Kicked out of Job Centre, Advisor Impersonating Manager - What Now?

[RealName]

Delightful experience at the job centre today. The advisor I was seeing today went through some terms in my jobseeker's agreement. She asked me if I'd applied to an agency like I was asked to back in February. I told her that I hadn't as the list of agencies I was provided with requested personal information, including account details, without offering any terms and conditions as to both why they needed this information or what kind of payment they would be taking for their services. She then told me that she would be raising a sanction doubt as I hadn't adhered to the terms of my agreement. I informed her that this issue was from months ago and I was under the impression it had already been dealt with as the advisor I was seeing at the time accepted my reasons for not signing up with one of the agencies offered. She then requested the advisor's name, so I told her only for her then to tell me that that advisor no longer worked there so they would be unable to look into it.

 

She then continued to fill out the sanction doubt, so I asked her if she would hand her details over to a company without being provided with any details. She declined to comment but told me that as I hadn't adhered to my agreement I can't receive my money until the issue has been resolved. At this point I asked to speak to the manager, to which she replied 'I am the manager'. Silly fool. I pointed it out to her that her name tag said 'Advisor' at which point she said 'I'll just go and get a manager'. When she came back she informed me that all the managers were currently busy so I would be unable to speak to one. I then asked for her surname as her name tag only provided me with her first name. She gave me her surname and I wrote down her name so that I wouldn't forget it. The moment I started to do this she then asked me to leave the building, which I did after I finished writing down her name.

 

What happens now? I wasn't provided with any information. Do I go in as normal on my next signing on date? Do I have to wait for a letter from them? Should I phone them? Something else?

 

I'm also going to make a complaint that an advisor impersonated a manager and I'd like to know the correct procedure for lodging such a complaint.

 

Thanks

[jabba jones]

I believe advisors are band C's which is a management grade. Someone else who works in the JCP should be able to confirm that.

 

Probably not what you were requesting, but not impersonating a manager either.

[RealName]

I believe advisors are band C's which is a management grade. Someone else who works in the JCP should be able to confirm that.

 

Probably not what you were requesting, but not impersonating a manager either.

I rang earlier and they confirmed what you just said. So advisors can pretend to be managers, but their lie is covered by having a "management" grade job. Lovely. I wonder how many people this works on...

 

I'm also being made to go in again tomorrow to sign in again. I had a job interview that day, but I've had to cancel it as tomorrow is the only open slot at the job centre in the next five working days. The job centre hinder my search for employment once again. Brilliant. I wonder what would have happened had I not placed the phone call. A letter obviously would not have arrived on time and nobody would have been available to answer an early phone call tomorrow.

[down'n'out]

Hello RealName.

 

You need to be cautious as to what you put forward to the JCP,

 

From your earlier post:-

I told her that I hadn't as the list of agencies I was provided with requested personal information, including account details, without offering any terms and conditions as to both why they needed this information or what kind of payment they would be taking for their services.

Stating that "you had not", could be seen as a refusal.

How did you find out as to what information the agencies required? Did you apply and then find out what info they wanted? If you did, then you should change your wording. Such as (possibly a poor) example:-

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

I did apply, but I was very suspicious as to their request for personal information which included my account details, and was not willing to give them such information before first knowing the terms and conditions and as to what the information was required for. But as they refused me that information, I would not supply my personal information, so they would not accept me.

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

[RealName]

Hello RealName.

How did you find out as to what information the agencies required? Did you apply and then find out what info they wanted? If you did, then you should change your wording.

I didn't apply at all. I wasted two hours looking at a number of sites for local companies. I wasn't able to apply for them as providing the information up front was the first step in the procedure. I'm not stupid, so I'm not going to provide a company with a load of my personal information without knowing why they need it or what kind of payment they will be taking for the services.

 

I haven't received the letter regarding the sanction yet, but when I do would something like this be enough?:

 

'I attempted to apply for a number of agencies in the list my advisor provided me with. However, I was unable to complete the application with them due to them requesting personal information without informing me of why they required it. I informed my advisor of why I was unable to join one of the agencies in February. She agreed with my reason and as such I assumed the request for me to sign up with an agency had been resolved.'

 

It's similar to yours, but I'm saying 'attempted to apply' rather than 'did apply', which is the truth. Should I provide more information than this or would this be sufficient? There's probably some sort of law I can quote which says that no-one can be forced to sign a contract without being made aware of the terms and conditions and I wonder if I should include this in my response as well. Would making more of a point of how the end date for me having done this was back in February and they've said nothing about it until July, which is five months later, be worth including as well?

