Keeping an eye on a company whose business is government contracts.
Wednesday 6 February 2013
Disturbing claim
I want to share this post from the Money Saving Expert website forum, headed "A4e and JSA sanction".
Obviously I can't vouch for the truth of it. But the advice offered by other people is sound. Don't collude with a lie.
Have to say that I'm already suspicious of A4e, having just been referred to start the Work Programme with them by the Jobcentre. Today I got 2 letters from them- one of them was dated 5th February and claimed that 'they had tried to contact me several times re. starting the Work Programme', including via a letter dated 1st February. However, the letter dated 1st February also only arrived today, and was postmarked Sheffield 4th February. They only made one attempt to contact me by phone (which I missed)- I wasn't sure of the number at first, thinking it might have been a scam as I tend to avoid numbers I don't recognise starting with 08. So, I haven't even started the Programme with them and they're already telling lies! The girl mentioned in the Money Saving Expert forum discussion should definitely not assist A4e in getting away with incompetence.
I would say to my advisor I'm not comfortable lying and won't do it. Obviously the job ctre will want to see evidence of the so called interview she says she attended and then you'd be stumped. I would also complain first to A4e then the job ctre and my MP. I myself complained to my MP and since then have been treated professionally at A4e. They now know I won't take any crap from them.
Was never satisfied with the quality of reporting by A4e staff and their subsequent lies (that I had swore at, and threatened staff). It was as well that all conversations were recorded and when this was pointed out, the alegations were downgraded to "non-verbal threats" !!
As a private individual, the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Invesigative Powers Act allows one to record any and all conversations. Should an "advisor" attempt to curtail recording by claims privacy & human rights breaches, insist on a private room. After all, if a meeting is being conducted in a public area, it is your own privacy that is being compromised.
Should the so called "advisor" then recommend a fraudulent course of action and fails to back it up in writing, you have the evidence to support any complaint.
... wrong historian! DWP and the jobcentres are the same organisation nowadays. they have been since they merged in 2010. "jobcentre" is now just a legacy brand. tut-tut.
If a person is sanctioned they are removed from the JSA claimants list on temporary basis - hence sanctions are a popular way of boosting figures for people leaving state dependent benefits.
Claimants on the work programme, mandatory work activity (MWA) and all other such schemes are counted as being in employment by the Office For National Statics (ONS). This is not the ONS fiddling the UK unemployment figures on behalf of government, but how the International Labour Organisation (ILO) measures unemployment - which the ONS have followed.
I'm not an expert on ILO reporting standards by any measure, but my my understanding is that there's a degree of discretion involved in terms of local implementation. Paul Bivand from CESI (who does know what he's on about) commented in a recent Working Brief that if Australia used the same methodology, they could potentially have reported a consistent figure of roughly 0 unemployed for years. If nothing else, ONS appears to have reversed a decision taken a few years ago (towards the end of the last Labour government) specifically to not include most people on things like FND as being employed. ONS are ostensibly free from political interference and have been criticised by MPs from all three main parties, so I'm not sure why they're pursuing this slightly quixotic path.
Having said that, there is a degree of self-reporting involved. If government spends all its time telling people that being unemployed is shameful and practically a crime against one's fellow citizens, nobody should be surprised if people end up stretching a point to describe themselves as employed simply to avoid the stigma, subjective or objective.
As an aside, I've posted a few times recently, but anonymously. I'll use the name Badger from now on, following historian's comment in a previous thread - it makes conversations easier to track. By way of disclosure, my day job is policy related, but not specifically in the area of employment, welfare to work and so on. The Work Programme does touch on some areas of interest, but I have no dog in the fight in terms of being pro or anti-WP or any individual provider.
I am no expert either, and maybe a bit naïve, but I thought the purpose of having statistics was so that the truth could be seen and informed decisions made. Nobody in their right minds believes the current unemployment statistics which way understate the extent of the situation. If my car had a speedo which consistently showed I was doing half the speed I was actually doing I might begin to wonder why I was collecting speeding penalties! Not so apparently with the unemployed stats.
mm ..... not necessarily in the right place, however , a very good article by Zoe Williams in The Guardian today - "This obsession with outsourcing public services has created a shadow state The winners are private equity and shareholders. The losers are the low-paid and the vulnerable. And in the end we all pay." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/public-sector-outsourcing-shadow-state
There was a period of about 2 months where I never heard from them, I kept on phoning them for an appointment but they never materialized in the letter box, at the end of the year when the paper work was being done and they were logging some sort of diary they basically made up a whole bunch of things that they had supposedly helped me with during that period, when I pointed it out and they just shrugged it off.
No systemic fraud of course but it seems second nature to them to lie when it comes to covering their backs.
Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".
