Work Programme / Sanctions websites taken down?

[Booji Boy]

Anyone have any info on why these sites have been taken down today?

 

http://unlawfulsanctions.org.uk/

http://mandatoryworkactivity.co.uk/

http://refusewp.com/

http://www.workprogramme.org.uk/

 

Fingers Crossed this site stays up

[flumps1976]

As I posted on the Ingenus thread the other day they are investigating a lot of things at the moment such as the data protection issue where I stated they are looking to check if a customer infirms that all info held by the providers is removed does it mean the claim for JSA is closed? I don't know if it is the case btw but they are definitely investigating and if there are forums actively encouraging people to do this then they will ask that the posts/sites are removed.

 

Like I say I don't know for deginite but it's a hunch.

[Booji Boy]

Maybe my twitter account will be silenced, as i post all interesting dwp docs ect

There are sanctions changes to the jsa agreement on 16th may, nothing about the WP though. This forum would be a target over the non consent of the new agreement if that's what it's about. (hope not)

[Booji Boy]

Another website has gone http://watchinga4e.blogspot.co.uk/ not sure if JSA/Sanctions is their thing, they normally stick to A4e + Emma Harrison

[osdset]

WatchingA4e is still up, I just came from there, very disconcerting about the other four though, I know the powers that be are getting increasingly agitated about sites that promote freedom of speech, and rights advice when the subject matter is w2w, the DWP, or ATOS.

 

I would not be at all surprised if the DWP had a hand in closing those sites down.

 

Worryingly, I think that the government have plans in hand to curtail any resistance to w2w, it's been mentioned on another post that JCP are tightening up the rules and making life rather difficult at the onset of claims now, we can expect things to get a fair bit worse I fear.

[flumps1976]

I believe it is not the DWP requesting the site be taken down but the wp providers as they are finding their jobs becoming increasingly more difficult and if their customers are using these sites and receiving legitimate help in how to jump through the loops that are there and they see their bonuses and payments pushed further away then they are going to react like this.

 

Personally I wish they would actually read and understand the contract they signed when they took on the contract and then they could actually work towards that, maybe then things would run as they are supposed to and shock horror they could even work to benefit their customers as opposed to their own pay packets.

Is it going to happen thoug, I seriously doubt it

[caledfwlch]

As I posted on the Ingenus thread the other day they are investigating a lot of things at the moment such as the data protection issue where I stated they are looking to check if a customer infirms that all info held by the providers is removed does it mean the claim for JSA is closed? I don't know if it is the case btw but they are definitely investigating and if there are forums actively encouraging people to do this then they will ask that the posts/sites are removed.

 

Like I say I don't know for deginite but it's a hunch.

 

It seems unlikely they will find a loophole with regards withdrawing consent to contact employer though. I can see them being able to hold certain data, due to laws on maintaining records, but withdrawing consent to a private organisation to contact an employer - whom, when they become your employer, means you are no longer on JSA, seems unlikely to have a loophole. If they try and sanction people for doing it at the start, people will simply withdraw consent just before leaving.

 

Plus, and most importantly, whatever fudge they try and come up with to stop withdrawal of consent, they cannot, not imho without some hefty new legislation stop a Claimant from simply withdrawing consent from their new employer to deal with the contractor, thus tackling it from a different angle.

 

Or do you think it likely that there will be an arcane bit of legislation that will force a private employer to communicate with another private company that is not related to them? Like I say, a situation like that sounds like it would need new legislation to back up.

[gil_jnr]

Plus, and most importantly, whatever fudge they try and come up with to stop withdrawal of consent, they cannot, not imho without some hefty new legislation stop a Claimant from simply withdrawing consent from their new employer to deal with the contractor, thus tackling it from a different angle.

 

I'm not sure how accurate the information given was, but I was told quite pointedly by my advisor that if I continued to decline DPA consent to contact an employer once I started work and blocked the provider's claim to the outcome payments, that sanctions would be applied to NI contributions

[caledfwlch]

I'm not sure how accurate the information given was, but I was told quite pointedly by my advisor that if I continued to decline DPA consent to contact an employer once I started work and blocked the provider's claim to the outcome payments, that sanctions would be applied to NI contributions

 

Where on earth do they get these nutters from?

 

Ask them to quote the relevant legislation!

 

What they appear to be claiming is that if you forbid your employer from speaking to the provider, the Provider will stop you and your employer from paying your National Insurance Contributions????????? I can see the tax man being chuffed with that, not to mention an Employer would I should think not be required to comply without a Court Order.

 

It sounds to me like the advisor was talking complete rubbish tbh.

 

The only other NI issue I can think of, is when one is on Contributions Based Job Seekers Allowance, and has gone past 6 months payments, in which case, you are still signing on, but not receiving money, just your NI contributions are being payed. But that does not apply to someone who has started work, because, well, they have started work!