 

I find it ridiculous that they are trying to sanction me for this. The only reason this has happened is because I have been doing the same things to look for work in the past two months, of which there is a lot. The advisor today told me that she didn't feel that I was doing enough. However, when I asked her what else there was I could do to look for work she was unable to come up with anything that I wasn't already doing.

[andydd]

I know what you are going through.......But Ill add that you will probably find it easier just to 'play the game', fisrtly amae sure your agreement is upto scratch, you can modify it, if any parts of it are unreasoanble, then just make sure you do apply for jobs/agancies you said you would, you cant beat the DWP and arguing with them is like hitting your head against a wall !

 

Yes..it is riduculous you have ben sanctioned in this way but it happens to thousands of people, I had one as well for a completely stupid reason but I appealed successfully, this is your next step, dont rant and rave just put forward reasonable well thought reasons.

 

Andy

[down'n'out]

I wasn't able to apply for them as providing the information up front was the first step in the procedure.

 

OK, thanks for the clarification. So yes, what you have put forward would be correct. I would also include what personal information was being requested/required by the agency.

The fact that you had explained the situation to your previous advisor, and they had accepted that (5 months previously) should also be included.

[RealName]

OK, thanks for the clarification. So yes, what you have put forward would be correct. I would also include what personal information was being requested/required by the agency.

The fact that you had explained the situation to your previous advisor, and they had accepted that (5 months previously) should also be included.

Cheers. I still haven't received the letter but is it correct procedure for my money to have been stopped until the outcome has been decided? Last time they attempted to sanction me I still received the money while the decision was pending, but on this occasion my money has been stopped until the decision is made, at least according to the manager I spoke to at the job centre yesterday.

[RealName]

This is ridiculous. I've just received two letters in the post. The first is about the sanction doubt being raised. Apparently it isn't about the fact that I didn't join an agency back in February like requested, but is because they don't think I've been doing enough to look for work. This is crazy. I'm doing everything realistically possible and then some. Even the advisor I spoke to last week was unable to think of anything else I could do to try and look for work. I haven't been given the opportunity to appeal yet as a decision hasn't been made. The letter just informs me that a sanction doubt has been raised for this reason.

 

The second letter is nothing but a string of lies. It claims I used abusive language and made an insulting remark towards the advisor. Neither of which is true. The most offensive thing I said to her was 'Your name tag says advisor'. If JCP staff consider this offensive then we'd all better watch our tongues. They also claim that I refused to comply with a request to not use electronic equipment in their office. Again this is untrue.

[frank_begbie]

You quickly have to realize that you are just another tick in their good deeds account, the more ticks they get the safer their job is.

 

Just think of them as Gestapo interrogators. The less you tell them the better.

 

On no account tell them the truth, unless its to your advantage.

[RealName]

The letter just arrived confirming that I have been given a two week sanction because for two weeks I "cannot be treated as actively seeking work". This is a very unspecific reason in my opinion. They've failed to provide me with the GL24 form, so I'll have to collect it from the job centre. This is completely different from happened the last time a doubt was raised. The last time my money was paid while the doubt was raised and I was allowed to state my case before they made a decision. This time my money was stopped immediately and they've decided to sanction me without allowing me to state my case.

 

How should I appeal against this? Would something along these lines be sufficient:

 

During the stated period I have been doing everything in my job seeker's agreement to look for work. This involves looking online, looking in newspapers, looking in shop windows, contacting companies via telephone and asking friends and family if they are aware of any job vacancies. I am not aware of any other methods which would be effective in helping me find work nor have I been made aware of any. When I was first informed by an advisor at JCP that she felt I was not doing enough to look for work I asked her what else there was I could be doing and she was unable to provide me with an answer.

 

Should I make a point of how if they haven't put something in my job seeker's agreement, or in writing, then they can't complain that I haven't done said 'something else'? I'm not sure how I would go about wording this.

[frank_begbie]

RealName.

Unfortunately you seem to be falling into the same trap that countless other job seekers have, in that you have rights.

 

You are just a number and "numbers" have no rights, only functions.

 

Your function is to fill quotas, for the Advisors.

 

Your function is to either get a job, or they stop your benefit for at least 2 weeks, in either case they get a nice + mark in their exercise books

when they show it to Teacher, and a good report at the end of term.

