Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Ingeus


Raven1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2490 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Gil, Most of it seems made up... it seems to say I have no English or Maths qualifications and also I have never worked self-employed. There seems to be information on questions I've never been asked about. It says on one sheet I have a full up to date CV and on another it says I have no CV.

 

Sexual Orientation = 0 WTF does this mean??

 

Internet Use = not at all

 

Then there is only a third page that has more than one line of writing on. It crammed with tiny letters and lots of info. I'm reading with great interest. Looks like all the times my data was accessed by someone. Must be about 200 entries. All of which contain a member of Ingeus' name except two which state 'web user'. :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Did anyone know that A4e has also landed another Contract to give Money Advice at my local Council, and probably many other Councils. I have a Neighbour that I have been advising on Banking Matters and Account Managment - I have been sourcing information I was not sure of and advising successfully so far. When I saw the Notice in the Council Offices I thought I would look into it to see if he could get more informed advice than I could give.

 

On reading the Notice I realised that at the very bottom it stated that this Service was given by A4e how dare they :mad2::mad2::mad2: - I wonder how many of the Advisors are CRB Checked. Needless to say I will not be advising use of this Service. Having to give all your Bank Details will give them chance to practise their Signature Forging Skills. Watch this space to see if the usual abuse starts to come to light with regard to this very dubvious service. :mad2::mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil,Most of it seems made up... it seems to say I have no English or Mathsqualifications and also I have never worked self-employed. There seems to beinformation on questions I've never been asked about. It says on one sheet Ihave a full up to date CV and on another it says I have no CV.

I’m guessing that in the absence of you providing info that they made it up either because their system is unable to progress or just to make it look as though they hadn’t struck out.

 

SexualOrientation = 0 WTF does this mean??

Totally hetero, if you’re using the Kinsey Scale. However, I suspect for Ingeus it simply means they don’t know which way you swing. Not sure why sexual orientation is relevant to employment in anything other than pointless stats though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd do two things..

 

Firstly I'd make sure I was recording the entire interview process.

 

Secondly, given the nature of the job you are being forced to attend interview for, I would make sure that I asked many detailed questions regarding the nature of possible chemical and biological hazards that the job may put you in contact with.

 

I would ask what form of liability insurance the employer has and the amount of coverage it offers in the event of a chemical or biological contamination due to the nature of the work

 

I would also ask for the employer to cover costs for Hepatitis & Tetanus vaccinations. Maybe make a point to ask what employee sanitation (showers/laundry) is available at each site...

 

I'm sure you could put the fear of litigation into them with a few other choice questions :D

 

Excellent advice. I think I'll attend tomorrow and do exactly this. I'll also raise travel costs as an issue as well as some other things which may come up. If worse comes to worst and they still offer me the job, by refusing it I surely can avoid being sanctioned by JCP on the grounds that the job would see me haemorrhaging money left, right and centre correct? Work Programme schemes only benefit if I actually get a job right? Simply having a job offer, which I rejected wouldn't see them make a penny out of me would it, even if it was directly through them?

 

Then instead of pulling a sicky to avoid the CV writing course I'll inform them I need to keep myself available for a pending interview on that date, which wouldn't exactly be entirely untrue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the matter of advisors offering payments and/or sanctions to get a client to sign the employer-consent forms and get their hands on the outcome payment, I wondered if this could be used as a blunt instrument to add to complaints..

 

Fraud Act (2006) Section 4 - Fraud By Abuse Of Position

 

1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

 

(b)dishonestly abuses that position, and

 

©intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

 

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

 

Link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/4

 

One very good reason to covertly record all your meetings/phonecalls to use as evidence if required!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@RealName..

 

There's also the DWP's own guidelines on travel to work which would mean that any commute to site outside the stated 90-minute limit could be defined as unreasonable

Ah I should read up on this. Cheers.

 

I might also raise that I get queasy rather easily if the opportunity allows it. Simply being close to the toilet on board a train sets me off. Being inside a port-a-loo, never mind cleaning one, will cause havoc. I'm sure I can phrase that in a way which won't make it seem as though I'm sabotaging the interview. I could ask if they have any measures to prevent this.

 

One very good reason to covertly record all your meetings/phonecalls to use as evidence if required!

I'm not sure covert recordings would be beneficial as they wouldn't stand up as evidence in a court of law. You need to have the person's consent in order to use it. Of course the work programme companies will surely refuse to let you do so...

