It may be helpful to provide and publicise a separate e-mail address for FOI requests, although there would still be a duty to deal with requests received anywhere within the authority;


• To cover periods of absence, it would be advisable for staff to use the automated ‘out of office’ facility for e-mails and to provide alternative contact details.


• Where an alternative contact is provided in an ‘out of office’ message, the contact should advise the original recipient of action taken in respect of the request.


• It would be good practice to acknowledge receipt of requests and to refer to the 20 working day time limit, so that applicants know their request is being dealt with. It would also be good practice to let applicants know when they might expect a full response.

4. What if the authority is unable to find the information requested, because the applicant has not provided enough details?

Under section 1(3) of the Act,

"where a public authority –

(a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify and locate the information requested, and

(b) has informed the applicant of that requirement"

the authority is not required to comply with the request until that further information is provided.

Version 1 2 (Updated Jan 2006) Freedom of Information Act - Awareness Guidance No 11

Whilst the applicant may have made an FOI request under the terms of the Act, by describing the information he/she seeks, the 20 working day time limit would not start until the authority had sufficient information to enable it to deal with that request.

However, authorities should not delay contacting the applicant under s1(3), in order to give themselves more time to respond to the request.

Part II of the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice deals with the provision of advice and assistance where an authority is relying on section 1(3). The following guidance is provided in paragraph 9:

"Authorities should be aware that the aim of providing assistance is to clarify the nature of the information sought, not to determine the aims or motivation of the applicant. Care should be taken not to give the applicant the impression that he or she is obliged to disclose the nature of his or her interest as a precondition to exercising the rights of access, or that he or she will be treated differently if he or she does (or does not). Public authorities should be prepared to explain to the applicant why they are asking for more information. It is important that the applicant is contacted as soon as possible, preferably by telephone, fax or e-mail, where more information is needed to clarify what is sought."

The Code goes on to suggest forms such assistance might take, for example, ‘providing access to detailed catalogues and indexes’.

There is a distinction, however, between requiring further details in order to identify and locate information and providing advice and assistance in order to help the applicant focus his request, for example, because the request is voluminous and retrieving all the information would be likely to exceed the cost ceiling. In the latter case, the authority would not be able to rely on s.1(3) and the 20 working days would begin the day after receipt of the request, as described in question 2.

This distinction is illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1

Request: Please send me all the information you hold about my ancestor John Smith, who served in the British Army during the 19th Century.

Response: The applicant has described the information he seeks, but the description is not sufficient to enable the authority to identify and locate the correct record. The authority informs the applicant that it requires further information, under section 1(3), (for example, a narrowing of dates, information about regiment or location) and the 20 working days does not start until the authority has been supplied with that information.

Version 1 3 (Updated Jan 2006) Freedom of Information Act - Awareness Guidance No 11

Example 2

Request: I would like all the information you hold about every soldier named John Smith who served in the British Army during the 19th Century.

Response: The applicant has described the information he seeks and the authority is able to identify and locate the information. The 20 working days begin. However, the request is potentially voluminous and so, under ‘advice and assistance’, the authority may wish to go back to the applicant to assist him in focussing the request.

5. In what circumstances does the 20 working day ‘clock’ stop?

If the public authority is charging a fee (which must be calculated according to the Fees Regulations), the applicant has a maximum period of 3 months to pay. According to section 9(2) of the Act, the 3 months would begin on the day the Fees Notice is ‘given’ to the applicant. The Information Commissioner takes this to mean the day the authority sends the notice.

According to section 10(2) of the Act, the period starting with the day the notice is given and ending on the day the payment is received is disregarded from the 20 working day calculation. Therefore, the 20 working day ‘clock’ would stop, in effect, the day before the notice is sent and would re-start the day after the fee is received.

6. Where the applicant is required to pay a fee, do the 20 working days resume once the cheque is received, or cleared?

The 20 working days would resume once the cheque had cleared. According to section 9(2), the public authority is not obliged to comply until the fee is ‘paid’. However, authorities should ensure that cheques are banked promptly.

7. What if the public authority needs more time to consider exemptions?

Any information which the public authority is required to release must be disclosed to the applicant within the 20 working day time limit. Where the authority is relying on one or more of the exemptions and is withholding information, it must issue a Refusal Notice (under section 17 of the Act) within the same timeframe, specifying the exemption and why it applies.