 

I certainly can find nothing googling - I would call the advisors bluff on this, ask for it in writing

[patrickq1]

my son in law has been asked to attend a work program 25 miles from his home ,he already pays top up rent to his flat they have just had a baby yet this work program is unpaid and he has to pay for his own travel ? is this right ,he would nt be able to afford to feed his child and pay top up fees towards his accomadation , what can he do

patrickq1

[caledfwlch]

my son in law has been asked to attend a work program 25 miles from his home ,he already pays top up rent to his flat they have just had a baby yet this work program is unpaid and he has to pay for his own travel ? is this right ,he would nt be able to afford to feed his child and pay top up fees towards his accomadation , what can he do

patrickq1

 

I am sure they have to pay for your travel if you live away.

[patrickq1]

yes i thought that as well

[down'n'out]

my son in law has been asked to attend a work program 25 miles from his home ,he already pays top up rent to his flat they have just had a baby yet this work program is unpaid and he has to pay for his own travel ? is this right ,he would nt be able to afford to feed his child and pay top up fees towards his accomadation , what can he do

patrickq1

 

They should reimburse travel expenses.

 

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

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/framework-generic-guidance.shtml

DWP Provider Guidance

Chapter 2:- Travel Expenses.

138.

Participants attending provision are entitled to a refund of the travel costs they incur. It is your responsibility to pay the participant’s travel costs as travel expenses are included within the funding received from DWP as part of the overall contract package.

139.Participants are expected to travel to your provision by the cheapest method available to them. However, some participants will be unable to travel by the cheapest method for example, due to a disability or the need to be accompanied by a support worker.

140.On commencing provision you should advise participants what evidence they will need to produce to claim refunds of travel costs, for example bus tickets.

 

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

 

Although I have seen some reports where some providers have refused to reimburse.

If the provider does refuse, then a need to make formal complaint to Job center.

[debt4get]

this is an extremely worrying trend...how long before they start to remove websites offering advice for benefits...how to claim etc....surely these providers would need a court order to remove these sites? this is nothing more than removing peoples right to free speech..

[down'n'out]

....surely these providers would need a court order to remove these sites?

 

The threat of taking a website to court (by somebody with an almost bottomless pit of money) with accusations of [slander or whatever they can think up] and a website may well take themselves off-line, as the cost to defend themselves can be far too much. If a website does stand up to threats, the[somebody] can threaten the website provider(ISP) with similar action.

[worried33]

I hope this site stands up to any legal threats, it doesnt cost anything to make them get a court order and to get a court order they need to prove slander or whatever it is they claiming.

 

The problem is as said tho if they goto the ISP of the site and then the ISP panic's.

[down'n'out]

............ it doesnt cost anything to make them get a court order and to get a court order they need to prove slander or whatever it is they claiming.

 

Slander is a civil wrong (tort), and can be the basis for a lawsuit. So that would go to court.. So those defending themselves would need legal representation , which of course could be expensive. (without legal representation they could easily lose).

[worried33]

I didnt say it wouldnt goto court.

 

I just said it doesnt have to cost money, someone can represent themselves or choose to not goto the court.

[osdset]

If an individual is being taken to court over slander or libel, the oppositions legal team would have to look seriously at that individuals financial position, there is absolutely no point litigating against someone with no assets, as any damages awarded would never materialise, it would be a non starter purely because the costs involved in instigating an action would be unrecoverable.

[down'n'out]

But would someone who is running a website be able to(have knowledge to) defend against a slander/libel lawsuit? If they did not attend court, they may be found guilty in their absence and have to pay thousands(or more) in damages.

 

I am not trying to be argumentative, just putting forward how easily it can be done for those who have lots of money to throw at solicitors.

[down'n'out]

If an individual is being taken to court over slander or libel, the oppositions legal team would have to look seriously at that individuals financial position, there is absolutely no point litigating against someone with no assets, as any damages awarded would never materialise, it would be a non starter purely because the costs involved in instigating an action would be unrecoverable.

 

But in this case, it would not be about recovering money, but only about closing a website. Just a means to an end.

[osdset]

But would someone who is running a website be able to(have knowledge to) defend against a slander/libel lawsuit? If they did not attend court,

 

Which is probably the very reason that the site is taken down, to preempt an action, I would imagine that a cease and desist notice is issued to the site owners pending legal action, this gives the site owner a get out clause, and it's far easier to pull the plug on the whole site than trawl through it removing any references.

[debt4get]

surely slander and libel have to untrue...the tales on this website are too the knowledge of the site true...or are countless number of people just lying for hell of it?....and i totally agree about the money...we are in a fight against this govt..in collusion with private companies...who have benefited to the tunes of millions by the plight of the unemployed

[debt4get]

as an aside my father fought for the freedom of free speech in this country...we are now being denied even this

[down'n'out]

Remember this one:- http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/08/benefits-test-company-threatens-critics-with-libel-action/

 

Users of an online carers forum are devastated after their site is closed following threats of legal action.