What constitutes correct mandation to the WP

[Gissajob]

I have been a party in an interesting thread over on the watching a4e site here:http://watchinga4e.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/a-different-company.html?showComment=1349345866168#c3794959707207825156
To summarise - mandation on to the Work Programme is done (normally?) by issuing the victim with a standard letter from the DWP - the letter is coded WP 05.  It would seem from the FOI response (link on other site) that the letter was surreptiously altered because the first version did not contain a reference to the relevant regulations (The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011).  The claim is that without this reference the letter, and therefore the mandation to the WP is invalid.
There is an unknown number of people currently on the WP who may have been mandated incorrectly, I may be one of them as I seem not to have had a WP05 at all - rather something coded WP02 WP JSA Invitation Letter (which does not refer to any regulations).
I have 2 questions:
1.  Is it right that the mandation is invalid without the reference to the regulations?
2.  If so what are the probable consequences of incorrect mandation?

Now if LC has finished preening herself after her starring role I would appreciate her learned opinion (as well as anyone else's!)

"I'm ready for my close up Mr. DeMille!"

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

Obviously, I don't know the legally exact and accurate anwer to your queries but I think.....

1.  I know that in the Cait Reilly & Jamie Wilson Judicial Review recently, Mr Justice Foskett was extremely critical of the DWP's procedures.  He told them, in effect, "You can't just order someone to do something.  You must identify your legal authories for these orders, in writing, so that the recipient of the order can have a sensible opportunity to look up the relevant legislation and/or obtain competent, independent legal advice etc."

So it might well be that the DWP were also short on procedural perfection in their letters to all of the WP victims, including thee & me.  I'm one of the few people who would have bothered to find and read the relevant legislation if I had known what it is called.  However, I didn't know its name so I was unable to look it up. 

I think it is very likely that there was a damning flaw in the procedures used by the DWP. 

2.  If I'm right about that, the court can't enforce the terms of a legally defective document.   The Judge can't be expected to guess about which bit of legislation might be involved, after all.  The Judge would just chuck the DWP out, with some ferocity!

After the mauling from Mr Justice Foskett, the DWP's lawyers accepted that vague statements such as, "your benefits may be affected unless you obey us......" will not do.   

Foskett did raise a very significant legal doubt but, soon afterwards, the Govt said that if necessary, they would amend the relevant legislation so as to correct the DWP's error of procedure retrospectively.

Eventually it was decided that it would be enough if the DWP simply sent everyone new letters, being more specific about the sanctions regime.

The Govt won't halt the WP scheme just because a procedural error has inadvertently produced a legal error as well.  The Govt will simply alter the relevant legislation so as to protect the WP scheme, I strongly suspect. 

That said, I think you should re-post your query on the Swarb forum:

http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/

Several currently-practising solicitors and barristers contribute to that forum and I have found it invaluable for obtaining sensible, accurate legal advice at no cost. 

It is called "Swarb" because it is owned and run by a man called David Swarbrick.  He became a solicitor in 1981 (same year as me) but he then became a legal publisher after that.  His user-name is DIS because, I believe, his full name is David Ian Swarbrick.

LC

[Gissajob]

Thanks for that.  I'll do as you suggest.

Meanwhile let us know when the programme is going to be on (C4?)

G.

[Gissajob]

Hi all,
I have done as LC suggested and posted a new question on that site : swarb.co.uk • Index page
and I've e-mailed Jim Duffy at PIL (Cait Reilly's solicitor) and Martin Williams at Child Poverty Action Group:
Sanction busting – appealing Work Programme sanctions | Child Poverty Action Group

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

I use the name "Gollywobbler" on the Swarb forum.  I've added the links to the two parts of the Judgement in the Cait Reilly case, since someone who has replied to your Original Post wants those. 

LC

[Lazy Cow]

Incidentally, before anyone screams "racist," a gollywobbler is a mizzen staysail on a schooner rigged sailing vessel.  Because of the location of the sail when it is hoisted, it is shivery, wobbly and makes the helmsman think, "I hope that bluddy sail will behave."  Hence it is called a gollywobbler and has been for at least 200 years, I believe. 

[Gissajob]

I knew that! (not).

[Gissajob]

Well I've read the reply which I reproduce here:

The question now being asked is whether many individuals have been adversely affected by the limited faults found by Foskett J. The answer is that it is a problem for each individual to resolve. Situations will differ, and there can be no rolled up solution. Each must look at teh decision, the procedures followed in their particular case, and the decisions and losses suffered if any.

As a non lawyer I think I'm getting out of my depth!  Possibly there is an over reliance on the Cait Reilly judgement that is confusing the issue?  It seems obvious to me that if you are ordering someone to do something then you should have to specify the legislation and regulations which give you the power to do that.  If this is right then clearly it has not been done in a significant number of Work Programme mandations. 
This being the case the next question is what are the consequences?
The possible answers include:
1.  None - the oversight doesn't matter and no action by the DWP
2.  Everyone affected should be written to with an explanation of the regulations (similar to the sanction clarification issued after the CR case).
3. All incorrectly made mandations are invalid and all such people have to be re-mandated with a re-start of the 2 year WP period and a cancellation and refund of benefits for any wp related sanctions already applied.

