Victimisation and Attempted Prosecution by Jobcentre

[FitzWilliam]

A friend of mine has suffered dreadfully at the hands of our local jobcentre through a mixture of incompetence and malice. The case is very similar to that reported by Patma in her thread ‘Harassment and victimisation by Jobcentre’.

 

In 2008 he twice lost jobs he was about to start because the jobcentre wrongly sanctioned his claim; and after he complained about their errors they marked him as Potentially Violent.

 

Later they attempted to prosecute him in the magistrates’ court for threatening behaviour but spectacularly failed when CCTV footage exonerated him.

 

Following his recent acquittal, he is now looking for a solicitor to bring a legal action against the jobcentre for victimisation and loss of earnings.

 

This is just a summary. I’ll give the shocking details in two further postings.

[FitzWilliam]

How my friend became unemployed

 

In May 2007, my friend, then aged 41, was working in as a digger driver in the construction industry. One day at work he suffered a cardiac arrest and was rushed to hospital. Fortunately, one of the other workers on the site realised the seriousness of the situation. He bundled him in the back of his car and met the ambulance half way.

 

Cardiac arrests, which are much more serious than heart attacks, end in fatality in 95% of cases, and time is a vital factor. But they got him to hospital before it was too late and he just pulled through.

 

It took him months to recover; and after he was back on his feet he struggled to find employment and began to slide into debt.

 

His first wrongful sanction by the jobcentre

 

He had a huge problem with the jobcentre in April 2008 when an administrative error deprived him of the opportunity to take up a job.

 

In the middle of April he was offered work as a self-employed driver on a building site, due to start on 21 April 2008. He completed the ‘sign off’ sheet from his dole card (ES40), and on the evening of 16 April he posted it through the letterbox of the jobcentre. The following day, which was his next regular signing day, he went to the jobcentre and got a photocopy of the sheet.

 

The photocopy is clearly stamped, ‘[Jobcentre name] 17 Apr 2008 Received’. Staff, however, did not ask him to sign on.

 

The Jobcentre then sanctioned his claim, closing it from 3 April 2008 and leaving him short of a fortnight’s money due to him. When 21 April came round he was left penniless and unable to travel to his new job.

 

That same day he went to the jobcentre to ask where the money was, and to tell them that he desperately needed it to get to work, but they would not help him and tried to make out he had not signed off properly.

 

They claimed he ‘used foul and offensive language towards a member of staff’, and he was marked down as Potentially Violent. He and his girlfriend, who was with him, both deny he swore at staff.

 

In a letter to his MP in November 2008, the DWP shockingly claimed:

 

'Mr [Name] completed and returned the ‘sign off’ part of form ES40 to our Jobcentre on 18 April [?!!] as he had a job to start on 21 April. Our staff in the Jobcentre tried several times to contact Mr [Name] to tell him he should have come in to sign on 17 April for the period of 4 April to 17 April, but they were unable to reach him … so Mr [Name]’s claim was closed from the day after his last signed declaration which was on 3 April.'

 

Fortunately my friend had kept that photocopied ‘sign off’ sheet clearly stamped ‘17 Apr 2008 Received’. That proved both that he had signed off correctly and that he was in the jobcentre on 17 April.

 

His MP then confronted the DWP with this evidence and in January 2009 they finally admitted their error:

 

'In your letter you said that Mr [Name] returned a form to us on 17 April 2008. This was his ES40 form notifying us that he was starting work on 21 April. Mr [Name] should have attended his normal signing interview and completed the form at that time.

 

'Sending it in by post within five working days of missing his signing time is an acceptable way of closing a claim and as such we should not have closed his claim so promptly for which I apologise. I have therefore arranged to pay Mr [Name] for the period from 4 April to 20 April 2008, which is the day before he started paid employment.'

 

You can see how confused they are about the details, but the important thing is that the DWP admitted their error.

 

Just recently, in June 2009, the DWP wrote to my friend saying:

 

'We do accept that you placed your ES40 card in the letter box at the Jobcentre on the evening of 16 April 2008. We dealt with it the next day. We also paid the arrears due to you.'

 

Yes, they had paid the arrears nine months later and way too late to save the job they lost him because of their incompetence!

 

His second wrongful sanction by the jobcentre

 

While the DWP were still denying their fault over that first sanction they wrongly sanctioned him a second time.