 

Interestingly enough my local JCP have banned the use of laptops, mobile phones and anything else that could be used as a recording device inside their building. This wasn't an issue prior to A4E being outed...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure covert recordings would be beneficial as they wouldn't stand up as evidence in a court of law. You need to have the person's consent in order to use it. Of course the work programme companies will surely refuse to let you do so...

 

My advisor first offered me a £100 payment if I signed the employer consent. I declined to agree with this and stated that I'd get the JC+ £100 back-to-work bonus anyway. They then stated that that payment was dependant on 'a statement from the provider that I was complying with the work programme' and if I was determined not to be, wouldn't recieve it.

 

They then offered to give me £200 in total for 'forgetting my principles' and signing the form. I still disagreed. Then they informed me that the provider would recieve the outcome payments regardless of my declining to sign, and that I could be sanctioned upto 6 months on my NI contributions if I or my employer refused to confirm employment status..

 

They'd have not said anything had they willingly agreed to the meeting being recorded. And whilst perhaps not admissable in a court of law, the ICE may well accept it as evidence to back up a complaint.

 

Otherwise it's just our word against theirs, and we know which way the decision would swing in that case..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure covert recordings would be beneficial as they wouldn't stand up as evidence in a court of law. You need to have the person's consent in order to use it. Of course the work programme companies will surely refuse to let you do so...

 

It could be argued to be within the publics interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be sanctioned upto 6 months on my NI contributions if I or my employer refused to confirm employment status..
Well they obviously can't retrospectively sanction your benefits because you have already been paid them, as for NI credits, I have not managed to find out anything about this apart from someone who is not receiving benefits in the first place due to wife working or similar, who gets a sanction on NI as thats the only benefit element they are getting, personally I would call their bluff, a 6 month loss of NI is no big deal anyway.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Delightful day with Maximus today. My advisor looked through my CV and was impressed with it. His only complaint was that he'd have put the longer personal statement about my interests at the start rather than the end. Personally I disagree with this as the employer would surely want to know my skills more than my interests, which I already have in my opening paragraph. Despite this I've been placed on a three hour long CV writing course next week to show me how to reorder my CV.

 

Despite applying for more than the number of jobs I'm required to apply for a week they're also forcing me to attend an interview there tomorrow for an incredibly unsuitable job. It's a company who are looking to hire people to clean port-a-loos throughout the country. One day your in Southampton, the next Leeds, then on to Newcastle, etc. The company don't cover your travel expenses (which will be about the same as your daily pay if not more), but they do provide you with accommodation. A large tent to share with the other employees. So on top of spending all my wages on the travel I'd be required to spend more money on a hotel for the night. I pointed out the unsuitability of such a job to my advisor, but of course he didn't care. He told me that I'd receive a benefits sanction if I didn't attend the interview tomorrow. Unfortunately I forgot to record our conversation, so it will just be a case of my word against his again.

 

As I disagree with both of these things for obvious reasons I refused to sign the action plan. Is it possible to get out of attending either of these things which are both clearly nothing but a waste of time?

Have you got any proof that the Maximus gave you this job 'opportunity'? Because I would love to see the reaction from the w2w pimps over on Indus Delta to this nugget, but without any form of validation they would simply say the story is made up to discredit the industry.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@gil_jnr

They'd have not said anything had they willingly agreed to the meeting being recorded. And whilst perhaps not admissable in a court of law, the ICE may well accept it as evidence to back up a complain
It is evident that recording all interviews/exchanges is important. I seem to remember reading (I think in DWP guidance) that:

1. Customers are allowed to record conversations either overtly or covertly

2. If the recording is overt i.e. the advisor knows, or should know, that a recording is being made he has a duty of care to ensure that other conversations nearby are not inadvertently recorded. Therefore the advisor must ensure privacy.

3. The recording should be for your own personal use - as an accurate record of what occurred. It is not legal to publish such recordings (e.g. on U tube) without the participant's permission (copyright issues)

4. Although a recording itself may be inadmissable as evidence (e.g. in an appeal against a sanction doubt) what is permissable is a transcript of a recording.

 

I think the above is correct but if anyone knows any better then I am open to correction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you got any proof that the Maximus gave you this job 'opportunity'?

Other than today's interview, which I'm hoping to record, no. The only document I've been provided with about it simply tells me that it's an interview. It doesn't even specify that it's a job... I was provided with very little information about today. I'm still unsure as to whether it's simply a job interview, or if I have to sit through a presentation prior to this. I know that I don't have a set interview time and there'll be a number of people attending at 13:00. The piece of paper I was given to look at while I was there didn't even mention the company name. Part of me is wondering if this is in fact a mock interview they've disguised as a real one as the job just seems too horrendous to be real.

