Electronic Signing - you don't need to use it.

[jasta11]

I just put a simple cross and it took 6 attempts before it was accepted, on my final try my adviser said "if it doesn't work this time just forget it" so he clearly had some frustrating experiences with the system already.

 

My biggest fear of the drop and go system was somebody at some point in the day would go through the forms, any problems with job search evidence in theory we would receive either a phone call / txt / email so it was an anxious wait, does any one know now I am signing on digitally would that also mean payment is released when the pad is signed rather than me having to wait for someone to check the evidence at a later time ?

 

On normal signing, the adviser checks your jobsearch first then when they're satisfied that you've done all that was required you sign the pad and it automatically puts the payment through, as well as confirming you attended. It saves the adviser having to go to the payment screen and tick the box to release payment - which takes all of 10 seconds so I can't see how the electronic pads are supposed to be any faster, seeing that a lot of people can't get the damn things to recognise their signature.

 

Not sure if 'drop and go' is done the same way, as you're signing first then having your jobsearch checked at a later time. I'd imagine your money goes through when you sign the pad same as normal signing but if they later find fault with your jobsearch they can stop it. Or maybe with drop and go you're simply signing the pad to say you attended and no money is actually put through until they've checked your jobsearch, then they do it manually - which rather defeats the point of having the pad in the first place!

 

The JC won't be getting rid of paper signing anyway, even if using the pads becomes mandatory at a later date, as they'll need the paper option if - and when - the electronic system goes down.

[Tj rodgers]

Never heard of "Drop and Go " before whats that?

[jasta11]

Never heard of "Drop and Go " before whats that?

 

Some jobcentres operate this way; you turn up, hand over your jobsearch at the front desk then go without seeing an adviser...then you have to wait and worry to see if they thought you'd done enough and you'd get paid..or if they 'accidently' lose your jobsearch and try and say you didn't drop any off.

 

Glad they're not doing this at my JC, I prefer to see a clerk, get my evidence checked in person and the money put through while I watch.

[Tj rodgers]

Some jobcentres operate this way; you turn up, hand over your jobsearch at the front desk then go without seeing an adviser...then you have to wait and worry to see if they thought you'd done enough and you'd get paid..or if they 'accidently' lose your jobsearch and try and say you didn't drop any off.

 

Glad they're not doing this at my JC, I prefer to see a clerk, get my evidence checked in person and the money put through while I watch.

I would simply refuse and ask for an appointment they cnt say no

[Tj rodgers]

Some jobcentres operate this way; you turn up, hand over your jobsearch at the front desk then go without seeing an adviser...then you have to wait and worry to see if they thought you'd done enough and you'd get paid..or if they 'accidently' lose your jobsearch and try and say you didn't drop any off.

 

Glad they're not doing this at my JC, I prefer to see a clerk, get my evidence checked in person and the money put through while I watch.

Also what if like me you only give them access to your ujm while you are at the jcp then when i leave i simply untick the box which lets them view it?

[RebeccaPidgeon]

When candidates present themselves at the Front Desk, waiting to be signed on, you simply need to present your appointment card. Any Job Search Evidence can be presented directly to the Civil Servant interviewing you during signing on.

 

Also what if like me you only give them access to your ujm while you are at the jcp then when i leave i simply untick the box which lets them view it?

Although, according to the Universal Job Match Toolkit Chapter 3 [28 February 2013], the Job Centre may have been able mandate that a canddiate should create an account, create a profile, upload a CV, they cannot mandate that candidates provide access to their Universal Job Match Account. Additionally, it remains entirely at the discretion of the candidate how they should manage their job search diary and provide their job search evidence.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/146137/response/365038/attach/4/Universal%20Jobmatch%20Toolkit.pdf

 

 

Point 95

95.You cannot issue a Jobseeker’s Direction to either require a claimant to create a profile and CV in Universal Jobmatch or to mandate a claimant to give us access to their account – this is their decision not ours.

 

 

 

Point 97

97.We cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this.

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by RebeccaPidgeon
Additional Information

[jasta11]

That's a handy FOI response to keep, Rebecca. Looks like the DWP have amended the older version of the UJ toolkit, as in the past they could mandate you to create a profile and have a public CV if they thought it would benefit you.