We also need to know how to resolve this!  It would appear to me that one way would be a formal complaint to the JCP - I guess to find the full impact this should be made by someone who has been incorrectly mandated to the WP and who has suffered a WP related sanction (e.g. failing to engage with the WP)?

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

The relevant law is so new that Cait Reilly's case is the only one that has been to court so far, I believe.   In some ways, Cait Reilly is not relevant to a Work Programme customer because Miss Reilly had not been mandated onto the Work Programme scheme.  Nonetheless, Miss Reilly is the only thing that anyone has by way of a legal precedent so far, ergo it is inevitable that her name will continue to attract publicity that is hostile to the DWP. 

DIS is a bluddy good lawyer.  Most lawyers are too busy doing the nuts & bolts of the day-job to have much (if any) time to spare for analysing a query like this one.  DIS is also a very safe lawyer - he never gives anyone the impression that it would be "safe" for them to rush off and do something merely because of something they have read on an internet forum. 

Since DIS's reply, the other person, Slartibartfast, has responded again.  Slart says that Foskett J criticised the DWP for defective procedures but that he did not go as far as making any firm Declarations about the procedural defects.  (The Govt would be forced to follow a formal Declaration by the court but Foskett did not go that far.)

With regard to your own hypothetical question/conclusions, my own feeling is that No 2 would be the only really watertight way for the DWP to proceed as far as Work Programme customers are concerned.  That said, a customer on the Work Programme is automatically also a Benefits claimant, therefore s/he has already received the letter that was sent out in August 2012, following the Cait Reilly case.  What would be the point of sending out another letter, solely to Work Programme customers, which would only repeat that which they have already been told? 

I think the issue comes when there is a Work Programme customer who has told the WP provider to f*ck off.  The WP provider has whinged to the DWP, who have sanctioned the Benefits claimant/Work Programme customer, possibly unreasonably and unfairly harshly - which is what Jamie Wilson said had happened to him.  Would the Work Programme customer in this position be able to ask the court to order redress? 

DIS and Slart both say that, in this situation, it is not impossible that the court would entertain a demand for redress by the WP customer.  It is pretty clear, though, that the WP customer's argument would have to be watertight. Why did s/he tell the WP provider to go forth & multiply? How long was s/he sanctioned for?  Did s/he lose HB and CT as well as the general Benefit?  If yes, can s/he prove that s/he took all reasonable steps to try to prevent the loss of the HB and CT?  Did s/he lose the roof over his/her head as a direct result of the sanction?

Because it is such early days, nobody really knows the answers as yet.  Also, the Cait Reilly/Jamie Wilson case has definitely been set down for Appeal to the Court of Appeal by both parties - the Queen on behalf of Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson and the Govt on behalf of IDS.

Foskett granted the permissions to appeal at the same time as handing down his own judgement, so he wasn't being a curmudgeonly old codger. (He could have been - he could have told all concerned, "If you want to appeal against my judgement then you go and ask the Court of Appeal whether it is prepared to entertain either of you.") 

The lawyers tried to push Foskett to Declare that the Court of Appeal should take over with the utmost speed. Foskett said that the High Court doesn't have the power to push the higher court in that way. Foskett contented himself with the statement that he thinks the case throws up several issues which he agrees are of legitimate public interest and concern, so he hopes that the Court of Appeal will act quickly. 

In the "good old days" when Lord Denning was the Master of the Rolls, this one is just the sort of case where he would have called it in for his own attention.  Denning never gave a toss what anyone else might think - Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson both look like the Underdog.  Denning was the Underdog's Saviour because he could usually be relied on to protect the Underdog.   He would say that the Government had acted unlawfully if he believed that they had.  My impression of Foskett is that he is tough and he is fair but he reckons that it is above his pay-grade to fight with the Government, I suspect.

Litigation lawyers LOATHED Denning. They grumbled that it was impossible to predict the outcome of a piece of litigation with that "senile old scarecrow" hanging around, ready to interpret the Law in weird, wonderful and impossible-to-believe ways in Denning's desire to do nothing except protect whichever party Denning believed was the Underdog.

Denning actually admitted me to the Roll of Solicitors back in 1981.  On that occasion, he was a lovely old boy.  I remember that he had very blue eyes and a piercing expression but he was clearly also very kindly, twinkly and gentle. 

My litigation lawyer boyfriend at the time would have none of it when I tried to defend Denning against Tim's criticisms of the old man.  Tim told me snootily, "Denning was only protecting the Underdog as usual.  Newly qualified solicitors are useful for doing the photocopying but nothing much else, so Denning had no reason to maul any of you.  When you've got a client claiming £50 million in damages from someone else, you begin to realise that Denning has talons a foot long, they are sharp and he is completely unpredictable about whose scalp to dig them into.  He's not as cuddly as he looks!"

