Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A South Korean court sentenced Lee Jae Yong to two and a half years in prison. View the full article
    • To add to the weight of evidence this is fraud, do you have (or can you get) proof of what the cost of the Special Delivery was?. If they paid for the weight of an envelope containing a piece of paper, they won't have paid for the cost of sending a laptop (given it is much heavier) ...... You should also contact ActionFraud.
    • @dx100uk, I'm afraid you've got this wrong. My fear of compromising my defence wasn't with regards my response to DCB Legal's initial letter per se. It was more in reference to any subsequent advice posted on this thread by other forum members and I was only being wary due to the numerous instances when some have cautioned about parking companies and their legal reps trawling these pages to stay a step ahead.   As I did also state however, I'm happy to provide full details of that initial reply to DCB Legal and have therefore reproduced it below. Thanks.    
    • China's economy grew at 2.3% for the year, making it the only major economy to see growth last year. View the full article
    • more: extend the contract line by....   contract exists between the claimant and the landowner which assigns the claimant the right to enter contracts with the public and make claims in their own name. I put the claimant to strict proof that such a contract exists.   1st few lines like this:   1.I am the defendant in this matter.   Any documentary evidence relied upon by me in this, my statement will be referred to and produced as exhibits RSS1, exhibit RSS2 and so on, and are labelled and attached accordingly.   All exhibits are listed below List of Exhibits    2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, unless indicated otherwise.   3. I am the registered of the vehicle, xxxxxx   4. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.   just sign and date at the end no statement of truth is needed sorry.   dx        
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Forced mandatory work sceme


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2237 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello people

 

Thank you for your help on my other thread Now i have a new issue:shock:

 

I am with a jobcoach and he said that i havent worked for just over one year ago.

 

so then i asked what does this mean he said that if his manager agrees that i would have to do It and if i dont they will stop my money.

 

I told him this was somthing i dont agree to and that its slave labour and a breech of my human rights.

 

The advicer said its wellfare and if his manager says i have to do it i have to do it.

 

he did not understand why i wasnt happy I said why would i work beside someone thats earning money and i am not.

 

I have done a bit of research online and people say charity shops are in on it.

 

I thought i would be good to help out but why when forced in to something I dont want to do,

 

I told him that i would work for minimum wage only as its in human rights act under slave labour

 

do you people think there is anywhere around this and could i sue them and any provider as i do not consent to slavery

 

Thanks for and advice

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello SuperG,

 

I'm in exactly the same boat at the moment. I started a thread yesterday and there's a useful link from a Mr.P which outlines what they can and can't do on a MWA. Have a read.

I agree with you that it's slave labour and disgustingly cynical this close to Xmas to get us slaves to do jobs for free that should be fully paid. Sickening in fact, but there's no way out of it - except to get a paid job, but then if we could do that then we wouldn't be signing on. Catch 22.

 

Good luck, and as they said in "Midnight Express" - May your sentence pass quickly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply. I have read that you can with draw concent so they cant pass your info aound. I cant work out how they can force someone to work when its under human rights surely if we dont consent to it and also tell the providers we dont consent they how can they do it Human can we take the provider and the jokeshop to court.

 

Thanks sg

Link to post
Share on other sites

MWA = Mandatory Work Activity. As it was explained to me by my "work coach" adviser - you CAN refuse to do it by signing off. If you want to be paid JSA we have to do it. Failure to "engage" (IE, turn up) leads to 4 week sanction. Don't turn up again, it's 13 week sanction. Nice, huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I am still sure that we can stop this some how I was quite happy at first to go in a charity shop but now i found out that they are in on it. I do know that they dont like it if you report them to your MP. I told them that i was not scared of them and if i could take them to court i would think he was shocked at that.

 

I am just reading a few bits on the internet now but surely some one will know something

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well please let me know if you come up with anything. Everything I've read seems to show they've now got it locked down tight after that Cait Reilly Poundland ruling a few years back.

 

Best of luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wasting your time.

 

MWA has been ruled lawful even in the european courts.

 

It is not against your human rights.

 

I do however agree that organisations that make profit for private (Eg non charities etc) should be barred from the MWA programme

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys I am not going to gave up just looking at human rights it says (( The law also protects you from forced labour – forcing you to work under the threat of punishment that you have not agreed to accept ))

and (No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.) it does mention

 

(( Nor does it apply to work the government requires you to do in a state of emergency. Finally, it does not include normal civic obligations, such as maintaining a building if you are a landlord or deducting taxes from your employees’ wages if you are an employer.)))