 

Looks like they can't even make us do that now - jolly good!

 

Still haven't heard back yet from the ICO regarding customers being misled into giving their biometric data. I sign on this Thursday and it's supposed to be my changeover to electronic signing. All clerks in my JC should now have been told that use of the pads is optional.. God help any clerk who tries to tell me it's mandatory.

[SabreSheep]

Can we have a date for that FOI request. We need to be sure that that is the most recent toolkit and not an older one.

[Mr.P]

A word of caution: That response was for a request made back in 2013*. You can be mandated to create a profile and public CV, but you still can't be mandated to allow UJM access.

 

38. When you have explained the benefits to claimants of creating a profile and public CV in Universal Jobmatch, they can be mandated to create a profile and public CV.

39. However, for legal reasons, you cannot issue a Jobseeker’s Direction to mandate a claimant to create a profile and public CV unless a DWP IAD service is reasonably available to them should they need to use one - for example, because they do not want to accept cookies and therefore need to have access to a device on which cookies have already been accepted.

40. You also cannot issue a Jobseeker’s Direction to mandate a claimant to give us access to their account – this is their decision not ours.

However, this can be challenged by referring to the next paragraph:

41. The Jobseeker’s Direction guidance explains the factors that must be considered before a Jobseeker’s Direction is issued. In particular, a Jobseeker’s Direction mandating claimants to create a profile and public CV in Universal Jobmatch must be reasonable in terms of:

• improving the claimant’s employment prospects;
  and
  
  
• the claimant being able to use the service.
  
  

*) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_jobmatch_toolkit_chapt

 

Latest version (V56 from Feb 2015): https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_jobmatch_toolkit_2#incoming-638772

[jasta11]

Well, after my nice chat with a JC manager last week, I asked to see the 'comments' section of my claim when I signed on yesterday and the manager was as good as his word; I now have a nice little note on my claim saying that I will not be using the electronic signing and will continue to sign via the normal paper-based system. So you see, it can be done; don't let the JC tell you that it's mandatory to use the electronic pads.

 

Interesting to see the wording he used though - apparently I have 'issues' with electronic signing, making it sound as though I'm hell-bent on their destruction. Far from it - though I do question the reliability and security of the system. The 'issues' I have are with the DWP not informing people they had a choice in the matter.

 

I still await a response from the ICO. I assumed 14 days reply time but it may be 30 if they class it as more than a simple enquiry.

[trebormoinet]

I was the same, apart from my concerns it is the fact they thrust upon us these protocols without informing us we have a choice, I did state I would rather sign the traditional method and they agreed I could, but on reflection I decided to use the digital system as it seemed to cut down on the time I would have to interact with JCP and probably being the only person in my local office to resist the changes I would inevitably stick out like a sore thumb.

[jasta11]

Just received a reply from the ICO. Copy here - important bits in red.

 

Dear Mr xxxx

 

Thank you for your email of 28 May 2015. I am sorry for my delay in writing to you. We have had technical difficulties over the last few days after some building work caused a major IT hardware failure.

 

My understanding is that you are concerned that welfare claimants will not be given adequate information to understand that the electronic signature pad system now being used at jobcentres is optional, or how that data may be used.

 

The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) is based on eight principles of good information handling. The first data protection principle requires that personal data are processed fairly and lawfully.

 

In order for processing to be ‘fair’, individuals should be given sufficient information to understand what data is being collected, who is collecting it, the purposes for which it will be used, and who it may be shared with. If individuals are not provided with access to information to understand the processing of their data, then it is unlikely to be ‘fair’.

 

In order for the processing to be ‘lawful’, at least one ‘condition for processing’ from schedule 2 of the DPA must be met. As the signature information and biometrics do not appear to be a requirement for using jobcentre services, the DWP may be relying on consent as their condition.

 

If consent is the condition that DWP is relying on to process the data, then that consent should be fully-informed and freely-given. If individuals are being informed that the use of the technology is mandatory, then consent may not be fully-informed and freely-given.

 

The third data protection principle requires that personal data is relevant, and is not excessive to the purposes for which it is collected. It is unclear at this stage what DWP’s purpose(s) may be in introducing the signature pads and recording biometric data. If it is unnecessary to collect claimant’s biometric data, then DWP may not have complied with the third principle in doing so.