LC

[Gissajob]

I still think that the wrong tree is being barked up!
The ruling in the CR case was, as you say, about informing people about the consequences of their actions (or inactions) in the form of specific sanctions.  It is true that neither of the apellants were on the Work Programme.  My query does not relate to not being told about sanctions (we have all received the letter from the DWP correcting their oversight on this).  I am trying to find out the likely consequence of not being informed in writing of the specific enabling regulations for manadtion to the WP.

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

Right!  Thanks for the clarification.

What quantiable loss or other harm have you or I suffered as a direct, foreseeable result of the fact that both of us seem to have been mandated onto the Work Programme scheme incorrectly?

I'd have ditched this WP nonsense by now if I could have worked out a way to say (truthfully) that being saddled with it is anything more than an ineffective, inefficient nuisance and therefore a complete waste of everyone's time and a considerable amount of public money.   My criticisms are not sufficient, by themselves, to convince a Judge that the WP scheme itself is unlawful or that the DWP have acted unlawfully by forcing me to participate in it. 

That being the case, I've resorted to Plan B on the tactics, insisting that A4E must support me to do the LawWorks' Choices project.  If A4E come good on their promise (oral-only, so far) to do that bit then A4E will go up in my estimation.  If they try to rat on their promise then I will release the entire paper-trail about it to the national press and to several MPs at the same time.

The only thing for it, in my view, is to try to force a constructive solution for myself out of this rubbish. 

Would you be in a position to do anything similar, Gissajob?   If you would then I'll try to give you a hand (privately) to try to achieve it, if you would like? 

LC

[Grapplin]

What quantiable loss or other harm have you or I suffered as a direct,

Time wasted traveling to and from, when you could have been jobsearching.
Fixing your CV after it was 'improved'.

I think the whole idea of handing vunerable people over to a for-profit company with no interest in the wellbeing of
the person or the UK economy, should be in question itself, meself!

(privately)
The down arrow at the end of  Post reply   will allow  Reply to author , if you don't already know each others em@il,
you will after.

[Gissajob]

Well I guess the  "quantifiable loss" is difficult.  In effect the whole thing has just been one enormous waste of time for me.  The loss is to the public purse which has forked out - and continues to fork out for the WP.
I explored the possibility of relevant training with provider (like you A4greed) but after a while was told that "there are no funds available" or words to that effect.
It seems to me that, whether or not I personally have suffered a quantifiable loss, there has definitely been maladministration by the DWP/JCP who did not tell me the details of the enabling regulations.  I get the impression that it is not worth making a complaint about this though.
Thanks for your offer of help.  I have decided to go quietly into the night, serve out my time, only make waves when there is no possibility of a comeback and devote my considerable intellect to cultivating my little vegetable plot (because they don't answer back!).

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Grapplin

I completely agree with you about the time wasted on travelling, the time wasted on attending idiot-level "group pep-talks" (delivered by A4E employees who, with one sole exception, have not had a clue what they were yapping about) and I rejected their "kind offer" to interfere with my CV, so that was the end of that piece of nonsense. 

However, none of this would be enough to persuade a sceptical Judge that the Work Programme scheme is unlawful.  At best, a Judge would simply cluck sympathetically at me, I reckon.

"I think the whole idea of handing vunerable people over to a for-profit company with no interest in the wellbeing of
the person or the UK economy, should be in question itself, meself!"

I could not agree with you more.  It is a form of assault, imho.  However, Parliament is not forbidden from inflicting harm and suffering on the population - look at the ways in which old people are being abused because the Treasury won't stump up the money to look after them properly.  Apparently "democracy" decrees that a suffering population can simply kick the sadists out at the next Election. 

The creeps like A4E would not be permitted to interfere - nor would they wish to - were it not for the green light from the pollies plus the willingness of the pollies to shake the public purse all over them.  It is a disgrace but the "democratic solution" is to kick the pollies out. 

Thanks very much for the tip about how to contact Gissajob privately if he wants that.  I was going to suggest that he simply sends an e-mail to the address I've used in order to join this group if he wishes. 

LC

[Grapplin]

I was going to suggest that he simply sends an e-mail to the address I've used in order to join this group
if he wishes.

That's what  Reply to author  does!

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

********************************************************************

I'm terribly sorry that I didn't reply to your post above.  I must have overlooked it somehow - mea culpa and very sorry. 

I will reply to your post above properly a bit later today, if I may.  

LC

[Lazy Cow]

Hi again Gissajob

I completely agree with you about cultivating your vegetable plot instead of fooling around with the Work Programme scheme more than you absolutely have to.  

I also agree that there has been maladministration by the DWP in failing to describe the Work Programme scheme accurately.   However, maladministration alone doesn't cause a ground for complaint that a court would uphold.  There has to be other, quantifiable, loss as well and I can't think of any for most of the WP scheme's customers.

