Harassment and victimisation by Jobcentre

[patrickq1]

DWP - Advisers - Decision Makers Guide

[Patma]

Other factors to consider are: Was it a formal appeal - was a GL24 completed? If not, did your friend ask for an appeal or did he simply ask them to look at their decision again, or reconsider?

Hi Erika, thanks for your input.

Yes it was a formal appeal.

What decision has he actually appealed?

He appealed the decision that he was not entitled to benefits as a result of failing to sign on. He argues that he gave good cause within 5 days, as indeed he did, but his letter was ignored.

The money which he is owed before his failure to sign and had complied fully with his jobseekers agreement, I guess is a separate issue and currently they appear to be ignoring this and have not actually said he isn't entitled to it, just haven't paid it.

 

If you or the CAB can find any DWP policy which states acknowledgements are issued, let me know as it would come in useful for the people I support too. I have searched and can't find it anywhere.

My friend says his information gives a time scale but I haven't seen it myself, so I will have a look at it later today when I see him and let you know what it says and whether he's understood it correctly in my view.

 

DWP - Advisers - Decision Makers Guide

Thanks for this link, patrick

 

Yes please do keep us all informed on the outcome, it's always reassuring to know that information given from here is relevant and appropriate:grin:

Will do Bazooka

[ErikaPNP]

I really hope this mess is sorted for your friend soon, Patma. It's a ridiculous farce.

[Patma]

Update:

My friend had obtained some temporary work which lasted 3 weeks and had properly notified the Jobcentre of the starting and stopping dates. With the work having finished, he re-applied for Jobseekers Allowance online and was sent an appointment for an interview, to which he replied stating that he would require to be allowed to bring a friend as witness and use a recording device to record the interview. He quoted The Disability Discrimination Act and reminded them that they hold full details of his disabilities.

A reply was duly received granting the request and along we went, at the appointed time last Saturday morning.

The whole thing was quite a performance with the Duty manager taking us off upstairs to a large floor which was completely deserted except for us, the lady interviewer, the manager and a burly security guard who just stood there and exuded menace;).It kept being emphasised that this was strictly a one-off concession.

The interview went smoothly and my friend requested that he be allowed the same assistance at all his visits (signing-on etc) to which the reply was that his request would be considered. He has put this request in writing now and we await the response. I found the whole thing quite amusing and it was obvious that they hated having to do this and were trying very hard to see that no other claimants saw what was happening.

I'll let everyone know what happens next on that front.

As regards the legal case that is proceeding and there's no news yet on that.

[patrickq1]

god for you patma just be wary of what was said and i hope you have full copies of what was said,i would write a letter outlining the full details of what was discussed and thank them very much for their sincere consideration and that you look forward to a favourable reply...make sure you have all the points in the letter of what was discussed as this way it will either be denied imediatly or aknowledged ..

good luck for the furure,dont drop the other case whatever happens as the claim was correctly made at the beginning it does not matter how nice they try to be you are not being unreasonable you are enforcing your rights because they were unreasonable..also address the same letter to the area manager and regional manager,if it is in triplicate they cannot deny the facts...

patrickq1

[Patma]

Thankyou patrick, wise words.

[FitzWilliam]

Dear Patma,

 

The case you describe is remarkably similar to that of a friend of mine. I'm going to start a thread about it called 'Victimisation and attempted prosecution by jobcentre'. But I'll give a few brief details here.

 

My friend became unemployed in May 2007 after a cardiac arrest that nearly killed him. Then he struggled to get back to work.

 

In April and September 2008, he suffered two sanctions on his jobseeker's claim, both imposed after he had told them he was starting work. The sanctions left him penniless and unable to afford the travel to work, and so he lost both jobs.

 

After complaining at the jobcentre about the first sanction he ended up being marked as Potentially Violent. The DWP, in letters to his MP, have admitted error in the imposition of the first sanction, but not the second.

 

In December 2008, the jobcentre security guard complained to the police that my friend had physically threatened her. She offered CCTV as evidence, and he was charged and taken to court.

 

The case was heard in July 2009, and my friend won a spectacular victory. The CCTV, which the police had failed to view before pressing charges, bore no relation whatever to the testimony of threatening behaviour given by the security guard.

 

In fact, it showed her being aggressive to him and deliberately stopping him from using a jobpoint!

 

The Crown Prosecutor, after seeing the CCTV, brought the trial to a dramatic halt. He declined to cross-question my friend and instead stood up and told the magistrates that there was no reason to convict the defendant of any criminal offence.