There is a provision in the Act, at section 10(3), which allows the 20 working day time limit to be extended to a ‘reasonable’ time, where the authority is required to apply the public interest test, because one of the ‘qualified’ exemptions applies. However, the authority must inform the applicant in its Refusal Notice if it needs more time to consider the public interest in disclosure and must give an estimate of the date by which it expects to make its decision. [FOI Act, s10(3)]

Version 1 4 (Updated Jan 2006) Freedom of Information Act - Awareness Guidance No 11

A public authority must be prepared to justify to the Information Commissioner any time it takes, beyond the 20 working days, to consider disclosure in the public interest. Should the Information Commissioner receive a complaint, he would need such information in order to decide whether the time taken was ‘reasonable in the circumstances’.

8. Can the 20 working day time limit be extended for certain groups of public authority?

The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations extending the 20 working day time limit, to a maximum of 60 working days. Such regulations may prescribe different time limits in relation to different cases, and may ‘confer a discretion on the Commissioner’. [FOI Act, s10(4)&(5)]

9. If an authority does not hold the information requested and transfers the request to another authority, when would the 20 working day clock start?

The 20 working days would not begin until the authority, to which the request is transferred, receives the request.

10. What happens if a public authority does not respond within the time limit?

Failure to respond within the time limit would be a breach of s10 of the Act. In the event of a complaint by an applicant that he/she had received a late response to a request, the Information Commissioner would record that fact in his Decision Notice, but there would be no practical consequence, ie the information had been received in the meantime.

The Information Commissioner has a general duty under s47 of the Act to promote good practice. Should he become aware of a consistent failure to respond to requests within the time limit, he may issue an Enforcement Notice.

 

B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE PILL

LORD JUSTICE DYSON

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT

LEVY

CLAIMANT/APPELLANT

- v -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[stardust_john]

Erika, querying on a forum destresses, its not a moan as more needing to share experince, as you yourself recodnise there are jobsworths, but I recodnise they are in every walk of life.

 

But I have to thank you and the other insiders as we learn how to deal with out individual situations better with your help.

 

A person like me tends to trust people in a higher authority that what they say is accurate, I just get so so distressed when I realise how mistakes can devistate, because we all need to eat.

 

Any how I say again thanks to insiders:D

Edited May 12, 2009 by stardust_john
sounds better :)

[stardust_john]

Patma:)

 

Its good to be able to talk to others, thanks.

[Mr Silver]

Patma, may I suggest your friend requests a full and detailed Disclosure of Information (I assume s/he has already done this?).

 

Also s/he can request that the Jobcentre allow him/her to sign on at an alternative Jobcentre office or request POSTAL Signing on that way s/he does not have to deal with the robots following to the letter of the law(unlike MPs!!) the sacred and complex Government ''rules''!!!

 

We must avoid ''Benefit Freud'' - sorry Freudian slip - ''Benefit Fruad'' in case a genuine claimant makes a genuine ''error'' like our ''honest'' and 'honourable'' MPs and mistakenly fails to DECLARE the odd 5 pence in has in his bank account and this takes him over the Benefit Defined Rules for Income Support or some other SUBSISTENCE benefit.

 

Working Links: I had dealings with this infamous 'private-government-partner' - jobs for the boys (and some girls:-) private joke company; paid for by TAXPAYERS!

 

And the Government are planning more joke companies like this to help their friends - the bosses and bankers in the City make money (and financed by us TAXPAYERS) who own or have a large interest in ''providing' joke so-called ''work'' related 'Skills training'' - these organisations couldn't train a blind bat (no offence to bats:-) to fly!

 

Working Links actually 'provide' no training whatsoever - they merely refer ''clients'' (read claimants) on to the brown gravy train state finaced private training companies and pay them £1000 per ''client / ''customer'' - sent for 6 weeks joke ''training'' (reading newspapers, writing CVs and discussing ''opportunities'' in the recession hit ''labour market'') - a nice little earner for the ''training provider'' friends whose MAIN TASK is to harass clients/customers to ''sign off''!

