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

Mark Hoban and DWP caught out re 'sanction targets'


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4088 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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/21/jobcentre-set-targets-benefit-sanctions

 

After grinding my teeth down watching question time, I saw this, suspected for so long and now confirmed.

 

Everyone with me in believing this is not an 'isolated case'?

Edited by estellyn

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Whilst not the DWP, most if not all government departments have league tables for various actions. Some are just as simple as quantifying how many times a telephone rings that isn't answered within 3 rings. In my department, we used to have regional leagues of how much money we could squeeze out of someone when they had become bankrupt as well as how many that were squeezed each month. Some lucky blighters got away with little or nothing to pay, but if an individual's target was low, pressure was placed on the staff by the line manager to up the cases. I was always in the top 5 of the office, as I always thought 'what can I get out of this guy'. Personalities played a huge part, don't like the guy, I'll have him!

 

The Civil Service is governed by targets, don't let anyone say that they aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awful to see it in print like that but I am not surprised, however like the "targets" that are in place for ATOS the government will just deny all knowledge and claim it is an isolated case when we all know that is not the case at all.

 

The government are willfully ignoring that fact that in many areas in the UK there really are hardly any jobs it doesn't matter how much they punish someone for being out of work, you can't work in a job that doesn't exist!

 

Also the last part of the article where the regional manager give examples of things for advisors to look out for so that they can sanction such as picking up kids etc has real implications for people with health problems being unfairly removed from ESA and told to claim JSA as it won't be long until time spent suffering ill health will be enough to lead to sanctions, if this is indeed not already happening.

 

What a horrible state of affairs, and I agree the question time panel this evening was a pretty grim line up, the two women panelists were not quite so bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst not the DWP, most if not all government departments have league tables for various actions. Some are just as simple as quantifying how many times a telephone rings that isn't answered within 3 rings. In my department, we used to have regional leagues of how much money we could squeeze out of someone when they had become bankrupt as well as how many that were squeezed each month. Some lucky blighters got away with little or nothing to pay, but if an individual's target was low, pressure was placed on the staff by the line manager to up the cases. I was always in the top 5 of the office, as I always thought 'what can I get out of this guy'. Personalities played a huge part, don't like the guy, I'll have him!

 

The Civil Service is governed by targets, don't let anyone say that they aren't.

 

There are targets in place for many things for DWP staff. That's not at issue here. The point is that the necessity (or otherwise) for a sanction is not amenable to being dictated by target. And if ministers didn't understand this basic fact, why did they bother to deny the existence of said targets? Why not just say "Yes, there are targets for sanctions! So what?"

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are targets in place for many things for DWP staff. That's not at issue here. The point is that the necessity (or otherwise) for a sanction is not amenable to being dictated by target. And if ministers didn't understand this basic fact, why did they bother to deny the existence of said targets? Why not just say "Yes, there are targets for sanctions! So what?"

 

Absolutely, it's the same as targets for finding people fit for work - people either are or are not fit for work, it shouldn't be something that could be changed by the pressure of targets. People either are or are not actively seeking and available for work - an increased target for an adviser does not create more people who aren't complying with their jsag or work programme requirements. It just creates an incentive to take advantage of the most vulnerable, in order to massage government statistics and put weight behind the 'benefit scrounger' rhetoric.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

And let me stress that, while they could say that at end of the day they saving the taxpayers' purse, what happens is that the DWP is shifting public resources from the unemployed to the Work Programme contractors. This government. like any other before and after this, is increasing public spending but reducing the welfare offer. It's another way to move money form the poor's pockets into the 1% richest.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my department, we used to have regional leagues of how much money we could squeeze out of someone when they had become bankrupt as well as how many that were squeezed each month. Some lucky blighters got away with little or nothing to pay, but if an individual's target was low, pressure was placed on the staff by the line manager to up the cases. I was always in the top 5 of the office, as I always thought 'what can I get out of this guy'. Personalities played a huge part, don't like the guy, I'll have him!