 

In September 2008 my friend found work again. His jobsearch booklet shows that when he signed on on 23 September he had recorded that he was about to start a job:

 

'Asked for work Factory’s plant hire I’ve two start part time on 25,9,08 providing got some money to start. [Company name given.]'

 

So what did the jobcentre do when he told them he was starting a new job? They sanctioned his claim, depriving him of another fortnight’s money and meaning once again he could not travel to the job.

 

In November 2008, the DWP explained the decision in a letter to his MP:

 

'On 29 September [2008] we applied a sanction to Mr [Name]’s claim from 11 to 23 September. We applied this sanction as Mr [Name] had failed to show sufficient evidence that he had been actively seeking work.'

 

What arrant nonsense! Not only had he ‘been actively seeking work’, he had succeeded in finding a job and was about to start it!

 

Knowing full well he could start the job only ‘providing got some money to start’, the jobcentre stopped his money. They are supposed to help people back to work, not prevent them!

 

In a recent DWP letter to my friend of June 2009 they say:

 

'We disallowed your claim from 11 September 2008 to 23 September 2008 because you did not provide enough evidence of your job search for that period.'

 

So this matter is still not resolved.

 

 

The consequences of losing these two jobs

 

My friend has lost not only the two jobs but the earnings as well. When he applied for those jobs he still had valid construction tickets, but in September 2008 they expired and he cannot now afford the £900 to renew them.

 

On top of this, the administrative errors by the jobcentre that prevented him starting work have led to two local employers wrongly believing my friend is unreliable and giving him a bad name.

 

Okay, I’ll now write about the court case in a separate posting.

Edited August 5, 2009 by FitzWilliam

[FitzWilliam]

The failed attempt to prosecute my friend for threatening behaviour

 

The attempt by the jobcentre to prosecute my friend for threatening behaviour was truly amazing, and it ended in spectacular failure when the Crown Prosecutor intervened to ensure he was acquitted.

 

In December 2008 the jobcentre security guard, a woman in her late 40’s, complained to the police that my friend had physically threatened her in the jobcentre.

 

In her police statement she claimed he threatened her with clenched fists, and that she though he was going to hit her and was left feeling frightened; but her evidence of threatening gestures was uncorroborated by any other witness. She offered CCTV footage, but the police (very stupidly) did not view it.

 

My friend was arrested and charged under the Public Order Act, and months later in July 2009 he was tried in the local magistrates’ court.

 

I was in court for both days of the trial and am still amazed at the audacity of the security guard, whose testimony bore no relation whatever to what we saw in the CCTV footage.

 

For the prosecution, the security guard testified that my friend had been speaking loudly and rudely to the jobcentre manager, and so she ordered him to leave. She claimed this order was ‘enforced’ by the jobcentre manager.

 

She alleged that he, refusing to go, had then threatened her by clenching his fists and flexing his arm muscles. She testified that he stepped towards her and pushed his face forwards at her, causing her to move or sway backwards.

 

In his defence, my friend denied that the jobcentre manager had enforced an order for him to leave, saying she had told him he could stay and use the jobpoints to look for work. And he also denied threatening the security guard.

 

The amazing CCTV evidence, shown in court, entirely corroborated my friend’s account.

 

It showed him talking with the jobcentre manager, who then left camera shot. As the moment of alleged threatening behaviour approached, we saw him wearing a long-sleeved coat standing a few feet from the security guard. (Flexed arm muscles? She couldn’t even see his arm muscles!)

 

He then put his right hand in his coat pocket and gestured with his left to move to a nearby jobpoint. But as he started to move, the security guard stepped sharply across in front of him and deliberately blocked his way. She stood there firmly like a little tyrant. He then backed off and, looking fed up, headed for the exit.

 

Next we saw the jobcentre manager follow my friend outside the jobcentre and bring him back inside and stand with him while he used the jobpoint. Those did not look like the actions of someone who had ‘enforced’ an order for him to leave!

 

The last thing we saw on the CCTV, just after my friend had left the building, was the jobcentre manager going to the security guard’s desk and appearing to remonstrate with her. Her arms were moving vigorously up and down, and she looked angry with her.

 

It is perhaps no surprise that the defence barrister, before showing the CCTV, reminded the court of all the threatening gestures they were supposed to see but which were nowhere evident; and both he and my friend ably highlighted other discrepancies in the security guard’s testimony.