 

I will do more research they other thing is if we withdraw concent for information to be sent then they cant contact the companys or pass your information on

 

might be worth a try

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well guys I am not going to gave up just looking at human rights it says (( The law also protects you from forced labour – forcing you to work under the threat of punishment that you have not agreed to accept ))

and (No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.) it does mention

 

(( Nor does it apply to work the government requires you to do in a state of emergency. Finally, it does not include normal civic obligations, such as maintaining a building if you are a landlord or deducting taxes from your employees’ wages if you are an employer.)))

 

I will do more research they other thing is if we withdraw concent for information to be sent then they cant contact the companys or pass your information on

 

might be worth a try

 

Just a quick observation on this one, in claiming JSA you are accepting the terms and conditions of your claim. As such you have agreed to accept the 'punishment' of a sanction for non compliance with the terms and conditions of your claim. If you don't wish to be held to those terms then your option is to cease your claim. I understand its not a simple as that in terms of simply signing off but those conditions exist just as they would in any other agreement.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not worth a try, It has ALREADY BEEN DONE

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28158483

 

Your best approach is to try and work within the framework and hold them to the rules.

 

It cannot be "forced Labour" for the simple reason, you can sign off. You are not imprisoned.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's forced labour as there's threats and you are forced to be there under duress and does anyone seriously expect people to choose to starve? Be made homeless etc

 

You could create a badge for whilst you are there to say you are under duress

I think people ae looking into IT as slave labour but I'm unaware of it's gone beyond looking

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chester, yes - there are threats of sanction but under the human rights act if it is as quoted above you're agreeing to them under the conditionality of your claim.

 

As such there is a choice, it might not be a choice you'd like to make but there is a choice. Every contract and agreement has a mutual obligation, they do 'x' and you do 'y', if they simply decided not to hold up their side of the deal then you could rightfully say that the contract/agreement had been breached and withdraw from your obligations. This instance is no different, if someone fails to meet their obligation under their JSAg then the sanction for doing so is clearly laid out.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well guys I am not going to gave up just looking at human rights it says (( The law also protects you from forced labour – forcing you to work under the threat of punishment that you have not agreed to accept ))

and (No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.) it does mention

 

(( Nor does it apply to work the government requires you to do in a state of emergency. Finally, it does not include normal civic obligations, such as maintaining a building if you are a landlord or deducting taxes from your employees’ wages if you are an employer.)))

 

I will do more research they other thing is if we withdraw concent for information to be sent then they cant contact the companys or pass your information on

 

might be worth a try

You are looking at article 4 of the ECHR, and as others have stated it's been tried as a defence against workfare already and failed.

HM Gov as embodied by the DWP and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ian Duncan Smith) can and have (in the case of the Wilson Reilly ruling) retrospectively changed the law to suit the governments agenda. I would fully expect them to rigorously attack any attempt to subvert workfare by legal means, and most people just don't have the resources in terms of finance and legal assistance to mount a challenge to the government.

 

The best you can hope to do is as SabreSheep says, hold JCP/DWP to the rules, (or at least try to).

 

I believe workfare to be a a particularly nasty method of supplying free labour to companies and so-called charities, coupled with sanctions for non compliance of other JCP imposed Muppetry it's a cosh to bludgeon the unwilling into compliance.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with odset.

 

Legally they are in the right.

 

Morally that is a different situation. One I feel that the government is ont he wrong side on. BUT many people support their approach.

 

It amazes me how many people bullied by the government vote for it or refuse to vote at all. Whilst there is some argument that they are the same, voting for someone that is not in power reduces their majority :p

 

EG Green Party promote a citizens income for everyone that fulfills BASIC needs. I like this ideaas it removes the nessasary expense of the beuocracy in enforcing JSA/ESA etc. BILLIONS would be saved :p

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the DWP can use the old 'you haven't worked for x years so your skills will now be outdated (even if they arent) and this is valuable work experience to get you back into the employment market' - or similar tech-speak. Work Providers in particular excel at this type of reasoning.

 

Of course we all know it's slave labour of a sort, but they can always find logical-sounding ways to justify it; ie it's 'helping' you. As has been said, best thing to do is stick with it, know the rules and don't let the employer you end up with take undue advantage of you.

 

Hope you get somewhere decent - it need not be a bad experience; while I was at A4e I took a 3 month placement with a charity shop just to get away from A4e. I expected nothing from the shop but to my huge surprise it was run by really nice people who didn't exploit me and I actually enjoyed it that much I'd have accepted a paid job there - I actually found it a welcome change to my usual hectic admin jobs. I hope you get somewhere similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This does make me a little angry, ok morally it may be very wrong, but, if you have been on JSA for x amount of time is it not right that you start earning it a little and do not just expect it. Maybe i am wrong because i have only been on JSA for 9 weeks once in my 14 year work history, but it does stench of people wanting something for nothing, when i was on jsa i would arrive suited and booted and would have actually looked for jobs, others turned up pretty much in pj's or stinking of booze and just got signed for another fortnight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people would to some degree agree with you tezza

 

However the system is not fit for purpose and does not really support people into employment. Instead it is focussed on sacntioning by any means possible. Now the system is about sanctions and not about employment.