.

 

You, sir, sound like a gentleman and a scholar. Not only do I feel warm and fuzzy at your contribution to this thread -- I feel genuinely inspired as to your contribution to humanity. I salute you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article on the same theme today in the Guardian

"
....by Friday more jobcentre workers had contacted
the Guardian
to say that targets and league tables, and incentives, are indeed in place. In one jobcentre, it was alleged, the reward for sanctioning a jobseeker is a horribly uncharitable Easter egg...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article on the same theme today in the Guardian

"
....by Friday more jobcentre workers had contacted
the Guardian
to say that targets and league tables, and incentives, are indeed in place. In one jobcentre, it was alleged, the reward for sanctioning a jobseeker is a horribly uncharitable Easter egg...

 

 

Hope the Easter Egg chokes them! :x Almost beggars belief! Instead of 50 pieces of silver, a cheap, probably non-organic, non-Trade Fair "chocolate" egg.

 

Impecunious! :shock:

Edited by impecunious
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the practice of culling animals if there's too many of them...but unlike seals, we come back after a few months to be culled again...and again.

 

Oh dear! I need a cuppa and a KitKat to cheer me up today! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian is not letting up on this.....

 

The Malvern jobcentre newsletter states:

 

"We are now into the new sanctions regime … and we are currently one of the worst performing offices with sanction benefit referrals and unless we improve we will put under special measures. That will mean staff from other offices and the performance team coming into Malvern and looking at all our processes to see how we can improve our SBR [stricter benefit regime] performance."

 

The newsletter adds that the jobcentre will have

 

"little say" on subsequent recommendations and its staff may have their "personal individual performances" monitored to "achieve the end result".

 

"We do not want this," the newsletter goes on. "My plea to you is to identify SBR issues and refer to DMA [sanctioning] where appropriate." The document, passed to LabourList, adds that overall performance should be 5% of the "live load".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am glad they are not being able to sweep it under the carpet so to speak. This needs sorting out, they know damn well there aren't the jobs available, and people can only do so much to get one, I swear that a jc worker yesterday was trying to goad my daughter into a row during a phone call, luckily I was with daughter at the time and she therefore had a witness, the errors at the jobcentre lately with appointments etc is diabolical, am wondering if its all pre sanction game play, seems its now going to be necessary to record job centre visits and not just atos.

 

Just for the record, some of the jobcentre workers are fine and I feel for them with this, they are being bullied really into doing this. For heavens sake this govt need outing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're still coming. The Guardian reports on the Lords, rejecting an inquiry into whether jobcentres have sanctions targets. It's no surprise that the Welfare Minister, Lord Freud, labelled as an 'out of touch hypocrite', responsible for the introduction of the bedroom tax, who, incidentally owns a second London home just for occasional use worth £1.9 million, is at the heart of this.

 

However, pressure from the Guardian features opposition Margaret Hodge, chair of the public accounts committee leaving this message...

"
As a consequence of the policy it seems that those claimants that do not understand the system … are most likely to have their benefits sanctioned as they are easy targets … there will be suicides over this, mark my words.

 

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone with me in believing this is not an 'isolated case'?
I have absolutely no doubt that, not only is this not an isolated case, but that this is a government policy and has been for a long time. There is no other explanation for the number of cases I come across where the claimant has been treated completely unjustly.

 

2 examples:

 

1. A couple we know were evicted and found temporary accommodation. They informed the Job Centre using the correct forms that they had moved (and the Job Centre acknowledge this is the case). They were sanctioned because they failed to turn up for an interview as the appointment was sent to their old address. They have been denied any come-back.

 

2. Someone else we know was sent two appointments, one for the Job Centre and the other for one of these employment firms - both at the SAME TIME in different towns. He spoke to both explaining the situation and both told him that he would be sanctioned if he didn't turn up. He was sanctioned.

 

Not even DWP can be this incompetent - it has to be policy.

Edited by steven4064

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...