 

And all with the full knowledge, blessing and the full support of the Government and the robotic 'DECISION MAKERS'* following ''the rules'' in and at the JCP and DWP carrying out the Civil Service admin for the private company financed by the TAXPAYER!!

 

I should say most of these 'Decision Makers' (nameless and faceless - the ''Anonymous Empire'') can not string a basic sentence together!

 

Good luck to your friend and tell him to complain to the European Court of Human Rights about his treatment. Also complain to his Euro-MP (Euro elections on 4 June 2009) and the Seceretary of State for Social Security and DWP etc., and the Shadow Secretary.

 

Also lodge a complaint with Head of the Civil Service, and local DWP/Jobcentre District Manager (they have a ''duty'' to investigate complaints).

 

Send ALL letters by Special Delivery and address ALL letter with the Officers' names.

 

Remind the robots that they are Civil Servants and they must serve you! Not the other way round!

 

Try to keep calm and good luck!

Edited May 12, 2009 by Mr Silver
Correction of typos and extra information and hopefully clarity!

[Mr Silver]

The Nazis followed ''Orders'' and ''implemented rules'' too!

 

Does that make ''the Rules'' correct? Fair? Just? Human? Humane?

 

These ''rules'' were and are written by camp followers of the bloated brown gravy train sycophants/hangers-on and Tony's cronies and vampires and parasites in the City of London banking fraternity and shyster 'private training providers'!

[MONX]

The Nazis followed ''Orders'' and ''implemented rules'' too!

 

 

Whatever you think of the staff in Jobcentres, I do think drawing comparisons with the Nazi's is going too far!

 

My sister works in a Jobcentre and daily has to deal with people who feel they are being dealt with unfairly...she more often than not agrees with most of them. She strives to support and help them to the best of her ability within the remit of her role...when she cannot help them she points them in the direction of the CAB, MP and other outside sources of help.

 

At the end of the day the benefit system is funded by the public purse....its our money that is handed out in the millions every day...do you think that there should be no regulations as to who, where and when this money is distributed?

 

I do not argue that there are some that work in Jobcentres who believe it is thier right to treat everyone as scroungers and malcontents...but they are few and far between and I dont believe that all staff who work in Jobcentres be considered as robots, unfeeling or certainly not compared with a inhuman regime who mercilessly murdered millions of people in the most disgusting way!

 

Many thanks to the people who work in the field who come on here to advise and support caggers!

[Mr Silver]

MONX: ''Whatever you think of the staff in Jobcentres, I do think drawing comparisons with the Nazi's is going too far!''

 

'''I dont believe that all staff who work in Jobcentres be considered as robots, unfeeling or certainly not compared with a inhuman regime who mercilessly murdered millions of people in the most disgusting way''

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

With respect to the ''some'' or few human Civil Servants that work in Jobcentres:

 

I did NOT say that ''all'' were robots, merely those that follow Government ''rules'' like it was a sacred text never to be questioned and never wrong (and never admit when they are wrong themselves! )

 

Have you or anyone else ever received an apology from any Jobcentre or DWP Civil Servant for an error/mistake or victimisation/frustrating and/or delibrately delaying a claim?

 

''Rules'' (like unjust laws) are for breaking, changing, challenging and scrapping if and when those 'rules' are unjust, unfair, discriminate, and are against Human rights and inhumane and inhuman! (Or unfairly penalise the claimant / consumer e.g. unfair Bank Charges!)

 

Worse still is when (not if) those sacred Government 'rules' are INCORRECTLY ''implemented'' by a drone / robot in the Jobcentre (who pays no attention to detail, the human cost of depriving a claimant to their RIGHTFUL BENEFIT under the DELIBERATELY OBSCURE and complex''rules'' (and wrongly implemented) in contrast to parasitical 'peers and MPs (and who have very simple ''rules'' for claiming BENEFITS in kind a.k.a. ''expenses''!

 

Hiding behind ''the rules'' is NO defence to the charge of harassment

and victimisation.

 

Jobcentre staff who are Civil Servants should serve and NOT dictate and infringe human rights and those that do should be punished for their robotic wrongdoing and be brought before the very rule and law makers whose ''rules'' and 'orders' they followed.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Mr Silver
Correction of typos and added information for clarity.