 

You can try, and I wish you the best of luck, (suppose youi have nothing to lose), but I would be amazed if they overturn the decision to sanction you.

 

Its all about saving money and if it isn't you it will be someone else.

 

Everyone has to take his or her turn in this cruel game.

[Nick]

RealName.

Unfortunately you seem to be falling into the same trap that countless other job seekers have, in that you have rights.

 

You are just a number and "numbers" have no rights, only functions.

 

Your function is to fill quotas, for the Advisors.

 

Your function is to either get a job, or they stop your benefit for at least 2 weeks, in either case they get a nice + mark in their exercise books

when they show it to Teacher, and a good report at the end of term.

 

You can try, and I wish you the best of luck, (suppose youi have nothing to lose), but I would be amazed if they overturn the decision to sanction you.

 

Its all about saving money and if it isn't you it will be someone else.

 

Everyone has to take his or her turn in this cruel game.

 

the clue is in the name Job Seekers Allowance, if you are not actively seeking a job then you should not be entitled. I was on income support as a lone parent 4 years ago ands actively continued to apply from 3 - 10 jobs per week, I regularly attended work focus interviews (although I was not required to) and have nothing but praise for the JCP advisors who helped me get back into work. They have a tough job as they are damned if they do and damned if they don't

[SWLABR9]

It wasn't called that before and it shouldn't be called that now. It's all part of the plot to remove any sense of entitlement to outof work benefits so eventually it can be replaced by a private insurance model which will be far less effective and far more profitable for political backers. Calling it JSA is one step on the road to screwing us out of our entitlements and it should be seen as such.

[antone]

the clue is in the name Job Seekers Allowance, if you are not actively seeking a job then you should not be entitled. I was on income support as a lone parent 4 years ago ands actively continued to apply from 3 - 10 jobs per week, I regularly attended work focus interviews (although I was not required to) and have nothing but praise for the JCP advisors who helped me get back into work. They have a tough job as they are damned if they do and damned if they don't

 

I'm an ex JCP staffer, though was never a Jobcentre Adviser. So I'm glad my colleagues were able to help you.

 

That said, I'd rather both you and frank begbie took this dispute somewhere else. A long time ago in a galaxy far away would be the best place. Claimants often have legitimate complaints, and staff work to rules that are, in general, hard for claimants to understand. Flame wars between claimants, staff, and righteously concerned citizens aren't allowed here, so I'd ask everyone to think carefully about what they post.

 

I ask, I tell. I really, really don't want to have to insist.

[postggj]

just a quick question on this

 

sanctions have been mentioned and stopping benefits for 2 weeks

 

may i ask how people are expected to meet basic necessities of life

 

many people on benefits have pre-payment utility metres, what about food, basic hygene products

 

are you saying this is taken away from them and their is no support left

 

what about ECHR and the right to life

 

i would like to know the answer as i am lucky enough to have not needed to claim benefit for a long time and if true,

 

why has this goverment policy not been challenged

[rebel11]

Here's some info:- http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employment/jobseekers/contactjobcentreplus/dg_186391

This is just an example that complaints are investigated.

 

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/reports-and-consultations/reports/parliamentary/small-mistakes,-big-consequences/15

[RealName]

There's been a rather interesting development today.

 

Since a decision had already been made I wasn't sure if I was still able to do the reconsideration stage prior to the appeal, so I phoned them this morning to find out, discovering that I was still able to do it. There was a lot of toing and froing when I requested the list of reasons for the decision having been made. Both head office in Newcastle and my local branch declined to provide me with it. Newcastle initially claimed that as my local branch had dealt with issuing my sanction (obviously a lie ) they would be unable to send me it and I would have to get it from my local branch instead. My local branch told me Newcastle would have to send it.

 

During the initial phone call with Newcastle they informed me that they would be able to make a reconsideration appointment for me with my local branch. I declined the offer and told them that I would do it myself shortly. During the conversation with my local branch they told me that there was no such thing as appointments regarding reconsiderations.