Have to say that I'm already suspicious of A4e, having just been referred to start the Work Programme with them by the Jobcentre. Today I got 2 letters from them- one of them was dated 5th February and claimed that 'they had tried to contact me several times re. starting the Work Programme', including via a letter dated 1st February. However, the letter dated 1st February also only arrived today, and was postmarked Sheffield 4th February. They only made one attempt to contact me by phone (which I missed)- I wasn't sure of the number at first, thinking it might have been a scam as I tend to avoid numbers I don't recognise starting with 08. So, I haven't even started the Programme with them and they're already telling lies! The girl mentioned in the Money Saving Expert forum discussion should definitely not assist A4e in getting away with incompetence.
ReplyDeleteI would say to my advisor I'm not comfortable lying and won't do it. Obviously the job ctre will want to see evidence of the so called interview she says she attended and then you'd be stumped. I would also complain first to A4e then the job ctre and my MP. I myself complained to my MP and since then have been treated professionally at A4e. They now know I won't take any crap from them.
ReplyDeleteThe Jobcentre has no role in this. It's the DWP which will make the decision.
DeleteWas never satisfied with the quality of reporting by A4e staff and their subsequent lies (that I had swore at, and threatened staff). It was as well that all conversations were recorded and when this was pointed out, the alegations were downgraded to "non-verbal threats" !!
DeleteAs a private individual, the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Invesigative Powers Act allows one to record any and all conversations. Should an "advisor" attempt to curtail recording by claims privacy & human rights breaches, insist on a private room. After all, if a meeting is being conducted in a public area, it is your own privacy that is being compromised.
Should the so called "advisor" then recommend a fraudulent course of action and fails to back it up in writing, you have the evidence to support any complaint.
... wrong historian! DWP and the jobcentres are the same organisation nowadays. they have been since they merged in 2010. "jobcentre" is now just a legacy brand. tut-tut.
ReplyDeleteDon't preen yourself. Does the correspondence come from the local Jobcentre? Or from the DWP centrally?
DeleteIf a person is sanctioned they are removed from the JSA claimants list on temporary basis - hence sanctions are a popular way of boosting figures for people leaving state dependent benefits.
ReplyDeleteClaimants on the work programme, mandatory work activity (MWA) and all other such schemes are counted as being in employment by the Office For National Statics (ONS). This is not the ONS fiddling the UK unemployment figures on behalf of government, but how the International Labour Organisation (ILO) measures unemployment - which the ONS have followed.
Deletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs
I posted this on 16 January - http://watchinga4e.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/statistics-cast-doubt-on-coalitions.html
DeleteSorry, Historian, must have missed it.
DeleteI'm not an expert on ILO reporting standards by any measure, but my my understanding is that there's a degree of discretion involved in terms of local implementation. Paul Bivand from CESI (who does know what he's on about) commented in a recent Working Brief that if Australia used the same methodology, they could potentially have reported a consistent figure of roughly 0 unemployed for years. If nothing else, ONS appears to have reversed a decision taken a few years ago (towards the end of the last Labour government) specifically to not include most people on things like FND as being employed. ONS are ostensibly free from political interference and have been criticised by MPs from all three main parties, so I'm not sure why they're pursuing this slightly quixotic path.
DeleteHaving said that, there is a degree of self-reporting involved. If government spends all its time telling people that being unemployed is shameful and practically a crime against one's fellow citizens, nobody should be surprised if people end up stretching a point to describe themselves as employed simply to avoid the stigma, subjective or objective.
As an aside, I've posted a few times recently, but anonymously. I'll use the name Badger from now on, following historian's comment in a previous thread - it makes conversations easier to track. By way of disclosure, my day job is policy related, but not specifically in the area of employment, welfare to work and so on. The Work Programme does touch on some areas of interest, but I have no dog in the fight in terms of being pro or anti-WP or any individual provider.
I am no expert either, and maybe a bit naïve, but I thought the purpose of having statistics was so that the truth could be seen and informed decisions made. Nobody in their right minds believes the current unemployment statistics which way understate the extent of the situation. If my car had a speedo which consistently showed I was doing half the speed I was actually doing I might begin to wonder why I was collecting speeding penalties! Not so apparently with the unemployed stats.
Deletemm ..... not necessarily in the right place, however , a very good article by Zoe Williams in The Guardian today - "This obsession with outsourcing public services has created a shadow state
ReplyDeleteThe winners are private equity and shareholders. The losers are the low-paid and the vulnerable. And in the end we all pay." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/public-sector-outsourcing-shadow-state
Poundland is majority owned by Warburg Pincus, a US private equity company.
DeleteA4e covering their backs as always.
ReplyDeleteThere was a period of about 2 months where I never heard from them, I kept on phoning them for an appointment but they never materialized in the letter box, at the end of the year when the paper work was being done and they were logging some sort of diary they basically made up a whole bunch of things that they had supposedly helped me with during that period, when I pointed it out and they just shrugged it off.
No systemic fraud of course but it seems second nature to them to lie when it comes to covering their backs.