 

I advise that you write (by letter, email or fax) to DWP directly to raise these matters. If you receive a response that is not satisfactory, or if DWP does not respond within 28 days, you can raise a concern with our office. In order to consider concerns, we will need copies of any correspondence where the concern has been raised and any other supporting information.

 

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you would like to discuss this matter further please contact me on my direct number 01625 545 210, or alternatively you can contact our Helpline on 0303 123 1113. In addition, more information about the Information Commissioner’s Office and the legislation we oversee is available on our website at http://www.ico.org.uk.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

xxxx xxxxxx

Case Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office

xxxxxx ext. xxxx

 

A good reply, but they haven't commented on the problem that the DWP is simply not telling people that use of the pads is optional, so I'll ask them specifically about this. Stay tuned.

[jasta11]

Just had a telephone conversation with the ICO officer who replied to my email and he says there could be a good chance that the DWP are infringing data protection principles if they're getting people to use the digital pads without ever telling them it's optional. The main principle is 'fully-informed and freely given' consent...which obviously is not 'fully-informed' if the DWP haven't told people they have the option to refuse.

 

He was very aware of all the data protection problems that Universal Jobmatch caused; apparently the ICO had a flood of complaints to sort out.

 

Letter to the Jobcentre Manager next then, giving him 28 days to explain why his office - and every other office, I assume - are not clearly informing customers of their options. The ICO officer also suggested I may want to copy in my MP too.

[Mr.P]

The main principle is 'fully-informed and freely given' consent...

 

Letter to the Jobcentre Manager next then, giving him 28 days to explain why his office - and every other office, I assume - are not clearly informing customers of their options.

 

Certainly worth involving your MP if he/she is keen to be seen supporting local constituents.

 

It will be interesting to see what kind of response you get from the local office, although I doubt it will change policy at a national level. For the latter, you'd benefit from an MP with an axe to grind with the current incumbents and a backbone to see it through.

[jasta11]

Sadly, my local MP fails miserably. He couldn't even be bothered to chase the local council to get repairs done to my property. I think his main interest is in attending social functions and consuming beer. He's just been re-elected too so I imagine he's only too glad to keep a low profile and count himself lucky.

 

We'll see what the JC manager says.

[Flickyhecky]

Signed on yesterday, had my first experience with electronic signing. Now i usually hate signing for things electronically, my signature always comes out horrible on those hand held devices used by delivery firms, but was plesently surprised that the DWP machine captured my signature (ok, so it took 6 attempts for it to understand)...

 

...but then i had to do it for real, and that's when the fun started!

 

Due to being self concious about signing, it took 12 attempts for me (sorry, the machine) to get it right and got 76% accuracy, i guess it's partly my fault because my signature is basically a complicated squiggle!

[trebormoinet]

I signed on today first pad froze and after moving on to another pad after the 10th attempt was asked to re-record a new signature which took seven attempts.

 

My adviser says the record for today was 46 failed attempts.

 

At one point I was surrounded by 4 member's of staff who were encouraging me on to achieve success as though it were some kind of game show and actually all whooped with joy and patted me on the back when it finally recognised my signature, surreal to say the least but the best day I have ever had at the JCP. the staff actually appeared human.

[HUSKY!]

Just posted this on a F.O.I. request page, the quotes were perhaps from a different request response re-posted on that page in a comment.

 

"...However we do encourage claimants to sign electronically by highlighting the advantages that it will give them."

 

"...it significantly reduces the risk of errors occurring."

 

LOL...5:30am and no money in the bank!. Needless to say, last Monday was the first and last time I sign with that junk. Now I have to forget about sleep and rack up the phone bill for two hours trying to get past their "try phoning later when we're less busy" junk, followed by a slow roast on the bus (another £4/2 hours of my life down the drain) to go get the money and pay it in before a dozen failed PayPal direct debits fry my bank account and have me dodging debt collectors for the next 6 years.

 

I strongly suggest you all give this fail a miss. "errors"?...not had one in twenty years solid....until now, unless you count the few times my Giro went to a wrong, but similar address...or, signing for weeks on end and not one person is aware that my claim was closed because I was sick one too many times (happened 2 or 3 times!).