The long & short is that the Govt has decided to punish the unemployed savagely for the heinous crime of daring to claim Benefits.   That is a vote-winner, I gather.   

LC

[Gissajob]

Hi LC - At last I have found a woman I can agree with!

As for the WP/A4greed et al, I plan to vent my spleen on the parsnip crop.  Little do they know but come tomorrow (rain or shine) they will be disinterred and transmogrified into soup for the freezer (courtesy of a  Jamie Oliver recipe - following instructions is not my strong point so I anticipate some variance from the recipe - definitely be parsnips in there though!).

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

I love cooking, and I love reading recipes written by other people.  I buy cookery books in the local charity shops and then read each recipe as if it were a new chapter in a whodunnit.  

I've hardly ever followed any recipes properly, though.   I usually find that I don't have something (eg the nutmeg, which would probably be quite nice with parsnips.)  I tend to think, "To hell with the details.  Necessity is the mother of invention and I don't have time to fool around with the details." 

I've cooked many a meal from scratch on boats in the middle of the English Channel.   Even if one wanted to, one cannot go rushing to a shop and if the cook just shuts up about nutmeg or whatever, none of the rest of the crew will notice its exclusion in my experience!  

In the event of a smart ass crew-member with mutiny in mind, my attitude is, "This is FOOD.  We're on a BOAT.  Nobody ever told you that the said boat would be anything like the QEII, Matey.  If you don't want this food, the oggin is right beside you and the fish will be grateful for the grub even if you aren't. You'll go hungry, admittedly, but that isn't my problem, chum."

Please let me know how your parsnip soup turns out?  Just the thought of it is making me hungry....... 

LC

[Gissajob]

Hi LC
Well so far so good!  Have a fine haul (or maybe "harvest") of assorted parsnips and most of the other gubbins decreed by the blessed Jamie:
http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/vegetarian-recipes/spicy-parsnip-soup
Have been down the ethnic supermarket and re-stocked the spice cupboard along with a few other goodies, so I was good to go. Decided to add a couple of malnourished butter nut squashes that were lying around on (my) allotment.
Then spent the next hour or more peeling and chopping.  Phew!  the blessed Jamie didn't mention all that did he?
Still I am now ready to fire up the cauldron and see what ensues.

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

Thanks for the Jamie Oliver recipe.  It looks lovely.  I agree that if I had any spare butternut squash, pumpkin or anything roughly similar, I'd bung those in as well. 

I now have visions of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall when I try to imagine Gissajob.

This sort of activity is also much, much better for your physical and mental survival than mucking around with keeping A4E and the DWP happy instead. 

I've been following the new Wartime Farm series on TV (well. on iPlayer since I can't afford a TV licence.)  There is another instalment later tonight, I hope.   I'm a huge fan of Ruth Goodman even though I gat a bit bored with the two men and their fascination with machines.   The series was filmed at Manor Farm, which is only about 3 miles from me.  I knew about Manor Farm Country Park, where there is a lake and a miniature steam train but I never knew that the place also has a proper working farmyard - I don't know exactly where the farmyard part is but I'm hoping to go and see it sometime. 

Meanwhile, your parsnip soup is still making me feel hungry......

LC

[Gissajob]

Well the soup(?) is all in the freezer - there's a lot of it so at least I won't starve for a while.  I say ?soup? because it's very thick - can't quite stand a spoon up in it but should it really form meringue like peaks?  - Well let's just say it's concentrated.  I added extra chillis, some saffron (legacy of better days) and made it with coconut milk so it definitely has an asian feel to it.  I think best served with a dash of lemon or lime juice to cut through the sweetness of all those parsnips.
Enough of the Huge F-W (though I quite like his stuff and know the part of the country River Cottage is in.  I also (as a child) lived near LC (in Gosport and a place called Hillhead)..

This sort of activity is also much, much better for your physical and mental survival than mucking around with keeping A4E and the DWP happy instead. 

Quite right!  There is far more to life than working, chasing work, being the plaything of A4e etc.

I will try to chill out and lay back more (some will say that this will mean I'm horizontal), somehow though when I read of the things going on I become exercised  and incensed with the injustice and stupidity of it all.

Now the next project?  LC you mentioned pimpkins There are 2 on my little plot - one about football size and one about the size of a good beach ball.  The former I will give to my neighbours, who have 2 small kids.  Don't klnow what to do with the big booger though!

[Gissajob]

Hmmmm!  "Pimpkin"???
Either I've invented a new vegetable, got dyslexic fingers, drank too much red wine or having a freudian slip.
These were pretty too this year:

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

Well done for your parsnip soup!  Not only will you not go hungry, your soup is actually whole, proper, nutritious food. 

Reading the recipe, Jamie Oliver seems to have thought that the soup should be deliberately very thick and creamy, with the sweetness offset by the combination of ginger and chilli, plus he seems to think that really good, crusty bread is pretty essential. 