 

I'm still a little unsure about whether or not I should attend. While I was told I'd receive benefit sanction if I didn't attend I didn't sign the action plan to agree to it and I'm not sure if this gives me any strength to not attend or whether it's still a requirement. I also sent a letter last week requesting that they remove my personal data. I haven't heard anything back yet, but when I was there yesterday I saw that they still had the data on their system. I don't know how long I should expect it to take for it to be removed, but it seems as if I might have to take legal action against them soon and I wonder if this would exempt me from visiting them until the issue is resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's "interview" was not an interview at all. All that happened was a manager gave me a form to fill out with a large number of pages. I informed her that before filling it out I'd like to take it home with me and get consultation on it. She then told me that if I didn't fill the form out there and then my benefits would be sanctioned. She refused to let me record the conversation of course. This is my third visit to Maximus now and on every occasion I've unlawfully been told that my benefits WILL be sanctioned if I don't do something. I have the names of the people who have made these threats, but sadly I have no evidence and it's just a case of my word against theirs. Today's incident was done in front of two other jobseekers. However, when I asked them if they'd be willing to confirm that the manager did indeed make such a threat they both said that they wouldn't be willing to do it. What is the next step I have to take to make a complaint against Maximus? I think I should at least try and do something even if it is unlikely that something will be done.

 

She said that on Tuesday I have to meet her at a train station so that she can purchase a ticket for my long travel to the actual interview on Wednesday. As I've been given nothing in writing I shall just claim to not have been informed about this. As it happens I've genuinely forgotten both the time I'm supposed to meet her on the Tuesday and the time of the interview on the Wednesday. I also have no idea where the job interview is supposed to take place other than the name of the city. So it looks like I couldn't go even if I wanted to. My action plan only mentions having to attend the "interview" on Friday. It makes no mention of me being required to do anything else regarding this "job opportunity".

 

As suspected anyone who applies for the job will automatically be given it. The manager said that all you had to do was fill out the form and attend the interview and you'd be guaranteed the job regardless. Flicking through the form the job looks even more delightful than I first expected. They expect the employees to pay £130 for their own uniform! You're also required to give over your bank details before even being offered the job. Wow. Just wow.

Edited by RealName
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the many problems with the WP is that they do not understand about sanctions and have no intention of learning abot the coorect proccess either.

Sanctions are threatened left right and centre but as a JCp customer service officer I am fully aware within the guidance that there are procedures to be followed and reason to refer for a sanction.

With regards to the "you will be sanctioned if you don't attend this appointment/interview/take this job" I would personally love to attend their offices to observe these interviews so I could actually witness to tell them how sh** they are.

You can only be referred for failing to attend the interviews, or for an entitlement doubt if you do not actively particiapte in meetings or do not satisfy the conditions of JSA e.g availability or ase.

The only time you can be referred for a consideration on refusing to apply/or to take a job offer is if the vacancy jas been matched as per your JSAg/action plan and that they have taken the correct steps (and as they can't even get the basics right it's odds on they wouldn't have a hope of doing this).

 

I hope they do read this and realise they are not performing as they signed up for through their own incompetence.

Canyou tell I had a bad day at work for a start and that WP wre partly to blame!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I've managed to find the correct procedure for making complaints myself. First I make a complaint to the work programme provider, then if I'm not happy with the response or I don't hear from them for eight weeks I make a complaint to ICE. It seems as this raises another complaint as I should have been informed about the complaints procedure by them rather than having to work it out for myself. The closest I have to them informing me of it is a 4 page A5 booklet (or a double-sided A4 booklet folded in half (whatever you'd call it)) which on the back specifies how I go about passing on feedback. No mention of the word 'complaints'. It seems as though I possibly have an additional complaint about my work programme provider for not providing me with this information.

 

As Maximus have teamed up with CDG I'm confused about which company I should be making the complaint to. Maximus sent me my initial, and so far only, letter, but it is CDG who I have attended the induction, a meeting and a so called "interview" with. I assume I'm supposed to complain to CDG as these are who I've been dealing with directly. However, all I can find on their website is this page: http://www.cdguk.org/contact-us

 

It says "If you have compliments, suggestions or complaints about any of our services, please let us know by using the suggestion boxes in our centres, by emailing or by calling the number below". While an address is listed it doesn't specify that I can use this to make my complaints, which strikes me as a little odd. Should I stick with sending a letter with recorded delivery? It seems to be the best way of proving that I sent the letter and it was received. But as this isn't specified as being a way of making a complaint...