 

 

EDIT:

WHAT A TWIT!!!......it's Wednesday not Thursday...no wonder the money isn't there!. Sleep deprivation:sleep:...plays havoc with your memory, i.e. ...what day of the week it is. Roll on midnight....there's only one cider left in the fridge:faint:

Edited June 17, 2015 by HUSKY!

[Mr.P]

I signed on today first pad froze and after moving on to another pad after the 10th attempt was asked to re-record a new signature which took seven attempts.

 

My adviser says the record for today was 46 failed attempts.

 

So much for saving time and money. Perhaps you should remind them of this next time you are told to use the pads....

 

 

....there's only one cider left in the fridge:faint:

You have cider !!! Someone will be round shortly to give you a hand to drink it

[jasta11]

46 attempts to read a signature using 21st century technology costing £7.5 million quid. You've got to laugh, haven't you! No wonder so many dole clerks are taking early retirement.

 

If the devices can't even read a signature properly God knows how efficiently they're storing the data - it's probably all going onto floppy disks and kept in a cupboard with a £2 Halfords bicycle lock on it.

[trebormoinet]

It seems to me that the long term plan is to privatise JCP services and pass it over to WP providers.

 

With the introduction of digital services already on trial where we email our activity history rather than attend a JCP office, WP providers taking over the strain of whipping the long term unemployed into shape who already have the same authority as JCP staff under the job title employment officers, there is little left for staff to do other than watch people sign the pad in the massively oversized offices..

 

A tell tale sign would be if they scrap the the length of time before someone can be mandated to attend the WP and give themselves the power to mandate from day one before they start to negotiate a new contract with WP providers, then in my opinion the writing will be on the wall for JCP offices and staff..

[louise2012]

Two weeks ago I went to my local job centre and was given a letter that from last month they would be introducing the electronic signing. However when I went on Monday my advisor said that only new claimants would be using this but to take id when I next go in two weeks time.

[jasta11]

Two weeks ago I went to my local job centre and was given a letter that from last month they would be introducing the electronic signing. However when I went on Monday my advisor said that only new claimants would be using this but to take id when I next go in two weeks time.

 

Are you a new claimant? If not then why is the JC asking you to take in ID? It's because they're still going to try and get you to convert to the electronic system, I bet.

 

If they do ask you to start using it, remember they cannot make you do it and they know it (you can print out the FOI responses posted earlier in the thread to show them). If you're happy to start using the pads then that's fine as long it's your choice.

[pineapple_chunks]

After refusing to use the electronic signing pad since it was introduced at my JCP ,and being asked numerous times bordering on harassment to sign up to it & knowing like the other people in this thread that's it's not mandatory. my new advisor has taken to using the advice that the JCP will be going paperless and future claims and other business will all be done electronically. which has well has finding hard to beLIEve . stated to me that my benefit could not be payed in future if i refused electronic signing .i asked for a directive to be printed mandating me to use this system but after printing me 4 sheets of paper out (none of which were the directive) and not knowing what to contingency plans were in case this paperless system gets of the ground. i left. if claimants wish you use this system fair enough that's you prerogative. but don't threaten people over a system that is not running or mandatory. any thoughts on this paperless system would be very welcome

[Glorian]

After refusing to use the electronic signing pad since it was introduced at my JCP ,and being asked numerous times bordering on harassment to sign up to it & knowing like the other people in this thread that's it's not mandatory. my new advisor has taken to using the advice that the JCP will be going paperless and future claims and other business will all be done electronically. which has well has finding hard to beLIEve . stated to me that my benefit could not be payed in future if i refused electronic signing .i asked for a directive to be printed mandating me to use this system but after printing me 4 sheets of paper out (none of which were the directive) and not knowing what to contingency plans were in case this paperless system gets of the ground. i left. if claimants wish you use this system fair enough that's you prerogative. but don't threaten people over a system that is not running or mandatory. any thoughts on this paperless system would be very welcome

 

Seems to me there are bigger battles to fight for a person on benefits

Why does it matter HOW you sign as long as you get your money?

Can you explain to me why it matters, except to be petty?