I know zilch about the theory/science of food.   I'm wondering whether citric acid would just scream at a parsnip instead of complimenting it?   Would lemon zest do the trick instead of the juice, do you think? My instinct is that lime might be too harsh.

Alternatively, what about really crisp, streaky bacon? (No use if you are a vegetarian but you haven't said whether you are.)

With your pumpkin, I think it depends on your palate.  At this time of year, millions of people are busily making all-American pumpkin pie.  I tend to think of pumpkin as a vegetable so I'd be looking for savoury rather than sweet things to make out of it. 

LC

[Lazy Cow]

Hi again, Gissajob

I know Hill Head!  That is, I know where Hill Head is because that is the turn-off where you can cut down to the coast road that runs from Gosport to Titchfield Haven.  I love that coast road because it is always so peaceful whenever I've been along it. 

I've never gotten to know Dorset as well as I would like to.  I'm sure that River Cottage is as lovely - and as isolated - as it seems to be on TV though I don't know exactly where it is.  I do admire High Fearnley-Whittingstall for furning his back on the Establishment and just getting on with the things that really matter instead.  He was born in 1965 and went to Eton - so he must have been a direct contemporary of Cameron's.  Where have those two men ended up?  One is the most ineffectual Prime Minister in history whilst the other has really made a go of his life and has become immensely popular in the way that the PR clot would like to be, it seems to me....

I think you're on the right track with your allotment, Gissajob.  Several years ago my friend Sheila introduced me to the idea of growing runner beans and tomatoes in pots but that's the nearest I've ever been to growing my own fruit and veg.  I told Sheila that I thought the pots were a very laborious way of producing very little and that she and I should get an allotment to share.  She spluttered, "Allotments are bigger than you think they are!  Do you have any idea how much work is involved in looking after an allotment properly and how much time it all takes to do?!!"  Nope. 

Sheila said sternly that it is much more work than I think and that if I wanted to have a go with an allotment, I should go and visit the local allotments and get chatting with some of the allotment holders.  She said that I must really get down to it and do my research properly before I should even think of putting my name down for an allotment. 

Meanwhile, I was instructed to stick to half a dozen pots and to leave it at that.  Woof!  Kinda stifles ambition when you encounter so much hostility, I felt!

LC

[Gissajob]

and just briefly back to the original question! 
This taken from elsewhere:

Your template letter worked mate. I got all the forms for one of my clients and discovered no wp05. Jobcentre will now send him back to WP after putting him back on normal JSA for six months.

So here we have someone who was mandated to the WP without the correct WP05 wording.
Following the complaint the DWP have taken him/her off the WP for a period of 6 months before (presumably) re-mandating him/her (another attachment fee?).  This also has the effect of delaying conscription to the Community Action Programme for a total of 2 and a half years!

THIS NEEDS TO BE PUBLICISED!!!

[Gissajob]

Oh yes - I nearly forgot!  Any sanctions applied for "not enaging" or "Failing To Attend" or any other WP linked sanctions should be overturned (and damages paid?).

[Lazy Cow]

I'm intrigued!  I've just replied to your thread on the Swarb forum about this. 

I agree with you that the development should be publicised.   Preferably by the national media, following an FOI request by them to find out how many people have been wrongly mandated on to the WP scheme.  And following another FOI request to discover whether any more taxpayers' money is going to be thrown at the Primes in the shape of new attachment fees for people who get re-mandated to the WP scheme after a six month break from it. 

The media seem to know how to phrase FOI requests in order to elicit the information they want, hence I think they would be the best people to investigate this whole thing further. 

LC

[Gissajob]

No sooner said than done!
I have e-mailed an FT journo - Sarah O'Connor - she did the FT aticle on NLP to which I contributed.
We'll see if anything comes of it.

P.S. Many, many, many years ago I learnt to sail in:  1.  A Ransa (14' clinker built dinghy) and a 2. 27' whaler (never saw any whales though.

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

Very well done for contacting the lady journo at the FT.

I read the link that you provided in your first post on this thread again earlier.  It seems weird that the DWP had a "correct" form of WP05 as early as 30 June 2011 but they didn't insist that all JCPs must start using the "correct" WP05 immediately.  Why ever not????

Reading the posts by Surplus Labour, though, it seems pretty obvious that the people in the DWP's FOI team really haven't got much of a clue about what happens elsewhere in the DWP.  So perhaps sloppiness just pervades the whole of the DWP from top to bottom? 

I wonder how many people will avail themselves of the chance to ditch the Work Programme scheme for the next six months? Hopefully, the national media will publicise the whole thing, which might force a general climb-down by the DWP. 

The person whom you have described - let's call him or her Bloggs.  If Bloggs was incorrectly mandated onto the WP scheme in the first place, why should s/he have to face a full further 24 months on the scheme starting in six months time? 

Let us say that Bloggs has already completed 12 months on the WP scheme because of the incorrect form of mandation.  Does the contract between the DWP and the Prime contractor "looking after" Bloggs contain a claw-back provision, to enable the DWP to claw back at least 50% of the attachment fee that the DWP paid when they mandated Bloggs to the WP scheme incorrectly?  If not, why not? 