 

Something else has just hit me. During my induction there was a form with a number of checkboxes at the top, which were required to be checked if I was informed of various things during my induction. As I was dragged off into another room to speak to a manager due to my not wishing the data protection waiver I missed the vast majority of the presentation, only witnessing the very end of it as it was being wrapped up, which provided me with no useful information whatsover. Anyway, on the bottom of this form I was asked to put my signature and I did so. I made a point of asking if I was supposed to check the checkboxes as my advisor addressed the corresponding points but he informed me that it didn't matter as that section didn't need to be filled out. It's possible that there was more on the page then just the checkboxes and an area for my signature, but I can't be 100%. The only thing that I can be sure of is that not a single checkbox was checked at the time I signed it. I'm now wondering if these checkboxes were filled in after I signed the document. If this did happen would this be considered forgery? If so how should I go about getting a copy the document so that it can be used as evidence. I worry that if I requested a copy of it they might realise exactly why I wanted a copy of it and would refuse to do so. One of these checkboxes may have been one saying that I had been informed about the complaints procedure. By having signed this document and then it having been altered afterwards I'm not sure how a complaint that I wasn't informed of the complaints procedure would stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Realname, you have every right to covertly record all meetings, and you can hand a transcript of the recording over, in say, an official complaint to the DWP, or in a court/tribunal. A Judge can also request to hear the actual recording. This is Legislation/Law, absolute rights that we hold.

 

How much would a return train ticket to this job cost you every day?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

how should I go about getting a copy the document so that it can be used as evidence. I worry that if I requested a copy of it they might realise exactly why I wanted a copy of it and would refuse to do so.

 

Anyone can make a Subject Access Request to any organisation that holds personal information on them under the Data Protection Act. You cannot be penalised for doing so, nor do you have to disclose your reasons for making such a request.

 

If you decide to do so, it may be a good idea to send it via the post office 'signed for' service (you use the Royal Mail 'track & trace' facility online to see exactly when it was delivered and get a screenshot of the name & signature of the person who signed for it on delivery) to the head office who will pass it on to their Data Compliance office. The local office you attend will not have any notification you are doing so and try putting you on the spot with questions as to your intentions.

 

There's a number of SAR templates available on this website that you could use, I'm in the process of drafting my own for my complaint and will be happy to post my version on here if it will help anyone else.

 

In the meantime I'd suggest having a few trial runs with your recording device to see how best to hide it and record any further meetings to back yourself up :)

 

ETA: The http://www.consent.me.uk/letter/ website has an excellent template letter you can use to withdraw any previously signed forms for consent to share data or contact any future employers to obtain outcome payments.

 

Again, you cannot be sanctioned for doing so, nor do you have to give any explanation for your withdrawal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci…..government

Work-for-free programme to be expanded by government

 

DWP plans to extend its scheme which forces the long-term unemployed to take unpaid work or lose benefits

 

At the moment, those out of work are obliged to take an unpaid placement for a month or lose their benefits. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

 

Thousands more unemployed people will be forced to work for free or lose their benefits under controversial plans to be announced by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, as the government is warned its drive to get people back into work appears to be floundering.

The scheme, under which the jobless are obliged to accept an unpaid work placement for a month to keep their benefits, will be "significantly extended" within the next two weeks, according to Whitehall sources.

The government believes forcing people to work or lose their benefits is inculcating a work habit in the 10,000 people currently on the programme and will be effective for others.

Ministers are also looking at rolling out a national trial under which the unemployed must work for up to six months for free to avoid their benefits being docked.

However, The Observer has learned that a release of statistics on the outcomes of the mandatory work programme had been due this week but is to be delayed, raising concerns about its efficacy in helping the country's 887,000 long-term unemployed – defined as being jobless for over a year.

Critics also claim the move is an indication of the panic within government over the failure of ministers' various schemes to tackle long-term unemployment, which is at its highest level in 16 years.

Last week, the Employment Related Services Association, the trade body for welfare-to-work providers, warned for the first time that its members may not meet the government's "minimum" targets in getting people back into work. It revealed that fewer than one in four of the people who had been on the work programme for six months had found a job.

Labour claims a House of Commons Library analysis shows that initial government estimates of Department for Work and Pensions spending on jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit have been revised upwards by £9bn, as the number of people coming off benefits has halved in the last year.

The number of people claiming housing benefit has also shot past the five million mark for the first time, with more than 90% of new claimants since the 2010 general election being those in low-paid, part-time work.

 

 

and it rumbles on work for free for months or lose your benefits...will they never learn

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...