Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Job adviser targets?


SweetLorraine
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4302 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

Hi,

 

do the JCP job advisers have any sort of weekly/monthly targets to meet? i.e. number of claimants removed from benefits, got back into employment etc;

 

I am trying to get back into the financial services area from which I have recently just lost my job, I have a JSA set of job seeking targets to meet each week which I exceed, yet my adviser doesn't seem happy with that and complains that I am not focused enough!

 

However he now seems to be pushing me towards applying for much lower paid jobs, outside of my work history/experience, which may involve shift work.

 

Any suggestions as to what is going on? Should I be concerned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No there are no targets for JCP advisers to meet to ensure people are removed from benefits.

 

How long were you employed in your previous field and how long have you been unemployed?

 

Not officially, but targets have existed in the recent past, according to this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/08/jobcentres-benefits-sanctions-targets

 

And give a look at this comment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/01/jobcentres-tricking-people-benefit-sanctions?commentpage=2#comment-10205649

I work for the DWP and can confirm that the targets on sanctions have been increased. There has been a real push to sanction as many people as possible with the justification being that it makes people uncomfortable being on benefits. It certainly does that, the forms are complicated and some staff target less able customers for easy sanctions.

We no longer have targets for job starts, these have been replaced with "off flow" targets, basically getting people off JSA, Broken leg? Depressed? Having a baby? It all counts towards our targets as long as they are taken off JSA.

The vast majority of people who work on the front line for the DWP really do try to make a difference but its really frustrating for us when we have to deal with this pointless number chasing from our superiors. Not everyone is blameless but our jobs are made very difficult by these targets.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Poundland"

Link to post
Share on other sites

No there are no targets for JCP advisers to meet to ensure people are removed from benefits.

 

How long were you employed in your previous field and how long have you been unemployed?

 

Actually, there are some indirect ones. It's known as the 'Off flow' performance measure and it measures the percentage of JSA claimants that have ceased benefit after 13 / 26 and 52 weeks on benefit. I'm fairly sure the performance measure is set at local office / district level. Advisers are expected to contribute towards an individual offices or districts performance target (e.g. 80% of JSA claimants who made a claim in April to have signed off by the following March) , although they don't have a set number individually. They are measured in other ways such as number of interviews per day etc. There is a brief mention of this in the latest DWP Annual Report and Accounts for 2011-12 (see page 24).

 

In response to the OP, JSA claimants are usually allowed a 13 week grace period to find employment in their chosen profession / SOC occupational choices before their JSAg is reviewed and amended. Beyond 13 weeks, an adviser will generally insist that a JSA claimant applies for any suitable employment - even if it's lower paid than their previous job. If the OP feels that the adviser is being unreasonable given that the OP feels that they are complying with the JSAg, then I suggest they take it up with the Adviser Manager in the first instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The advisers have a system called ADAPT which is completed to account for their day, they are supposed to have a certain percentage of their covered with customer contact so advisory interviews and yes the support is supposed to help wit the off flow, but there are no targets to remove people from benefits iygwim?

 

If after a period of time between 13 and at the very most 26 weeks you have not been successgul in securing employment in your chosen field then yes customers are required to extend their job search to include other types of employment including a lesser salary etc, after 26 weeks the majoroty of people are advised that tey should be seeking any type of employment that they are both qualified and capable of undertaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi flumps1976,

 

I was made redundant in March this year. I took some time out to deal with family things and a bit of a holiday. I have started looking to get back into work several weeks ago which is when a friend made me aware that I might be entitled to a contribution based JSA for six months. And I am entitled to it.

 

After six months I am not entitled to it anymore - so at most I will get only £1,800 from a pot I have paid into over a number of years.

 

I struggle to understand why the JCP think that I would consider taking a much lower paid job in another work sector, (which would actually harm my prospects of returning to the salary/sector I did work in) so that the DWP can 'save' less than £2k in the short-term.

 

At first the adviser seemed helpful, but now, after eight weeks he seems to be deploying somewhat passive-agressive techniques to persuade me away from considering managerial insurance-type jobs (my previous employ) towards also thinking about basic admin. roles.

 

In truth, if I can't get back inti the insurance sector I'm quite happy to go self-employed and do my own thing as a (struggling) writer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an advisor but as you have been out of work for approx 6 months and do not have a job offer to start your advisor will be looking at you expanding your job search to include any type of employment you are capable of doing and are qualifed to do.

It isn't anything personal it is the way the system has been set up to work.

Are you not entitled to receive income based JSA after your 6 months of contribution based JSA exhausts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...