What happens if Bloggs finds a job within the six months' "grace period" that Bloggs is now said to be enjoying?  Is the contract between the DWP and the Prime tight enough to prevent the Prime from being able to try to claim any sort of Payment by Results in relation to Bloggs' new employment?  If not, why not?

Now let us say that Bloggs does not find a job during the grace period.  Will s/he be sent back to the original Prime for the new mandation onto the WP scheme?  If yes, will the relevant Prime be able to collect 100% of a new attachment fee in relation to Bloggs?  If not, will the Prime be able to scream the place down at having to put up with Bloggs for 36 months for no extra money?

The Regulations do not cover any of the above possibilities.  Like all hastily-drafted legislation, the 2011 Regulations assume that nothing will go wrong at any stage.  That tends to lull the Procurement wallahs into an equally false sense of security so that the contracts organised by Procurement usually fail to have foreseen and to have dealt with what is to happen in the specific scenario that has gone wrong.

The result of all this corner-cutting is that Joe Taxpayer loses money.  Why should JT put up with that without making a fuss?  Particularly at the hands of the present bunch of pollies, all swaggering around like a bunch of singularly incompetent prefects?

LC

[Gissajob]

Wow LC!  Questions, questions, questions!  I can tell you're a woman and a Solicitor!
None of the points you raised occurred to me but they are all valid and I have no idea what the answers are* - why should I - it's not my job!
* except possibly this one
"If Bloggs was incorrectly mandated onto the WP scheme in the first place, why should s/he have to face a full further 24 months on the scheme starting in six months time?"  If I were Bloggs I would gladly serve the extra time on the Wp rather than the alternative which is breaking rocks on the CAP. 
Anyway I have been having some private messages with Bryan who appears to be some sort of welfare adviser (CAB?).  He tells me that around 40% of his "clients" appear to have been incorrectly mandated.   If this is anywhere near correct and can be extrapolated we are talking of a large number of people with a valid complaint against the JCP/WP/DWP.  Bryan is particularly sensitive about confidentiality (I respect that) so I am trying to get him to add his testimony (anonymously) to aid the spreading of the word..  Do you fancy dropping an e-mail to your recent media friends??? - or maybe you feel that is the wrong way to go about this?  Maybe pose your questions on the legal site?
I surprise myself!  I'm normally a mild mannered, live and let live, tolerant. left of centre, wishy washy liberal but this WP fiasco seems to have brought out the Rottweiller in me.  Off to bed now to chew on a bone.

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

I hope you enjoyed chewing your bone?  Do I take it that this means you are not a vegetarian? 

I don't think it is worth asking all my questions about Bloggs on the Swarb forum because none of the lawyers who contribute to Swarb seem to know anything much about Benefits law and they seem to know even less about the Work Programme scheme in particular.

I'm hoping to become a "proper expert" about Benefits law, via the charity LawWorks that I've been rabbiting about on another thread on here.  It incenses me that people are being treated so unfairly about their Benefits in the last few years (especially the last 2 years) and it brings out my own desire to protect the Underdog.

If the lady journo from the FT declines to help with the story of Bloggs, I think it will definitely be worth trying the journo who came to interview me.  I'm not sure whether he's really only interested in A4E or whether he's interested in the Work Programme scheme generally.  However, if he's not interested in Bloggs then Historian knows loads of journos whom I don't know, so Historian might be able to get the publicity that I think is needed. 

Where did you hear about Bloggs, please?   I joined the Consumer Forum earlier this evening but there were no recent thread titles on that which suggested Bloggs.  I haven't posted anything on the Consumer Forum and might never do so but I've bagged the user-name Lazy Cow!  Reading the Consumer Forum, I'm beginning to realise just how much Benefits law I don't know!  Scary but exciting at the same time, since I hope to be able to learn all the stuff that I don't know! 

LC

[Gissajob]

Hi LC,
Definitely not a veggie - if God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them of meat.
As for chewing on a bone - in retrospect it sounds vaguely rude!  It wasn't meant to be.
As for your question on source:  Go to this site: Unemployment Movement
Have a look at the ES24JP thread under Wefare to Work http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/welfare-to-work/4188-es24-jp?start=7
The site also has the functionality of private messaging which I have been using to correspond with Bryan.
I am not sure in what capacity he acts but here and in several other places he refers to clients and colleagues so I'm guessing he's some sort of volunteer CAB or suchlike.
I haven't yet heard back from the FT woman (I may never). I'm thinking of publicising on this site:Ipswich Unemployed Action. Home which gets a fair amount of traffic.
I don't want to go off at half cock though so I'm taking a bit of time for thought.

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

I must remember your comment about if God hadn't meant us to eat animals He wouldn't have made them of meat!   LOL!  You are soooo right!!!