 

Things have turned a corner now. My friend, acquitted and released from his bail restrictions, is signing on at the jobcentre again. And we got a short report of the trial published in the local paper.

 

At first the jobcentre stopped him using the public phones in their office, but now they are letting him use them and have told the security guard she is not allowed to talk to him.

 

Two lawyers, a barrister and CAB solicitor, have both said they think he has a strong case for victimisation and loss of earnings against the jobcentre. And one of them says she thinks he should also sue the police.

 

We have put in a subject access request for the DWP Incident Reports, but I guess we should ask for more than this. We are also gathering up other evidence.

 

The big step now is to get a solicitor to take on the case, either by legal aid or no-win, no-fee. And that's where we are now ...

 

Anyway, I'll give fuller details in my own thread. I'm really glad I came across your story, Patma, and I'm pleased you've had such success in advancing your friend's case. I'm looking forward to learning the outcome, when it's no longer sub judice.

 

I hope we will be able to correspond.

[Patma]

I have a little update on my friend's case.....As far as signing on and other visits to the Jobcentre are concerned, it's going pretty smoothly, except for one exception, which is ironic really.

Some weeks ago now my friend was offered an appointment with a Disablity adviser at the Jobcentre.

He should apparently have been offered one when he first notified them about his disabilities.

Well he's kept asking when he will get his promised appointment and on Wednesday whilst signing on, he was given the answer that none of the Disability advisers will interview him because he insists on recording the conversation.

Now if he didn't have a disability he wouldn't be permitted to record the meetings in the first place so in a nutshell, the disabilty adviser won't see him, because he's got a disabilty.

[Bazooka Boo]

AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!:-x

 

INCOMPETENT IMBECILES!!:-x

 

Absolutely, intolerable!

 

Report the La for breaching the disability discrimination act

And not only inform the leader of the LA but your local MP also, then the local press, who will have a field day hopefully:D

 

So let me get this right, not only will they not allow him to have a witness sat with him during interviews, they still won't allow him to record his interviews??

 

To be honest, I now have a covert camera and voice recorder, only cost £80 of tinternet, it isn't grade one by any means but it does record the conversations well, and as it is for my own benefit, they don't need to know!

 

For gods sake Patma I was just about to go to bed but will now search the web for advice!

 

Boo;)

[Bazooka Boo]

Ah ha! There you go, almost immediately found this!

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DG_4018266

 

And this!

Local Government Ombudsman • Making a complaint

 

 

Can you see the steam coming from my keyboard??

 

 

Boo;)

[Patma]

Hi Boo, sorry to have kept you out of bed. Hope you're catching up with sleep now:D

It's the Disability adviser at the jobcentre who refuses to be recorded. All the others, including one for this very morning are cool with it (well cool as in through griitted teeth for some of them), but my friend's solicitor has said he believes the DWP have contracted the disability advice out to a private company, and this person has refused to be recorded.

This doesn't excuse the DWP from having to comply with their obligations under the Disabiity Discrimination Act though and they are being reminded of that fact. In the meantime it adds weight to my friend's very solid case.

What a farce:eek:

[Bazooka Boo]

Almost as farcical as Tesco!!

Tesco humiliate wheelchair user over alcohol sale - Portsmouth Today

 

I'm bright and breezy after having my beauty sleep now:D

[ErikaPNP]

The law doesn't prohibit the sale of wine, beer or cider if thought thje purchase may potentially be for an underage person - it never has. Tesco are pointing out "the law" but I very much doubt they could tell you exactly which law, or quote the correct subsection. We had a similar case nearby where a mother had tried to purchase a bottle of wine for Sunday dinner and was refused because her teenage daughter was with her. She went to the papers, and a customer service representative replied, stating:

 

"under the Licensing Act 2003 it is an offence to purchase alcohol on behalf of someone under the legal age"

 

I pointed out to him through the newspaper comments column that a) that the law he quoted did not govern Scotland, where the attempted purchase took place and b) that under the law he had quoted the sale was for wine and as such is exempt. (as it is in scotland also)

 

He never did respond....

 

I'm all for preventing drunken youths but I think Tesco are seriously failing to apply common sense.

[FitzWilliam]

None of the Disability advisers will interview him because he insists on recording the conversation.

Now if he didn't have a disability he wouldn't be permitted to record the meetings in the first place so in a nutshell, the disabilty adviser won't see him, because he's got a disabilty.

 

This is very good Patma. It's is the kind of point you should get the solicitors to repeat and to ram home with as much vigour as possible. I'm glad that a smart girl like you is on the case.