 

The Crown Prosecutor, after seeing the CCTV, declined to cross-question my friend. For a few moments he remained seated, and then he stood up and said, ‘In the view of the Crown, there is no reason to convict Mr [Name] of any criminal offence.’

 

The magistrates, after nodding to one another, immediately acquitted him; and in the public gallery we burst into applause. The verdict was right, but the injustice was that he should ever have been in court in the first place.

 

My concerns about the DWP’s role in the trial

 

There are several things about the DWP’s role in the trial that concern me, but two in particular.

 

Firstly, my friend’s solicitors requested the DWP Incident Reports from the jobcentre for December 2008, but they failed to produce them. The defence wanted these, especially to see what the jobcentre manager had written that day.

 

Secondly, the jobcentre manager was on the witness list for the defence, after having approached my friend’s solicitors, but the DWP did not allow her time off work to testify in the trial. The security guard got time off to appear for the prosecution.

 

So the DWP withheld evidence, and they prevented a witness from appearing for the defence. But still they lost the case!

 

[Edit. Point of correction: In a letter dated April 2010, the jobcentre manager explains that she could not come to testify because of 'an important prior appointment'.]

 

Some observations on the trial

 

In court the security guard made great play of the fact my friend was marked as Potentially Violent. But when questioned by the defence barrister she admitted that she had never seen him be violent or aggressive in the jobcentre.

 

The jobcentre had judged him PV in their own kangaroo court, where they sit as judge and jury and executioner, and where the accused has no recourse to defend himself. But given the opportunity to present evidence in the magistrates’ court they failed to produce a single witness to show he had ever been aggressive or abusive.

 

My favourite quote from the trial was the security guard’s bizarre comment when questioned by the defence barrister: ‘Everyone in the whole world has the potential to become violent.’

 

My favourite moment, aside from the acquittal, was when my friend, commenting on the CCTV, said, ‘You can see I’m wearing a big coat. So you can’t even see my arm muscles.’ And everyone burst out laughing.

 

The aftermath of the trial

 

My friend’s court victory has ensured that, released from his bail restrictions, he can sign on again at the jobcentre. They still have him marked as Potentially Violent, and at first they stopped him using their public phones.

 

Recently we managed to get a short report of the trial in one of the local papers, and now things have taken a turn for the better. My friend is now allowed to use the phones if supervised, and the jobcentre have told the security guard that she is not allowed to talk to him.

 

What we’re doing now

 

A barrister and CAB solicitor have both said my friend has a strong case for victimisation against the jobcentre, and that he could sue the police too.

 

We have put in a subject access request for the DWP Incident Reports and should have those soon. But I think we should make a fuller request for everything we can get.

 

From Patma’s similar thread (‘Harassment and victimisation by Jobcentre’) I have picked up some useful leads. Patrickq1’s comment about a full audit trail sounds promising, and we will probably request that from the DWP.

 

We are also collecting documentation from other sources, including the police (subject access again) and the local MP.

 

What we want to do next

 

The big thing we need to do now is get a solicitor. I think the case against the jobcentre is very strong, but suing the police may be a bit more difficult.

 

That’s where we are at the moment, and any help or advice would be appreciated.

Edited May 1, 2010 by FitzWilliam
short editorial note added

[Patma]

Hi Fitzwilliam, Welcome to CAG and well done on presenting your friend's circumstances so clearly.

It's very true that there are many similarities between this case and my friend's case.

In my friend's case however he's been able to use to his advantage the fact that he has disabilities to afford him the right to record all visits to the jobcentre and to take a witness.

Currently this is protecting him from any further false accusations, which your friend hasn't got the luxury of.

I would suggest that he always takes a witness with him into the public area of the jobcentre at least, and I would also suggest he insists on receiving all communication in writing from them.

I say this because my friend was accused of being PV over a telephone call, so the same thing could happen to your friend.

The solicitor acting, at present, for my friend is in a lawcentre, maybe you could check out any local ones and ask the CAB if they can recommend anyone. Failing that there's always CAG with plenty of expertise in court matters.

I've lately been involved in dealings with the police over a wrongful arrest and have found Professional Standards very good. Each force has their own dept. We've found that contacting the local police station gets ignored and were told by Professional Standards who to write to in the first instance to set the ball rolling. You probably need to make an official complaint against the police in the first instance rather than jump in and sue them straight away.

Good luck, Patma

[FitzWilliam]

Hi Patma, and thanks for your advice.