Thanks for the link to the Unemployed Movement forum or whatever it is called.    I clicked on the link you sent and discovered that I actually joined that forum ages ago, with the user-name Lazy-Cow, but I've never posted anything on there.  With that one and the CAG forum, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to make any useful contributions on them - but I'm hopeful that I can learn about the subject and so forth. 

Give the lady journo some time, I suggest.  I suspect that journos are all over one like a rash when they want one to do something for them but they probably take ages to sift through e-mails that they don't think are of immediately topical interest.  

Hence I haven't tried to chase the journo who came to see me about A4E.  I had the impression from him that he was hot to trot about making a TV programme very quickly but since the day when he and a cameraman came to visit me, I haven't heard anything further from him. 

With hindsight, I now suspect that they might simply have been gathering some new film-footage etc ready for a TV splurge once the official Work Programme figures are eventually published.  With hindsight, I also realise that they gave me various *impressions* but when I tried to pin them down about the exact purpose of their interest in me, they just deflected my questions - though they were so charming about it that I felt sympathetic rather than irritated!  They were clearly both pros in a field that I know nothing about - ie journalism.   Giving me the impression that what they wanted was urgent probably only meant that they were able to secure my cooperation quickly, whereas if they had waited I might have changed my mind about agreeing to be interviewed at all.  They clearly knew exactly how to handle members of the public and I was happy to go along with whatever they seemed to want.  Hindsight is a wonderfully exact science, isn't it?!

Going back to the character Bloggs, sure I can understand that Bloggs would want to stay on the re-mandated WP scheme for a full 24 months.  However, IDS & Co wouldn't want that unless they are told that it is "legally unavoidable."  

I think the DWP have something of a legal dilemma, potentially.  For example, I didn't get a letter that is the final, official version of WP05, so I was probably mandated onto the Work Programme incorrectly.  Right now, though, it does not suit me to argue the toss about that.  For the moment, I'm more interested in pushing A4E into honouring their own promise to pay all the costs for me to join LawWorks etc and I don't want any doubts or delays about that. 

If the DWP have conceded that Bloggs is entitled to be taken off the WP scheme and re-mandated in six months time, where does that leave the DWP in relation to me?  I might be able to copy Bloggs legally but for the moment, I would prefer not to.  It makes a legal and a PR mockery of the WP scheme if the conscripts are going to be allowed to cherry-pick about the outcomes of errors by the DWP.  The courts wouldn't like that either.  Whoever heard of something that is supposed to be "mandatory" actually turning out to contain loads of scope for weird and wonderful negotiations that might suit the Benefits claimant but probably wouldn't suit IDS?  

Are the DWP really so sloppy that they would allow two or more different outcomes from their incorrect use of their own procedures and the relevant new legislation?  If the media were to allege that the DWP are so sloppy that the DWP is not fit for purpose, that wouldn't please the taxpayer and it wouldn't suit IDS either, it seems to me. 

The possibilities are endless!  Deliciously so!  Personally, I blame IDS.  When he became the political boss of the DWP in May 2010, Leigh Lewis was still the Permanent Secretary of the DWP. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Lewis

Leigh Lewis had lived and breathed the relevant considerations since Noah was a nipper, as can be seen from Wiki.  According to Margaret Hodge MP, Leigh Lewis advised IDS, other MPs and his colleagues in the DWP that IDS should not be allowed to go rushing into his pet project of the Work Programme scheme.  Apparently, Mr Lewis advised that the Work Programme should be thoroughly tested, in a couple of small "pilot schemes," before it would be ready to be rolled out nationwide.  Mr Lewis said that he thought that it would take about 4 years to test the new ideas properly and that the project should not be rolled out prematurely, with the sort of publicity fanfare that IDS was demanding. 

IDS overruled Leigh Lewis, who retired in 2011.  The predicted and foreseeble disaster could have been avoided if IDS had had the common sense to take the advice of his most senior, experienced mandarin.  IDS deserves what he'll now get, I reckon.

LC. 

 

[Gissajob]

Wll LC
Thanks for all the info.  I agree with your comments.  I see your point of view and would add that it also suits me to remain with the WP for the time being.  I think I am thoroughly parked and they may be a wee bit wary of me (they know I talked about the NLP to the journo and may even suspect me of making the ASA complaint re social purpose (Moi?)).  Nice to have this up one's sleeve though!
Meanwhile the journalisrt has responded and is looking into it.  So I've asked her to let me know if she's not going to run with it.
With your background, skills and knowledge your contributions would make an excellent asset for any of the sites you mention.  I think welfare law would suit you as you seem to have a natural leaning to fight for the underdog.
I'll keep you informed.

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Gissajob

Thanks for your reply.  I've just spent ages reading the Unemployment Movement forum.  It is really good.

I haven't found A4E trying to talk down to me.  My "personal adviser" is male (Junior Male) and he's a survivor.  Tangling with a middle aged female who is (metaphorically) a cross between Lady Bracknell and Eleanor Roosevelt is never a good idea if A Bloke wants to survive, in my observation.  Junior Male seems to wish to continue to live....

