Tuesday 29 October 2013

That fraud case, a report and a couple of memos

First, there's an update on the court case against the nine former A4e employees charged with fraud.  They were in court again yesterday and have all been bailed to return for further hearings at the Crown Court, seven of them on 25 November and two on 3 February.

Second, there's a report out from the Manchester CAB, entitled Punishing Poverty?  A review of benefits sanctions and their impacts on clients and claimants.  It can be accessed from here.  It's packed with information which IDS, Freud and the rest should be compelled to read and answer questions on.  One interesting fact:- in 2009 the number of claimants sanctioned was 139,000, in line with previous years; by 2011 it had jumped to 508,000.  What the report doesn't mention is that we still haven't had the 2012 figures, and it's becoming ever clearer why not.  Other points to note include the fact that under Universal Credit the "hardship payments" when someone is being punished become effectively loans, to be repaid from any future benefits.  When did that little gem slip in?  There's really too much to summarise in the report, but it backs up what many of us have been saying for some time.

Third, there are a couple of what the DWP calls "live running memos" which are of interest.  One refers to changes and clarifications in provider guidance, and includes under "Raising a compliance doubt" the statement that "providers should be putting the contact details of the referring advisor on the WP08 referral."  How odd (or perhaps not) that some have been doing it anonymously.  The other memo is more serious in its implications, and can be found here.  There has been a vigorous campaign to persuade people to withhold their consent to data sharing by refusing to sign the consent form.  The aim, as the DWP recognises, is to prevent the WP provider from claiming a job outcome fee.  Not any more.  They have been pushing through the legal authority to contact employers without the client's permission.  They say it's "to improve the delivery of our interventions".  If you think you can still thwart this by not telling the Jobcentre where you're working, or even why you're signing off, I suspect the DWP can get the information through the tax office.  It's another instance of this government regarding data protection, or any other legal rights, as not applying to those dependent on benefits.

12 comments:

  1. "in 2009 the number of claimants sanctioned was 139,000, in line with previous years; by 2011 it had jumped to 508,000. What the report doesn't mention is that we still haven't had the 2012 figures, and it's becoming ever clearer why not"

    And Smith still claims there are no targets for sanctions within JCP. Just who is he trying to kid? Would he and the DWP really suggest that there has been a more than 3.5 times increase in claimants not seeking employment between 2009 and 2011? Which neatly coincides with this rotten shower coming into office.

    "There has been a vigorous campaign to persuade people to withhold their consent to data sharing by refusing to sign the consent form. The aim, as the DWP recognises, is to prevent the WP provider from claiming a job outcome fee. Not any more. "

    So what this means is that whilst Mr. or Mrs. / Miss Jobseeker can be sanctioned for the most petty, miniscule and downright ridiculous of reasons, there is now no way to physically and financially 'sanction' those providers jobseekers feel are letting them down. I'd ask Smith or McVey if they would continue to use a retailer they felt offered poor customer service with or a product that was clearly defective. I'm sure they wouldn't.

    So why expect jobseekers to unable to in turn punitively punish providers (which after all are private businesses) that fall below reasonable standards? Of course, the DWP will say there is always a complaints procedure. However, in the case of a retailer or manufacturer consumers can take an immediate decision to discontinue use and / or demand a refund there and then. What we have now is jobseekers being given virtually zero ability to punish a private company they are clearly unhappy with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DWP/IDS have lost the Cait Reilly appeal,what it actually means?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You beat me to it jray. Here's the BBC link on the story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More here:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/30/poundland-slave-labour-su_n_4176664.html?ncid=webmail1
      "The ruling could be extremely costly for the Goverment, with the effect being that all applicants who had their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the schemes were entitled to reclaim their allowance."

      So it seems that IDS will have to reimburse all those sanctioned for refusing such scams.

      Delete
  4. and this from the PIL website
    The requirement on the DWP to provide jobseekers with adequate information about the schemes has far reaching implications as all jobseekers who, like Jamie, were not provided with adequate information will able to seek the repayment of their benefits.

    http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=332

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only if the retrospective legislation is declared illegal, which it hasn't been yet.

      Delete
    2. You may be wrong there since "Lawyers for the pair said the immediate effect of the ruling was that all applicants who had their jobseeker's allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the schemes were entitled to reclaim their allowance."
      I am not a lawyer so may be wrong but it seems that refunding of sanctioned benefits may not be dependant on the judicial review of the backdated legislation. I am open to correction but it certainly seems that the public interest lawyers agree with me!

      Delete
    3. I'm going by the statement on the Public Interest Lawyers site. It's not totally clear, but in relation to Jamie Wilson the Supreme Court said that he had been provided with invalid notice. Then it goes on to say that "in relation to a cross-apeal brought by the claimants the Court found..." but then seems to be quoting the lawyers rather than the Court, as it talks about "our client Jamie Wilson". It then says that they're going to challenge the validity of the retrospective legislation, and that everybody else affected will be able to seek repayment. That doesn't mean that the DWP is about to pay out a refund to everyone who was sanctioned. We will have to await developments.

      Delete
    4. With past record of IDS,even if it is written in stone he will still believe he is right and try delaying any refund let alone the £140 Million that was mentioned when the retrospective law was passed....and if that fails? he is going to move to another sandbox!

      Delete
  5. whatdidyoujustsay30 October 2013 at 17:11

    Im not on the work program and receive employment advice from a charity, who are helping me back to work. They referred me to a training course but couldnt help with travel expenses and suggested I ask my job centre, their reply? We didnt refer you onto the course so we are not prepared to pay your travel expenses. Useless answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obamacare was rolled out in the US and has failed to go on line,it has been compared to UC/PIP in scale,I am not a fan of Obama,but at least he was the first one to hold up his hand and accept the blame, unlike IDS who is throwing people under the Bus and refusing to admit that there is a problem let alone taking responsibility.

    ReplyDelete

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".