 

The solicitor acting, at present, for my friend is in a lawcentre, maybe you could check out any local ones and ask the CAB if they can recommend anyone.

 

Yes, I'll look into this. Is your solicitor taking it on through legal aid or as no-win, no-fee?

 

Obviously, my friend cannot afford to pay expensive legal fees, and I think that either legal aid or no-win, no-fee is the only way forward for us.

[FitzWilliam]

Hi again Patma.

 

I've lately been involved in dealings with the police over a wrongful arrest and have found Professional Standards very good. Each force has their own dept. ... You probably need to make an official complaint against the police in the first instance rather than jump in and sue them straight away.

Good luck, Patma

 

Thanks, I didn't know about this.

 

The police certainly make many mistakes in their investigation of the complaint against my friend. There were obvious inconsistencies in the security guard's statement, which they failed to check, and they never interviewed the jobcentre manager, who was clearly an important witness.

 

Their failure to view the CCTV was very bad indeed. It clearly showed that the security guard's allegation of physically threatening behaviour was groundless. When the Crown Prosecutor finally saw it in court, he immediately acted to ensure that my friend was acquitted. But things should never have gone that far.

 

The police had also previously received a complaint about the security guard, claiming she had lied in a police statement in January 2008; and in July 2008 a member of the public had sent them copies of internet writings by her which obviously contained false accusations about various people, including the police themselves.

 

That should have caused them to regard her with suspicion, but still they accepted her uncorroborated claims of being physically threatened without even checking the CCTV.

 

Anyway, Professional Standards sound like the people to approach. Thanks again Patma.

[geoff1248]

How come that the security guard who so obviously lied is still working there?

[Patma]

Yes, I'll look into this. Is your solicitor taking it on through legal aid or as no-win, no-fee?

I'm not exactly sure what the solicitor will get out of it, but it isn't costing my friend anything. I think the Lawcentre receives funding from somewhere.

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks for your reply Geoff.

 

How come that the security guard who so obviously lied is still working there?

 

That's a very good question indeed. I could tell you stories about that security guard that would make your hair stand on end!

 

She's been working at our jobcentre for just over two years. During that time she has behaved very badly, and complaints about her have been registered with the DWP, her employer (a private security company who contract her labour), the police, the local MP, and the CAB.

 

I personally think she should have been moved a long time ago, but the jobcentre do not seem to be prepared to put their foot down.

 

I know the names of four people who have complained about her to the CAB, including two young men who were educated together at a special school.

 

The CAB respect confidentiality but they have let on a bit of information to me and my friend about two other complaints. In May 2008 they told me that they had seen someone 'very vulnerable' who had complained about her. And about last Christmas they told my friend they had seen someone who was in tears over their problems with her.

 

That makes at least six complaints to the CAB, though I'm sure there are more than this.

 

I could say much more about the security guard, and give many shocking details of her behaviour, but I think it's better not to for the moment.

 

On the positive side, my friend's recent court victory has been a big step forward, and has made her position increasingly untenable. We got the story in the local paper and now she is now forbidden by the jobcentre to talk to my friend.

 

My guess is that she's now living on borrowed time. I'll let you know of any developments.

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks for the information about Lawcentres, Patma.

 

I've checked them on the internet and it looks like a promising way forward for legal representation. I don't expect we'll make an approach just yet because we're still applying for documents, but we will before too long.

 

It's great to have your advice. More news in the future ...

[Mrs_Jeeps]

Anything like that will generally be conditional fee scheme.

 

I would imagine a normal high street solicitor who deals with civil claims and P.I would take that on..

[Patma]

My friend's solicitor has told him that the DWP do their utmost to stay out of court and in the cases he has dealt with, they've settled at the last minute every time.

I agree with Mrs Jeeps that a High Street solicitor on a conditional fee scheme ie no win/no fee, is a good bet.

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks for the latest advice Patma and Mrs Jeeps:)

 

My friend was in his old home town yesterday and did the round of the local solicitors. He got the number of a solicitors in another town who said they are interested in the case and could do it on legal aid.

 

He has an appointment for next Wednesday, and we're going to drive there together.

 

This is very promising, and I hope I will be able to give a positive update next week.

[patrickq1]

A friend of mine has suffered dreadfully at the hands of our local jobcentre through a mixture of incompetence and malice. The case is very similar to that reported by Patma in her thread ‘Harassment and victimisation by Jobcentre’.

