At the same time a Labour MP, Bill Esterson, has used his own website to call A4e "a Victorian workhouse scam". His constituent, 50-year-old Philip Hammond, has been with A4e for 14 months. He says: "A4e is bullying people at a time when they need support. They run a campaign of intimidation and undermine any self confidence you may have in yourself." He is particularly incensed by the 50-page contract people have to sign which gives A4e the right to monitor them for two years. He regards this as forcing people to sign away their human rights. The MP supports all this.
Okay, this is politics, and somewhat over the top. But an article in the Telegraph yesterday shows that the government is squirming about the whole subject of fraud in the W2W field. Margaret Hodge, chair of the PAC, is pursuing the fact that Cameron had announced that there had been 125 cases of "alleged wrongdoing". Only 11 of those related to A4e. She wants the details of the others disclosed, and a Tory MP has supported her. Chris Grayling has said that most of the 125 cases were not really fraud, but a few of them were down to "employee malpractice". The DWP is still deciding whether to publish the details. Meanwhile, reports the Telegraph, "the National Audit Office is conducting an internal inquiry into the DWP’s approach to investigating allegations of fraud across providers in the back-to-work sector. The findings of that inquiry will feed into a PAC evidence session on May 23."
It's against this background that A4e's new PR people are trying to rehabilitate the company's reputation. I suspect it won't be about planting more of the good news stories in the local press. George Bridges and his colleagues from Quiller Consultants are more likely to be lobbying politicians. Disclosures of wrongdoing by other companies are helpful.
I've had an anonymous comment from an A4e employee which I'm reluctant to publish because it is very explicit about what's going on at an unnamed office. Can I suugest that the poster sends this information to their MP and copies it to Margaret Hodge. If you can give me an email address I will also pass it on to a journalist.
ReplyDeleteDamn! Now you've got us all curious as to what this could be!!! ;-)
Delete50 page contract? I don't ever recall signing something with that many pages, not on the ND and not now on the WP. The thing I signed or the WP was about two sides, possibly 2 pages of A4 and consisted of basic questions/statements like name, DOB etc, along with some incredibly stupid questions as well (do you have the potential to be violent? to which I said yes, because theoretically I do, but no doubt the genuinely dangerous people will lie to this question), none of which I read myself, but which the adviser read out to me. There may have been the statement about monitoring for 2 years, but my point here is that this MP is saying there is a 50 page contract and I haven't seen it.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt they will say the customers aren't allowed to see the 50 page contract because not all of us will have the reading ability to read it through and understand it. But if there is a contract of 50 pages and I haven't seen it to read through, am I still under any requirement to go to A4E? Reading me a condensed form is not the same as reading me the actual contract, and how do I know that the condensed form is telling me everything that the 50 page one does, especially as A4E now have a reputation for fraud?
I have to say that "50-page contract" puzzled me as well. The contract A4e has with the DWP might be that long, but not the so-called contract with the client.
DeleteOK, I just read the link, it says
ReplyDelete"One example of this is how they are forcing people to sign a 50 page contract which gives A4e the right to monitor them, their finances, employment history, everything, for two years. People think that if they don't sign the contract, they are going to lose their money. But that's just not the case. People are signing their rights away to a private company when they don't have to. It's very wrong."
I definitely wasn't aware I was allowing A4E to monitor my finances. I actually don't know what I would have done if I had seen a piece of paper which said this would happen. I know they have financial advisors they send you to at least once who just ask about basic incomings and outgoings and try and advise about money management but AFAIK even they don't want to have an in-depth look at bank details, certainly the one I saw didn't. I suppose though if you have debt problems then you may be required to see them more frequently and perhaps they do then ask to see statements etc. And I know for a fact that if you refuse to see the money advisor they will sanction you.
The contract I signed said that for 2 years A4E would help me find a job, help me with any problems in it, if I lost the job within the 2 years I'd go back to A4E and the process would start again. And all the advisers I have seen have been very upfront about the fact that this is what happens (they come across as proud of it too because of the amnt of help they can give compared with the JC), and it is exactly what the JC told me before they sent me on the WP. I don't know that this can be classified as monitoring though.
