Reilly Good News

Tuesday 12 February 2013 

Taxpayers 'facing multi-million-pound compensation bill' as judges rule back-to-work schemes are unlawful in Poundland test case

"Cait Reilly has won her Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful,

She and unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims, in the legal aid funded case,

The ruling will not affect the schemes’ existence but will mean the way in which they are written and enforced will need to change,

Lawyers say today's ruling could mean those whose benefits were stripped for refusing part in back-to-work schemes could now reclaim them,

But DWP say it is 'adamant there are no grounds for repayment'."

Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 66

Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quashed
 
Back-to-work scheme ruling explained
 
This Poundland ruling is a welcome blow to the Work Programme

Landmark workfare ruling, “govt acted unlawfully #workfare is quashed”

Graduate wins court fight that 'slave labour' at Poundland was unlawful
 
Back-to-work scheme breached laws, says Court of Appeal

Poundland ruling: Back-to-work schemes in disarray as no-pay placements judged unlawful
 
Poundland ruling 'blows big hole' through government work schemes

"Back-to-work scheme breached laws"

Government training scheme unlawful
 
Poundland ‘breached forced labour laws’
 
Graduate’s Poundland victory leaves government work schemes in tatters
 
Court of Appeal will this morning rule whether ConDem employment schemes constitute forced labour
 
Back to work schemes quashed in huge victory for ordinary people
 
Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson: Court Rules Workfare Unlawful.
 
Public Interest Lawyers Limited: Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quashed
 
Back-to-work ruling 'undermines welfare reform'

Small Victories

Court of Appeal Rules “Back to Work” Regulations Unlawful And Must Be Quashed
 
Workfare Is Broken! New Court Ruling and Charity Exodus Are Death Knell For Forced Labour!
 
Unpaid work scheme is illegal, says court - with comment
 
Did you turn down Workfare and lose benefits? Claim them back now!

Poundland Made Me Feel Like I Was Free Labour, Says Cait Reilly – Video
 
DWP Response To Todays #Workfare Judgement

Back-to-work scheme regulations unlawful, not schemes themselves, says expert 

What was the real reason for the work experience decision?

In praise of … Cait Reilly
 
Politics and the Poundland ruling
 
The Poundland Principle: The Only Thing To Gain From Unskilled Labour Is A Wage
 
Nigel

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”"

"Your Terms

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:

pay
conditions
timetable
benefits
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."

*****

[2012] 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: [2012] 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’."

Nigel

Contemporary Slavery In The UK

"What is forced labour?

What is the problem?

Forced labour is any work or services which people are forced to do against their will under the threat of some form [of] punishment. Almost all slavery practices, including trafficking in people and bonded labour, contain some element of forced labour."

Home \ English \ Slavery Today \ Forced Labour

Forced labour: contemporary slavery in the UK

"Influencing the development of policy and practice to reduce forced labour in the UK.

Our overall goal is to contribute to a reduction in forced labour in the UK by highlighting the issue with new, strong evidence on the extent of forced labour and interventions that might help eradicate it; and identifying practical solutions and sharing best practice in supporting victims of forced labour."

Home / Our work / Forced labour: contemporary slavery in the UK

*****

The Queen (on the application of) Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin)

Reilly - CO/260/2012 and Wilson - CO/1087/2012

"174 ... it does have to be said that the sbwa scheme, and indeed the CAP, are a very long way removed from the kind of colonial exploitation of labour that led to the formulation of Article 4. The Convention is, of course, a living instrument, capable of development to meet modern conditions, and views may reasonably differ about the merits of a scheme that requires individuals to “work for their benefits” as a means of assisting them back into the workplace. However, characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to “slavery” or “forced labour” seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking.

Mr Walsh’s first witness statement refers to details of research which it is suggested shows that schemes like the CAP can and do have a beneficial effect in relation to the obtaining of work by the long-term unemployed. It is no part of the court’s function to evaluate that evidence or to comment on its Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Reilly & Wilson v DWP validity. However, if valid, its existence would reinforce the view that a scheme like the CAP does not offend Article 4.

175. Whilst the argument in Nikiforova concerned different Regulations (see paragraph 52 above), the approach of Bean J and the Court of Appeal in that case supports this conclusion.

176. For these reasons, briefly stated, I do not consider that either scheme is contrary to Article 4, nor do I consider that there has been any breach in Miss Reilly’s case."

 *****

Welfare Reform Act 2012

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011

March 2011

Report

"The Purpose of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme

15. The Committee, along with some respondents, set out a concern regarding the intention of the scheme, likening it to a punishment, rather than a supportive employment programme.

16. The Government does not accept this position. The Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is targeted at those customers who have demonstrated that they require support to gain work related disciplines and re-engage with their search for work, as well as failing to voluntarily engage in the support that is offered by Jobcentre Plus. The Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is not a sanction, or a punishment, but has been developed in recognition that some customers require additional support."

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 

Jobseekers Act 1995

*****

Posted on December 14, 2012

Could Mandatory Work Activity be on the Brink of Collapse?

"An evaluation of the Government’s Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) scheme, commissioned and published by the DWP, reveals that welfare-to-work companies are struggling to find enough placements for all those forced into unpaid work. In a further blow to the DWP’s plans for mass workfare, this report was released before several major charities, including Scope, British Heart Foundation, Age UK and Cancer Research announced they were pulling out of the scheme."

RR 823 Evaluation of Mandatory Work Activity - December 2012

Read summary
Read full report

Mandatory Programmes Official Statistics - November 2012
Mandatory Programme Statistics August 2012

*****

November 11, 2012

Government So Ashamed of Workfare it Blocks Information about it

"The Department of Work and Pensions is refusing to publish the names of charities and businesses where tens of thousands of unemployed people are being made to work without pay for four weeks at a time."

Is the Work Programme really Forced Labour/Slavery in the UK?

Between decent work and forced labour: examining the continuum of exploitation
 
Between decent work and forced labour: examining the continuum of exploitation
 
Nigel