 

Obviously someone was lying. I phoned Newcastle again and this time the lady I spoke to agreed to send the list of reasons to me and made a reconsideration appointment at my local job centre for later on today. Also, for the first time ever, on the fifth time of my asking, I was actually provided with the information for why I have been sanctioned. However, the person I spoke to herself said that there was 'surprisingly very little detail' and that as a result she couldn't be entirely sure of why my benefits were sanctioned. All the sanction doubt said was that I 'hadn't adhered to my job seeker's agreement'. I informed the person on the phone that I had done everything within my job seeker's agreement but the advisor I spoke to last week told me that she didn't feel I was doing enough to look for work and I asked if this was what the reason might be. She told me it was possible, but she wasn't so sure. She then went through my job seeker's agreement asking me individually if I'd done the various tasks. I told her that I had done them all until she asked about signing on with an agency. I informed her of my previously stated reasons for not being able to complete this process and that I assumed the issue had already been resolved. She agreed with my reasoning and then proceeded going through the rest of the tasks of my job seeker's agreement, this time listing them without waiting for a response as to whether or not I had done them, instead asking me at the end if there was anything I hadn't done.

 

Now this is where it gets interesting. One of the things she listed was that I am required to visit four companies in person a week. At no point have I been asked to do this. So this means that at some point somebody has modified my job seekers' agreement to make it appear as though I am supposed to be doing this, possibly in the last two weeks in an attempt to justify their decision to sanction me. I have a couple of questions surrounding this. I have a copy of my job seeker's agreement from the last time I was aware of it being modified. However, this was back in February. Given the long period of time between now and then, would this still be able to stand up as evidence for me not being aware of this modification? Also, if someone makes a change to a person's job seeker's agreement would it show who did it in some sort of change log?

 

Thanks

[missy2006]

Whats stopping you recording the conversation when your being interview by these mini-nazi types. Surely any lies they say can be thrown back in their faces. or are you not allowed to record your conversations without asking their permission first.

[antone]

Whats stopping you recording the conversation when your being interview by these mini-nazi types. Surely any lies they say can be thrown back in their faces. or are you not allowed to record your conversations without asking their permission first.

 

Yeah, look - there are current and prior Jobcentre staff who post here, and the forum would be a worse place if they left. So while I understand the frustration, it would be appreciated if you could express it...differently. The JCP staff don't get paid for the advice they offer here, and it is genuinely helpful.

[missy2006]

Ok fair enough but a lot of them are nothing but jobsworths who seem to get off knowing they wield a little bit of power over the poor unfortunates who have to do as they say or risk getting some of their benefits cut. I suppose it depends on the area you live in, some may be very helpful but some could be like a few in the Co-Durham area who are utterly shocking in the treatment of the people who have to deal with them.

Again what's stopping anyone recording any interviews they may have even if its just for your own notes.

[RealName]

Whats stopping you recording the conversation when your being interview by these mini-nazi types. Surely any lies they say can be thrown back in their faces. or are you not allowed to record your conversations without asking their permission first.

I'm covertly recording all interviews there from now on for my own safety. They've already lied that I've been abusive and offensive and have informed me that if such an incident happens again the police will be contacted. If they choose to call the police when I've done nothing wrong, this is the only way I can prove my innocence, so they've given me no choice in the matter.

 

You can record them without asking their permission as long as you don't make the recording public (other people could be revealing sensitive information in the background). They're likely to refuse to let you record them, so doing it covertly is the only way. My local job centre definitely wouldn't allow it as they banned the use of all electronic equipment (including mobile phones) a while back after a job seeker caught a security guard assaulting him on camera.

[flumps1976]

You are supposed to request permission from the office before you record any conversations at the JCP office, this is to safeguard and protect other members of the public who may not appreciate their details being recorded.

If you request for the interviews to be recorded members of staff have every right to refuse being recorded and the interview needs to be conducted in a private interview room to ensure that only your information is captured.

Mobile phones are not allowed and most offices state that they should not be used on the signs outside the office just the same as no food or drink to be consumed.

I have to say with mobile phones it is very frustrating when you are trying to interact with someone and they are more interested in playing with their phone as opposed to participating in the signing or interviews.

[RealName]

Perhaps you're supposed to, but we're not exactly doing anything wrong if we do record without consent are we? I consulted CAB on this matter and they said that it was perfectly acceptable for me to record all my interviews there without their consent.

 

After all, what other choice do I have? If I don't record the conversations and they choose to call the police on me, making a false claim that I have been verbally abusive, it will be my word (one person) against the job centre (multiple people) and we both know who they'll believe. I would prefer not to record, but JCP have forced my hand.

[missy2006]

Surely it is best to record any interviews with the JCP just in case they blatantly lie as to what they have said to you. Maybe even though you wont be able to use the recordings them knowing you have proof of their lies would change their minds.