Eleanor Roosevelt once told about 1,000 unemployed Americans, "Remember this.  Nobody can make me feel inferior without my consent."  I couldn't agree with her more. 

At the minute, A4E's Regional Director for South East England (a female) seems to be being reasonably tame and obedient.  I realised that it was useless to try to involve Junior Male in the issues about A4E supporting me financially whilst LawWorks support me professionally, so I didn't bother to consult him and just collared A4E's main board Directors instead. 

Junior Male is now thoroughly confused.  He bleated that I might find it useful to attend a "mock interview" with him and one of his male colleagues tomoz. 

I agree.  That would be an excellent idea.    The return bus fare into Southampton is £5.90.  A4E refund 100% of that, in cash, on the spot, if I have a pre-booked appointment to see one of A4E's staff.   A4E's office is right opposite a huge Asda supermarket.  Asda are excellent for seriously cheap versions of all sorts of household goods.  I've got one of those two-wheeled Granny trolleys to cart my shopping around in on the bus, around town etc. (Why carry it if you can drag it instead?) 

So this "mock Interview" is actually only a free trip to Asda for me.  God knows what other good the Junior Male imagines it might do.  I would guess that he's been casting around for ideas, trying to make himself look industrious in the eyes of his superiors etc. 

Junior Male e-mailed me telling me to "dress smart" (sic) for this mock interview, and to take a copy of my CV plus some ID.  (How stupid does it get, one wonders?)  God knows what "dress smart" means but I have no intention of wearing top-quality, seriously expensive clothes - which cost a fortune to dry clean - to a scruffy little rehearsal, so he'll have to live with a cheap skirt from a charity shop and comfy flat shoes.  He's dreaming if he imagines that I'm going to hobble around in top quality Tart Trotters for his junior sake.   

I e-mailed back, suggesting that Junior Male and his colleague might like to think about what sort of mock job they wish to mock interview me for.  He e-mailed back, saying that it could be for a mock job as a mock civil servant or it could be a mock interview for a legal job if I preferred? 

How would he ask any technical questions about the Law, one wonders? He doesn't understand a word of my list of qualifications, had never heard of the Law Society till I started shoving the news about them down his throat and so forth.  Junior Male used to sell sports widgets for a sports widget manufacturing company before he joined A4E in June 2011. 

I e-mailed back suggesting that the mock interview had better be for a mock job as a mock junior civil servant - the sort of job that he and his colleague might actually be able to imagine (I hope.)

I'll let you know how it goes.  Are Junior Male and his male colleague seriously going to try to discuss my clothes with me?  I wouldn't recommend it because I can scream "Sexist Bar Stewards" at the drop of a hat and I can scream loudly enough to be heard all over Southampton if they wish. 

The male colleague is actually much less bumptious than Junior Male, so I'm not really expecting any disobedience from either of them. I'm merely wondering whether I'll be able to keep a straight face for long enough.  Will I be able to resist taking the p*ss? 

Nite nite

LC

[Gissajob]

Hi LC
You amuse me.!
My latest "adviser" (Glad to see that they've learnt how to spell - I abhor "advisor") claims to have a bachelor of law degree and 15 years W2W experience.  I've only seen him once (due to see him again tomorrow) and I got the impression that an olive branch was being proffered, by which I mean there seemed top be a tacit offer that if I don't rock the boat too much I would be left very much alone - apart from a monthly attendance.  I think this because our first meeting was held in a private room and after an initial exchange of pleasantries  - A-  How long have you been in reception? Me - since 10.20. A - why didn't you tell receptionist you were here? Me - The goods signed themselves in and took a seat and waited to be processed - that's enough.
I was sitting quietly reading a book and it took until 10 minutes after the appointed time for someone to ask if I was there!
Anyway there was no attempt to get me to give up CV, no attempt to sign me up for a course and no attempt to complete an Action Plan, let alone get me to sign it.  Indeed there wasn't even a PC terminal in the room.
Long may this continue but I will be on my guard tomorrow.  The price of peace is eternal vigilance.
Have to drop in my signing on voucher/chitty later - takes all of 2 mins.

[Gissajob]

Well let's get the important things out of the way first.  The parsnip soup is excellent!  Just had a bowl of it and it certainly sticks to the ribs, as my old mum used to say.
Now then I haven't heard back from the journo - other than a brief initial e-mail.  Guess she's not interested or doesn't understand the potential.
Meanwhile I am making progress via the Unemployment Movement site.  The participant Bryan is a CAB adviser and has had some success with complaints made on the basis of incorrect mandation, so have some of his colleagues.  So much so that the discussion seems to have been "kicked upstairs" at the CAB, meanwhile Bryan has been "warned off" taking on any mass campaign himself.  It remains to be seen whether the CAB will do something or just sit on their hands.
The debate continues under the thread WP start letter over on the UM site - if you want to chip in your tuppence worth LC?
Bye for now - the call of the parsnip soup cannot be resisted for long!