 

Also somethign for nothing? MOST people claiming have or even ARE paying into the system. Saying something for nothing is not accurate.

 

INSTEAD support should be given to those that need it and those unwilling to work should be the target of sanctions. No those generally trying to get off the system as quickly as possible

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people would to some degree agree with you tezza

 

However the system is not fit for purpose and does not really support people into employment. Instead it is focussed on sacntioning by any means possible. Now the system is about sanctions and not about employment.

 

Also somethign for nothing? MOST people claiming have or even ARE paying into the system. Saying something for nothing is not accurate.

 

INSTEAD support should be given to those that need it and those unwilling to work should be the target of sanctions. No those generally trying to get off the system as quickly as possible

 

That is probably where i am naive to the situation in the sense that i do not know the ins and outs, my comments were really in direct response to superg who sounds like he just does not want to and is trying to think of ways out of it.

 

Of course i am all for helping those who need it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make yourself aware of ALL DWP issued MWA guidance, Health & Safety at Work, and EU Work Time Directives. Question any placement that could be seen as displacing a paid worker. Decline to participate in unsafe work practices or environments. Keep record of all reimbursements of travel expenses and any additional payments.

 

The last one is important. If you are given any additional cash, "just to help you out" or as "thanks for your hard work", you immediately qualify as a paid employee and entitled to NMW for all hours worked. Should that happen, pop over to the employment forum for advice on pursuing an Employment Tribunal or Small Claims Court claim.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The appeal in the Reilly case was heard in the High Court on Friday 4th July 2014. A full transcript of the judgement handed down that day can be downloaded from this link:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/r-oao-reilly-others-v-sswp.pdf

Transcript of Ruling.

reg. 4 of the 2011 Regulations.

 

The Claimants submit that the 2013 Act was incompatible with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6. It was an intervention in the ongoing proceedings in Reilly No. 1 which had the effect of determining the litigation in the Defendant’s favour by retrospectively validating his unlawful acts. It thereby deprived both Claimants of a fair determination of their civil rights and obligations, contrary to Art. 6. The First Claimant failed in the Supreme Court when otherwise she would have succeeded in upholding her victory in the Court of Appeal. The Second Claimant succeeded in the FTT on the grounds that the notification requirements under reg. 4 of the 2011 Regulations were not met, but the Upper Tribunal is bound to find that any such defect has been retrospectively validated, and he has no other tenable grounds of appeal. His pending appeal against the fourth sanction on those grounds will fail for the same reason.

 

The Claimants rely upon the ECtHR authorities (referred to below) to the effect that it is contrary to the rule of law, protected by Art. 6, for a State to legislate in the course of ongoing legal proceedings to decide the issues before the court, when it does so to its own advantage, as a party to the dispute. Such an interference with Art. 6 rights can only be justified by “compelling grounds in the public interest”. They submit that no such compelling grounds exist in this case.

 

The Second Claimant also relies upon A1 P1, claiming that by withholding his JSA, the Defendant deprived him of a “possession” to which he was entitled. He submits that the deprivation cannot be justified as being in the public interest.

 

The Defendant’s response is that the 2013 Act did not interfere with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6 or A1 P1. In relation to Art. 6, the First Claimant had not been deprived of JSA, and she had been able to pursue her legal challenge to the Supreme Court. Although the effect of the 2013 Act is that the Second Claimant can no longer rely upon the invalidity of the 2011 Regulations or the defective notification under reg. 4, it is still open to him to argue that there was good cause for his failure to participate in the work programme in the forthcoming appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Moreover, the Second Claimant’s entitlement to JSA did not constitute a ‘possession’ within the meaning of A1 P1.

 

Alternatively, the Defendant submits that any interference with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6 was justified by ‘compelling grounds in the public interest’ (applying the test in the ECtHR authorities to which I refer below). If the Second Claimant’s JSA was a ‘possession’ within the meaning of A1 P1, then deprivation of it was justified in the public interest. The cost of repaying JSA to all those who had been unlawfully sanctioned was high. Those who would otherwise be liable to sanctions for refusing to participate in work programmes should not be entitled to gain a windfall and escape sanctions as a result of a technical challenge to the Regulations.