Yes, another exaggeration, I think. It doesn't help, when the reality is bad enough.
Delete(Can you use the "reply" button, please Polly.)
Your finances are nothing to do with these providers and you should not be required to divulge them.
DeleteThree years ago, I was considering becoming self employed under Flexible New Deal through Work Directions (now Ingeus) One of the requirements was that you had to set up a joint bank account with the provider ..... !
I wonder if the contracts clients sign are exactly the same with each provider, or are they customised .....
Sanctioned if you dont see a money advisor!? are you not there to be found a job? what next implant microchips in the unemployed to track their every move? im serious.
DeleteI have been having issues with A4e since June 2011 when I had my first and only meeting with them, I advised that the contracts were unfair and did not sign them, now as if by magic, a few months later, the contract is now signed by myself? They deny they have forged the document and fabricated my signature. I am still trying to get this resolved with them 10 months later...
ReplyDeleteAlso contact Margaret Hodge MP. She has her teeth into A4e's ankles right now!
Delete10 months!!! You must be very patient???
DeleteThe normal procedure is if you have had to wait 8 weeks for the provider to respond to your complaint OR they have already responded and you don't believe it was treated fairly you should have escalated your complaint to the Independent Complaints Examiner (ICE).
That is clear fraud yet another Anonymous. Report it to the police pronto (Please can you add a suffix to your User ID as it really does get so confusing)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Simone. Report it to the Police, to your local MP and to Margaret Hodge, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Forging people's signatures is a crime, not "employee malpractice."
DeleteActually this posting by Anonymous, dare I say it?, sounds suspect.
DeleteIssues since June 2010? What exactly? He/she only saw a4e once since June 2011? Surely he/she would be snctioned heavily. So how come he/she is still on the company’s books and how come he/she knows that they have signed his/her contract using the client’s signature. Once you sign something that’s it and you don’t see it again, generally speaking.
Maybe I am missing something!
I second my esteemed compatriots. Fraud is a crime, report it to the police and to margaret hodge, Without people telling them of it, it just means they will carry on..
DeleteI'm inclined to agree with Simone. Either the story is suspect, or there is a lot we haven't been told. Details, please.
DeleteAnon_apr10 (as requested)
ReplyDeleteThe story is not suspect, it all started as they wanted me to sign a WP agreement that stated I agreed and would sign and employment agreement with a4e, even tho this contract did not exist at the time.
Since I have been trying to get this initial issue with the contract sorted, there have been lots of other issues raised with how they have dealt with it.
Today I had my second WP meeting with them, and they decided to bring along a manager who I had specifically asked not to deal with as he was unable to resolve the issues I had with his office/staff. He did not introduce himself, it was only when I questioned him, I found out who he was.
I have never been sanctioned by a4e, and I have been on the WP since June 2011, and yet to sign the agreement.
I can understand why you may think this is suspect, but I have followed all a4e process/guidelines to try and get these issues resolved, and still not got any where with them.
They even managed to email details of my complaints to an email address that was not mine.
Sent many meeting requests that they failed to turn up for.
Lied about phone calls from their staff, being rude and abrasive, hanging up. First of all denying any of them took place, then later in their replies, finally admitting they did take place.
I have taken this through complaining to my advisor in person, then to his manager, his manager and the manager above that (regional director apparently).
I am now getting to the stage where I will report this to the local law, ICO, ICE, DWP WP contract manager, and whoever else will listen.
A for profit company cannot be allowed to behave like this, carrying out fraudulent activities.
Thank you for iyour new User ID!
ReplyDeleteWhen I went onto a4e books two years ago , I think I signed two copies of the contract at The Job Centre, one was for a4e and the other I think I kept (and later threw out?)
They need the paperwork to be able to claim money from the DWP so that if you didn’t sign your contract then you wouldn’t have been taken on. and sanctions would have been imposed for sure.
As I said prior, meetings with Advisers, although not frequent are more than a couple of times within 10 months.
And again what issues exactly?
Sorry but I am non the wiser from your new post.