 

In 2008 he twice lost jobs he was about to start because the jobcentre wrongly sanctioned his claim; and after he complained about their errors they marked him as Potentially Violent.

 

Later they attempted to prosecute him in the magistrates’ court for threatening behaviour but spectacularly failed when CCTV footage exonerated him.

 

Following his recent acquittal, he is now looking for a solicitor to bring a legal action against the jobcentre for victimisation and loss of earnings.

 

This is just a summary. I’ll give the shocking details in two further postings.

 

He would really be better to go for this and find a solicitor of high quality try to get legal aid ....dont let it lie you also need him to get hold of this cctv footage and to do this you will have to requet under the freedom of information act ALL DATA ASKING SPECIFICLY FOR THE AUDIT TRAIL OF ALL DATA..INCLUDING THE CCTV FOOTAGE AND ANY RECORDED INTERVIEWS.

patrickq1

[FitzWilliam]

My friend had more problems today with the jobcentre, and in particular with the female security guard.

 

He arrived this afternoon for an appointment with a woman from an agency about the possibility of renewing his construction tickets. His young sons were with him, and he met the woman in a private room just off the main public area of the jobcentre.

 

He learnt from the woman that the jobcentre had told her they had marked him as Potentially Violent. Of course, that is not a good way to start a meeting with someone you are hoping might help you. As it turned out, she was unable to get the tickets renewed.

 

As he was leaving, one of his sons spotted the security guard going into the private room and talking to the woman. My friend then went back and discovered from the woman that the security guard had been asking whether he had been threatening or abusive to her.

 

He was very annoyed about this and went to the police station to complain about the security guard harassing him. They have said that they are going to speak to the security guard.

 

This security guard remains a big problem. It was just last month that she gave testimony in court that my friend had physically threatened her. The trial ended in his dramatic acquittal when CCTV footage, shown in court, clearly did not show the alleged threatening behaviour.

 

After the trial the jobcentre told the security guard that she was forbidden to speak to my friend, and her interference this afternoon was pretty reprehensible.

 

Still, this is all grist to the mill for my friend's case against the jobcentre. He will tell the solicitors about it next Wednesday.

 

Expect developments in the next couple of weeks ...

[FitzWilliam]

... you also need him to get hold of this cctv footage ...

 

Actually, we are okay for the CCTV footage. The defence solicitors have a DVD containing all the footage that was shown in court, and they can pass it to anyone who represents my friend in future.

 

The bizarre thing about this CCTV is that it was given by the security guard to the police. It was supposed to show my friend threatening her in the jobcentre, but instead it clearly showed her pushing him around and deliberately stopping him from using a jobpoint.

 

After the Crown Prosecutor saw the CCTV, he immediately intervened to halt the trial and ensure my friend's acquittal.

 

Now of course that CCTV can be used by my friend in his own legal action. Not only does it show how utterly false the security guard's allegations were, but it also shows how badly she was treating him and how she deliberately prevented him from looking for work at the jobpoint.

[caledfwlch]

could the business with the agency woman after his interview be classed as "witness intimidation"?

 

And surely there are legal remedys against the guard herself? What about a restraining order? Would surely make it VERY difficult to keep her job ?

[geoff1248]

Why exactly is this guard "picking on" your friend? Does she react to other people in the same way?

[patrickq1]

a restraining order

the perfect solution against this companies staff....sound like a bunch of thugs with nothin better to do

[FitzWilliam]

About the Security Guard

 

There's a big rumour going round that the security guard is going to be moved from our jobcentre to another place of work. A lot of people have become increasingly unhappy with her behaviour, especially the police and the local CAB.

 

I'll update with any news.

 

Could the business with the agency woman after his interview be classed as "witness intimidation"?

 

What about a restraining order?

 

I do not think that the security guard's interference with the agency woman yesterday can be classified as 'witness intimidation'. But my friend has complained about it to the police and I'm sure we'll learn more about the result of the complaint in the coming days.

 

The idea of a restraining order is very tempting, but I doubt it would be profitable to pursue that course. The security guard will claim she was just doing her job, however over-zealous she might appear to other people.

 

I personally think that the security guard sealed her fate when she went into the witness box and gave her disgraceful testimony. Everyone in court could see for themselves on the CCTV that my friend had not threatened her as she claimed.

 

Anyway, there should be developments soon, and I'll keep you all posted ...8)

[FitzWilliam]

Why exactly is this guard "picking on" your friend? Does she react to other people in the same way?

