Mandate by WP provider - Guidance notes

[Mr.P]

Blame some of the guys posting on the Ingeus thread for this one... On the whatdotheyknow.com web site, a FoI request was made to the DWP in respect to mandation notices & sanctions issued by WP providers. Of particular interest is one of the attachments in the DWP response.

The original request: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/threats_of_saction_issued_by_wor

The pdf of interest: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/152662/response/376951/attach/5/WP%20JR%20Assurance%20letter%20v%20final%203.pdf

 

Well worth reading, and I'd suggest printing out copies to use in an appeal if the WP provider's notice does not contain the Annex A wording in full.

[Mr.P]

Also of interest is: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/refuse_to_sign

The response: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/115323/response/308770/attach/2/FoI%201886%2031.08.12.pdf indicates that "signing of a Work Programme provider’s action plan and/or agreement form are entirely voluntary and no sanctions would be applied to any claimant who refused to sign them"

 

So threats of sanctions for declining to sign a DPA waiver, an "action plan", or any other agreement form are unfounded. The above quoted pdf would (should) form the basis of an appeal should a provider attempt to raise a sanction if a "client" does not wish to sign any paperwork.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Mr.P

[Mr.P]

More from the whatdotheyknow: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/recording_interactions_with_work

 

1. Can a Work Programme participant record interactions with his Work Programme adviser, either video or audio?

 

2. Please provide any information held by the Department that confirms that Work Programme participants cannot record interactions with their Work Programme advisers.

There is currently no Work Programme provider guidance available specifically outlining the process providers must follow if a participant wishes to record their interactions with their provider. [...]

We would advise if a participant wishes to record their interactions with a provider, they should request this in advance, so that where possible appropriate arrangements, such as finding a private room, can be made. [...]In addition, the participant should only use the recording taken for domestic purposes and not, for example, publish it on the internet, which could breach data protection principles.

 

Note the use of phrase "We would advise" - This indicates a grudging acceptance that a participant may record proceedings but is not required to make a "request in advance", if at all. Indeed, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 makes allowances for a private individual to use covert means to record meetings.

[jasta11]

Yes, a classic case of 'government speak' there. Translated as 'We don't want you doing this but can't stop you'

 

As far as I've read up on the law re audio recording, you can do it totally covertly as long as you don't inadvertently record anyone else nearby and that it's for your own domestic use for you to transcribe from. The other person is quite at liberty to record you too.

 

It's common enough - I'm sure that for every company that states 'This call may be recorded for training purposes and to improve our service to you' there are 50 who are recording and don't even bother with the message. I'd imagine that any service which deals with complaints would especially record every call.

 

In any event, if you're trying to catch out a WP then it's a bit pointless warning them in advance that you're recording them! Just do it.

[Mr.P]

Another FoI request that caught my attention: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/outsourced_contracts_travel_expe

 

It would appear that Ingeus are refunding travel expenses when using a car, at the rate of 20p per mile. Yet according to DWP guidelines, it should 25p per mile - Even at the higher rate, it doesn't cover the cost of running an average car.

[jasta11]

Interesting - I never knew this, but then I use public transport. Doesn't surprise me that Ingeus would do this though, once again thinking that we wouldn't be any the wiser.

 

The DWP reply also clearly states yet again that 'we would expect providers to cover the full cost of public transport by the most appropriate route'. Something else to show Ingeus when they refuse to pay people's fares.

[Mr.P]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/access_to_universal_jobmatch_by

Do JSA work programme participants have to allow Providers like A4E access to their Universal Jobmatch account

Claimants will never be asked or mandated to provide any third party or DWP staff with their Government Gateway User ID; this is personal to the claimant and must not be shared.

At present, access to a claimant's Universal Jobmatch account is only available to DWP staff, and only if a claimant has given consent for DWP to access their account.

So..... If a WP adviser demands access to your UJ account, and they are daft enough to issue the "directive" in writing. send a copy to the DWP along with a strongly worded complaint

 

Also worth reading the DWP manual issued to JCP staff: Universal Jobmatch Toolkit, (current as of 22nd March 2013).

[Mr.P]

I asked how many complaints had been received by the DWP, and get this response: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reimbursement_of_expenses_by_wp

 

In a nutshell, any/all complaints are handled by the provider and the DWP wash their hands of responsibility. As for travel expenses, if the provider fails to refund, file a complaint 'cos the DWP won't do anything.

 

Going to have to push this one a bit more....

[Mr.P]

Update: Had a follow up to the original FoI request regarding travel expenses and complaints about not being reimbursed. Aside from restating the obvious:

Participants attending provision are entitled to a refund of the travel costs they incur. It is the responsibility of providers to pay the participant’s travel costs. [...] The DWP issues guidance to all providers about the payment of travel costs and page 28 within the following link refers http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pg-chapter-2.pdf

 

They then go on to say:

Following a search of our records I can confirm that A4e, Ingeus and Seetec have not received any complaints relating to failings to refund of travel expenses since the Work Programme began.

A claim that I have difficulty in believing judging by the number of complaints voiced on this and other forums.

 

Bottom line: If the provider refuses to refund travel expenses for any reason, direct them to chapter 2 of the Provider Guidance notes AND file a written complaint with the DWP - Then they will have data to provide next time someone asks "How many complaints has the DWP received regarding ... ".

[Jmulv]

The universal job match thing is interesting, I was told by my advisor I have to sign up to UJ and then give them access.... not at one point did she mention it is not mandatory.

 

I'd rather not have them snooping in my account to be honest with you. Is it mandatory to sign up to UJ yet?

[antone]

The universal job match thing is interesting, I was told by my advisor I have to sign up to UJ and then give them access.... not at one point did she mention it is not mandatory.

 

I'd rather not have them snooping in my account to be honest with you. Is it mandatory to sign up to UJ yet?

 

If an adviser at the Jobcentre issues you with a written Jobseeker's Direction then you would be obliged to create an account. Otherwise, no, it is not currently mandatory to sign up. WP advisers cannot mandate you, only JCP staff.

 

Under no circumstances can you be compelled to give the DWP access to your account.

[san_d]

Slightly off topic but still relevant. back in the grand old days of "New Deal", the provider created an account for me on their own job aggregator ( a precursor to the UJM) and mandated that I check it daily and leave a feedback on each vacancy suggested, or else they would sanction my JSA.

 

I never logged in and nobody ever sanctioned me.

[jasta11]

They wouldn't have had time to check everyone's account, that's probably why - just a vague threat to make you do it. They barely have the time to sign people these days, let alone start checking everyone's account.

 

They're constantly saying that it's 'more convenient and faster' to put everything on UJ. Rubbish; it's far faster to simply read a paper copy of your jobsearch, (and they don't even have the time for this either!).