 

The Judge ruled that Government rules designed to force benefits claimants into work placements breached European Human Rights laws.

Here is what the Court concluded:

 

Conclusions

 

I grant permission to apply for a judicial review on all grounds.

 

I conclude that:

 

 

a)The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 was incompatible with the Claimants’ rights under Art. 6(1) ECHR;

b)Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR was not engaged.

 

151. I grant a declaration in the following terms: “It is declared that the Jobseekers (Back to Work) Schemes Act 2013 is incompatible with the Claimants’ rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as given effect by section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998”.

As I read it, what it is saying is that The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 was incompatible with the rights that Claimants have under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

All schemes validated and introduced under the authority granted by this Act, and this includes the Work Programme, would appear to have been ruled illegal unless this ruling is overturned on judicial review or appeal.

The Government and DWP, as you would expect, appealed against this decision and have chosen to leave the controversial laws in question in place in the meantime.

To the best of my knowledge the Judicial Review has been applied for and is on-going, at least it was so at the beginning of last September. Once this Review is completed the case will either come back to the UK’s highest court or be taken forward to the European Court, which is superior to UK courts these days.

 

PS Superg:

A recent thread at this link may be helpful. If nothing else it will confirm that nothing that has been said here has not been said and tried before:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?428310-The-question-of-mwa

According to the Courts you are right and those who say you are not are wrong. However the Government begs to differ. That is the brick wall we are up against. Using the law to knock down that brick wall is the only way, not breaking other laws because we object to this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This does make me a little angry, ok morally it may be very wrong, but, if you have been on JSA for x amount of time is it not right that you start earning it a little and do not just expect it. Maybe i am wrong because i have only been on JSA for 9 weeks once in my 14 year work history, but it does stench of people wanting something for nothing, when i was on jsa i would arrive suited and booted and would have actually looked for jobs, others turned up pretty much in pj's or stinking of booze and just got signed for another fortnight.

 

I agree to an extent, but if anyone thinks surviving on £70 a week is an easy life-style choice long term, I suggest they try it for a year, and once the system has spat them out and left them in debt, ill with stress, borderline alcoholic from trying to shut out the increasingly draconian and bizarre demands of the DWP, with council tax bills, rent arrears, utility bill red letters stacking up, bailiffs knocking - it's not a "something for nothing" - it's a definite "something" - misery, fear, hopelessness and crushed self-worth. I'm speaking personally, and apologies for the rant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree to an extent, but if anyone thinks surviving on £70 a week is an easy life-style choice long term, I suggest they try it for a year, and once the system has spat them out and left them in debt, ill with stress, borderline alcoholic from trying to shut out the increasingly draconian and bizarre demands of the DWP, with council tax bills, rent arrears, utility bill red letters stacking up, bailiffs knocking - it's not a "something for nothing" - it's a definite "something" - misery, fear, hopelessness and crushed self-worth. I'm speaking personally, and apologies for the rant.

 

tough to answer this except that their will be working people in the same position, obviously its not all and it is obviously a generational thing but 'living on benefits' is considered a job to some, their right to 'just get it' and come on, depends how resourceful you are as to what the £70 is spent on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Make yourself aware of ALL DWP issued MWA guidance, Health & Safety at Work, and EU Work Time Directives. Question any placement that could be seen as displacing a paid worker. Decline to participate in unsafe work practices or environments. Keep record of all reimbursements of travel expenses and any additional payments.

 

The last one is important. If you are given any additional cash, "just to help you out" or as "thanks for your hard work", you immediately qualify as a paid employee and entitled to NMW for all hours worked. Should that happen, pop over to the employment forum for advice on pursuing an Employment Tribunal or Small Claims Court claim.

This post of yours has got me excited Mr. P. I recall vaguely reading somewhere that accepting a payment or ‘gift’ whilst on a MWA placement could result in action being taken against me.

For 2 out of the 4 weeks that I was on a placement along with about 8 others the boss at the company we were placed with called us into his ‘office’ on the Friday afternoon and gave us each £20 and thanked us for our efforts.

For the reason given above I kept quiet about that payment.

If you could explain more about this or provide links to sites where further information could be got I would be grateful.

Do you suppose that the fact that my experience was exactly 12 months ago and that I did not mention it at the time nullify any action along the lines you suggest that I might wish to take now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
tough to answer this except that their will be working people in the same position, obviously its not all and it is obviously a generational thing but 'living on benefits' is considered a job to some, their right to 'just get it' and come on, depends how resourceful you are as to what the £70 is spent on.

 

Yeah, I used to read the Daily Mail too. Never actually MET one of these "some" though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...