 

Answer 1: Personal malice.

 

Answer 2: Yes.

 

A complicating factor with the security guard is that in May this year she made another complaint to the police about someone else who signs on at the jobcentre. And this complaint is still in the hands of the police.

 

This second man has so far been arrested and questioned three times (in June, July and August) and spent more than 12 hours in police custody. The complaint against him is of harassment, intimidation and homophobia.

 

The latest Custody Record shows that 'numerous statements' have been taken, but also that there is 'not sufficient evidence' to charge him. And it looks very like this complaint is on the verge of being thrown out by the CPS.

 

The security guard has previously made three other complaints to the police against this same man, accusing him of swearing at her, racially insulting her, threatening her, and of being a sexist and a liar.

 

It may tell you something about the credibility of the security guard that despite the seriousness of the allegations she has made against this man he has never been charged with a criminal offence and has not been marked by the jobcentre as Potentially Violent.

 

This second man, by the way, is Oxbridge educated and formerly worked as a university lecturer in modern history.

 

It's a point of interest that when the police last year rejected a complaint of 'harassment' she had made against this man, she went on the internet and wrote a diatribe against them. She insinuated that the police rejected the complaint because they are racially prejudiced and homophobic.

 

Surprise, surprise ...

Edited August 14, 2009 by FitzWilliam

[Patma]

He arrived this afternoon for an appointment with a woman from an agency about the possibility of renewing his construction tickets. His young sons were with him, and he met the woman in a private room just off the main public area of the jobcentre.

Just a quick question, but was the private room one which has a glass partition which separates the interviewee from the interviewer?

The reason I ask is because the use of such rooms has recently come up for my friend.The jobcentre manager and his solicitor have both expressed disapproval that staff have persisted in interviewing him in this way despite it having been openly acknowledged that he never was potentially violent.

It looks as though using these secure rooms was being used as a psychological tool to intimidate him and I must say, having been present as a witness, it is inimidating to be segregated like that.

[FitzWilliam]

Was the private room one which has a glass partition which separates the interviewee from the interviewer?

 

There is such a room at our jobcentre called the 'screened area'. It's down a corridor, well away from the main part of the jobcentre, and my friend has been made to go there in the past to sign on.

 

But the room he used yesterday to see the agency lady was one of the two private rooms just off the main public area of the jobcentre. These rooms are used for private meetings with visitors and suchlike, kind of mini conference rooms.

 

I've never been to the 'screened area', but I agree with you that it's intimidating to interview people in such a room, and of course it will naturally cause resentment and annoyance to anyone to be singled out for such treatment.

 

One rule that applies to people marked 'Potentially Violent' at our jobcentre is that they are only allowed to remain in the lobby area. The lobby area, just inside the entrance, contains the public phones, two jobpoints and the security guard's stand.

 

No one marked PV can go to the 'carpeted area', meaning the rest of the jobcentre where all the seats and signing-on desks are positioned. Not, that is, unless a member of staff specifically invites them.

 

This business of the 'carpeted area' - and of my friend being marked as PV - was interestingly explored in his court case. The security guard testified that her order for my friend to leave the building was 'enforced' by the jobcentre manager.

 

In the CCTV we not only saw the jobcentre manager follow my friend out of the building and bring him back in, but we also also saw her take him to the 'carpeted area' and seat him while she helped him with some paperwork.

 

My friend's able young barrister emphasised this very well, and of course it seriously undermined the security guard's testimony that the jobcentre manager had 'enforced' the order for him to leave.

 

* * *

 

It's interesting that you say of your friend's case, 'The jobcentre manager and his solicitor have both expressed disapproval that staff have persisted in interviewing him in this way despite it having been openly acknowledged that he never was potentially violent.'

 

Why are staff interviewing him behind a screen if the jobcentre manager disapproves of it?

[Patma]

Why are staff interviewing him behind a screen if the jobcentre manager disapproves of it?

The manager was unaware it had been happening and has said he will look into why.

It appears that the staff do have a lot of leeway. As with the Disabilty Advisers who refuse to accommodate the disabilty.

Good luck with your friends case btw.

[FitzWilliam]

The manager was unaware it had been happening and has said he will look into why.

 

Good, at least it sounds like the jobcentre manager has some humanity and a sense of decency.

 

But it sounds to me like the so-called Disability Adviser should not be working in that job.