[FitzWilliam]

Hi Patma:)

 

I've just remembered something that might be useful to you. Look at this report called 'Staff Safety in Jobcentre Plus Offices' (2005):

 

Staff safety in Jobcentre Plus offices

 

Look especially at page 29 for clients marked as 'Potentially Violent'. That is, page 29 as numbered in the document, but described as '39 of 148' at the bottom of the page.

 

I'd like to cut and paste for you, but it's pdf so I can't.

 

The document lists the criteria for marking people as PV. These criteria seem to be pretty serious on the whole, such as 'commit an actual physical assault', 'stalk a particular member of staff' or 'make a threat of violence'.

 

But the last thing listed ('display threatening or aggressive behaviour') seems to be the catch-all for marking people as PV simply because they have let off steam about something.

 

Very often the reason why people get annoyed with jobcentre staff is because of an administrative error such as late payment or because they have been wrongly accused of not applying for a particular job. Then of course the jobcentre retaliate by marking the client as PV.

 

I'm sure it's the over-zealous interpretation of 'aggressive behaviour' that causes the wrongful marking of people as PV. And it's doubtless what lies behind both your friend's and my friend's problems with being made PV.

 

Anyway, hope the document will be helpful to you.

Edited August 15, 2009 by FitzWilliam

[Patma]

Thanks for that Fitzwilliam.I've had a look at it and saved it for reference.

Thankfully the marker has been withdrawn now in my friend's case and it has been acknowledged that he did nothing to warrant it.

I hope your friend gets treated fairly from now on too.

[FitzWilliam]

Thankfully the marker has been withdrawn now in my friend's case and it has been acknowledged that he did nothing to warrant it.

I hope your friend gets treated fairly from now on too.

 

I'm glad to hear that your friend is no longer marked as PV, and I hope you've got the admission of fault in writing.

 

My friend is still marked as PV. The jobcentre have eased up on him since the court case where he was spectacularly acquitted of threatening the security guard. But the security guard herself it still being a nuisance.

 

We've just got the Incident Reports from April 2008 when my friend was made PV. I'm going to write more about it in my own thread later today.

 

Anyway, I'm really pleased that you are making such headway in your case.

[Patma]

I'm glad to hear that your friend is no longer marked as PV, and I hope you've got the admission of fault in writing.

Yes it's in writing.

I'll look in and see what's happening on your thread and see if there's anything useful I can suggest.

We need to get his PV marker removed as a priority I would think.

[Patma]

Well today has brought a step forward for my friend's case as a claim has been issued in the county court.

It looked very impressive I must say as the defendant is The Secretary of State for The Department of Work and Pensions.

The solicitor has asked for the papers to be issued but not served yet as he needs a little time to polish up the statement of case. There has been a bit of a last minute rush as there's been a change of solicitor due to the original one leaving and there is a possible deadline of 19th October as part of the claim may be subject to a 6 month time limit.

 

When I get sight of what has been claimed, I'll post the details, but I do know that part of it is asking for an injunction to force the Jobcentre to accommodate my friend's disabilities.

[FitzWilliam]

We need to get his PV marker removed as a priority I would think.

 

Hi Patma,

 

My friend's PV marker has finally been removed. He was informed in a letter from the jobcentre manager dated 27 April 2010.

 

His solicitor successfully applied for legal aid in January 2010, and as things stand his case against the DWP still looks good. The solicitor is pushing for loss of earnings following wrongful sanctions that prevented my friend starting two jobs.

 

The security guard who accused my friend of threatening her left her job in October 2009. Her ignominious departure from the jobcentre came ten weeks after my friend's acquittal in the magistrates' court, where she had testified against him.

 

She had worked in the security industry for 12 years, but is now a low-grade clerical worker with the DWP at a benefits distribution centre. Her temporary contract will expire in about October 2010 or April 2011.

 

My recent complaint about the former guard to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was supported by my local MP. She has ordered an investigation into the woman's behaviour, which is expected to involve questioning many witnesses and to take three months.

 

On my thread I'm soon going to discuss a complaint to the police made by jobcentre staff about me and my friend in November 2009. We've just got the local constabulary papers, and the bogus accusations are outrageous and farcical.

 

My friend was arrested and questioned, but the police never spoke to me, and the whole thing was binned as NFA. Anyway, you can read about it when I post.

 

* * *

 

I would love to have an update on your friend's case. I hope it's going well.

 

Have you gone to court yet? Have the DWP made an offer to settle?