Tuesday, 25 December 2012
A Little Preparation - WP05 (Start Notification Letter), Sanctions And Law
Versions and release dates for Work Program WP05 (FOIR)
"I hope you share my concerns about the effect unsatisfactory replies and dubious reviews such as these may have on the reputation of the DWP. I also hope that with a view to minimising any tendency to increased cynicism and mistrust you can clarify what occurred on this occasion."
The Most Recent (09/11 v 3)? - published on 30 September for use in Jobcentres from 3 October 2011
"You must complete any activities that [insert name of Provider], or one of their partners, tells you to do"
Part 1 DWP
"Please Note: The below information is provided "as is" freely on the internet expressing an idea.There is no warranty that it is correct or the extent of its effectiveness. There is no guarantee that it will work or that such persons will be exempt from benefit sanctions for such refusal. It might help you, it might not. It could inspire you into a better letter. It is expected that a person wanting to Refuse the Work Programme has a genuine objection that is sincere."
WP05 : Work Programme notification letter, SEETEC
"Below we have a copy of the notification letter to an unemployed person already in receipt of the Jobseekers Allowance. The manner of the letter is the first point of contention, it is a clear document of orders, the second comes in the offer of contract and its rules, specifically the terms by which the receiver of the offer of contract must obey all commands coming from the outsource provider, Seetec, quote :
“You must complete any activities that SEETEC tells you to do”"
First you must understand that for contract law to support your actions you need to ensure your terms are of a reasonable nature, example: keeping terms in accordance with your employment history and your abilities, as such you need to consider your position in these terms:
your human rights
So let us say you, in general, worked in an office, that this should be seen as your career choice as a whole, that after your consideration of the offer you will present your terms in relation to acceptance in accordance that should you accept the offer, (subject to consideration) the offers of employment would fall within your skill base, and that you would expect a similar rate of pay as that deserving of your qualities. (you would have to present an acceptable rate of pay acceptable to you as part of your terms)
You would then want to clarify the term; “You must complete any activities that SEETEC tells you to do”, because it is so open ended, you would in theory lose benefit payments should you refuse to kill your next door neighbour if a member of SEETEC demanded such of you. Such clarification even in law, would not be seen as an unreasonable request, so you would open negotiation in order the boundaries of such a term, especially as consent is being sought under contractual obligation for which sanctions would have been consented to be used as a tool of enforcement, to be set and then accepted to the agreement of both parties."
WP Start letter 23 Oct 2012 21:35
"People mandated to the WP have to be issued with a letter which cites the correct regulations enabling the mandation. The letter that should be used is coded WP05. The original version of this letter dod not cite the regulations. The DWP altered the WP05 without giving it a new version number (sneaky!). Some people were also incorrectly mandated by use of other letters (e.g. WP02 which also does not contain the required wording). There have already been instances - some documented on this site! - of successful challenges to the WP mandation (see posts from Bryan). In these instances the person has checked which letter they received and whether it was the correct version. This can be done by a Subject Access Request if original not available. WHERE the original mandation has been done incorrectly complaints have been made - and upheld. The result being withdrawal from the WP and reinstatement of normal signing on procedures at JCP."
 EWHC 2292 (Admin) and revised standard letters (FOIR)
"In The Queen (on the application of) Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgme... ruling it highlighted DWP letters warning of potential sanctions are unlawful. Today you said "We do not believe there is anything wrong with the original letters and we will appeal this aspect of the judgement, but in the meantime we have revised our standard letters.""
The Queen (on the application of) Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Reilly - CO/260/2012 and Wilson - CO/1087/2012
Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC 2292 (Admin)
The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011
JSA SANCTIONS FROM 22.10.12 - Memo DMG 37/12 (DWP)
Changes to Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions from 22 October 2012 (DWP)
DMG Chapter 34 - Sanctions (DWP)
DMG Chapter 35 - Hardship (DWP)
Work Programme Provider Guidance (DWP)
Friday 1 April 2011 19.46 BST
Jobcentres 'tricking' people out of benefits to cut costs, says whistleblower
"Soaring number of sanctions against unemployed amid claims that DWP staff are being told to trip people up with paperwork."
Posted on February 19, 2012
Chris Grayling is a Lying Bastard
Critics of Government work experience programme are 'jobs snobs', says minister
Stalin Would Blush at this Government’s Workfare Tantrum
DWP Rewrite History – Mandatory Work Disappears from the Work Programme Provider’s Guidance
"That an over-privileged Oxbridge twat like Chris Grayling can accuse benefit claimants of being snobs for objecting to forced labour shows how pitifully out of touch this government are.
Grayling, clearly rattled about the ongoing disintegration of the government’s welfare policy, has unleashed a torrent of lies in the Telegraph this morning.
Perhaps the most brazen is the quote: “We won’t and don’t force anyone to take a work experience placement. Where we use mandation in our welfare policies, it will be to do useful work on community projects. We will never mandate anyone to work for a big company. They wouldn’t take them if we did.“
Just one of several new workfare schemes is called the ‘Mandatory Work Programme’ (the clue’s in the name). Under this scheme, which Job Centre advisors can re-refer people onto indefinitely, claimants will be expected to work 30 hours a week, for four weeks per referral, or face benefit sanctions of three months. If they leave and then return to the placement the sanction will still remain in force. Where claimants end up working will be down to providers, almost all of whom are private sector poverty pimps. Claimants could be referred to private companies or charities alike. Whilst it is true that on this scheme the DWP has stipulated that placements should have some community benefit, one of those benefits is astonishingly ‘working towards the profit of the host organisation’."