|
28/09/2006 I received a letter from
Jobcentreplus, The Marches District, saying that the
Operational Procurement Unit of Jobcentreplus is investigating
what kind of outfit Pertemps are running, and they will write
to me in the near future with a detailed response.
03/10/2006 A letter
arrives from Pertemps. My letter
to Colin has been forwarded to Diane Preece, who is described
as Area Operations Manager. She will write to me with her
findings within 10 days. I would like to express my admiration
for Colin on his feat of masterly delegation.
So the
countdown begins. Not long now before I receive a highly
objective no nonsense report from Diane, which will, of course
detail how in reality Pertemps are meeting all of their
contractual requirements in full, with accompanying supporting
evidence e.g. their contract, references to all provider
guidelines and all applicable legislation. Boy, am I gonna look
stupid. Although I don't know her, that is the only possible
outcome I can foresee, because that's how you become a top
executive, right?
On this letter Pertemps make a false
claim that it was recieved on 27/09/2006,when in actual fact it
arrived on the 25/09/2006, check it out here
with the reference number DH397417807GB.
10/10/2006
A letter
arrives from someone called Nick Parton, Contract Manager with
Jobcentreplus. The job seems to have been passed along the
chain of command from Stephen Moore. I don't have time to post
it at the moment, but it is curious that it doesn't appear to
refer to the contract and whether it is being complied with, or
the consequences for Pertemps of not meeting their
requirements. Perhaps my interpretation of the letter will
change when I have more time to read it?
Ok, I have
returned from penal servitude and had time to check out the
letter. There are some inaccurate claims in there, which is no
surprise as Jobcentreplus have been documented
before as having the potential to not be true to their word.
However, it is irrelevant. If it is supposed to be an
investigation,
it doesn't match the description and isn't fit for its purpose.
It's like the Police saying "after conducting a thorough
investigation we have talked to the murder suspect and he
assures us that he has killed nobody, therefore the case is
closed". Clearly Jobcentreplus do not understand what the
nature of my letter to them is, so I have responded with a more
concise version to Nick
Parton to see if that makes it any easier for him.
11/10/2006 A rather large, tattered package
arrives at my door. It is a paper copy of the contract between
John Hutton, via Jobcentreplus, and Pertemps People Development
Group Ltd. It only took nearly 3 weeks, but that's probably how
long it takes to photocopy it? It will take some time to plough
through it, but straight away I have found some information
that allowed me to write this
to Nick Parton.
13/10/2006 Nick Parton writes to me again.
He is eager to meet me in person. I have no objections to this
as long as it is not an attempt to swap substance for flannel.
I have made this clear
to him. Of course, I could be totally wrong, but eagerness to
avoid written responses to the subject matter bring out the
cynic in me.
17/10/2006 Nick Parton
asked me to phone him, so I acquiesced to his request. As much
as I don't like to do this, I am forced to recount parts of a
telephone conversation that I have had today with Nick Parton.
I have asked for a version in writing from him, but he is
unwilling to do that. I will try to be as accurate as possible,
but it is not my preference as it comes under the realms of
hearsay to merely recount a conversation. However, I can do no
more than ask.
He says that he "cannot give me an
answer to the question of whether the terms of the contract are
being met. It might be being met today for one particular
individual, it might not be on another day for another
individual. It changes." So there you go, this
Jobcentreplus employee has such confidence in what he says that
he appears to be ashamed to provide it in writing.
I have
come to the conclusion based on my experiences of dealing with
their Contract Manager that Jobcentreplus have the policy that
all issues are closed once an employee has taken the time to
provide a response. The quality and relevance of the response
is not important, merely that one has been offered. The funny
thing is, that they could end this and silence me by just
writing "Yes, Pertemps are meeting the terms of the
contract, here is the evidence to support that", but they
choose to avoid the topic altogether. That could lead you to
jump to conclusions i.e. not being in a position to do that
implies that they are not in compliance by default. Wait a
minute, aren't they innocent until proven guilty? Actually, no,
according to Jobcentreplus it is up to you to prove
innocence. Oh, well, the quest continues indefinitely
regardless of what they do or don't do. Perhaps I can take
satisfaction in the ease with which you can run rings around
these people? No, because although Pertemps and Jobcentreplus
might be demonstrating excellence in the art of looking
ridiculous, I am interested in facts rather than value
judgments.
On a happier note, shortly after this
conversation, I went to sign my new Jobseeker's Agreement. Now
we could have real fun
with this one.
28/10/2006 I have received a quick no messing
response to my request
for copies of the reviews undertaken by Jobcentreplus. A major
part of what I requested isn't available yet, because it isn't
conducted until December. I will ask for it then, but that is
no guarantee that it will be forthcoming. What I can get out of
these remains to be seen.
Information requests seem to be the easier way forward compared
to asking for an admission of non compliance. Of course, that
doesn't mean that the latter is finished.
18/11/2006 The next stage has begun where I
begin some experiments with different approaches because what I
have done so far has been inadequate. It is clear that my
questions are going to be ignored indefinitely. Several options
are available to me, which I will employ in no particular
order. First of all, it is about time I offered John Hutton MP
some encouragement to participate. I have written to a
newspaper in John Hutton's Barrow and Furness constituency,
telling them all about the DWP Pertemps double act. It isn't as
easy for him to ignore his own constituents as he does me, his
name, reputation and political future there are more important
to him than events in Herefordshire, Shropshire and
Worcestershire. I did the same thing to John's local
Conservatives, they might like to know what he has or hasn't
been up to. Who knows if this will yield any results, but no
publicity is bad publicity.
22/11/2006 A reply
to my letters sent to Lesley Strathie arrived. It wasn't from
her in person, but from Phil Bartlett. Finally, someone had the
courage and integrity to actually address the subject of my
questions head on. It is official that Pertemps are meeting the
requirements of the contract. Unfortunately, that answer is
unsubstantiated and contradicted
by their own review, not to mention the events witnessed by a
key researcher that took part in the programme. It doesn't mean
that what Phil says isn't true, but I sent a response
right back asking for him to provide supporting information. He
will be happy about this because it is the norm for
Jobcentreplus to require it.
28/11/2006 I wrote to John Hutton's local
Liberal Democrats in Barrow, letting them know all about it.
They replied very swiftly and are only too pleased to accept
the information.
18/12/2006 Phil Bartlett received a reminder
from me today because it has been long time since my original
request and he has a duty to provide me information in a set
period of time defined by law. I am obliged to do this before
taking further action because I will be asked if I have made
more than one request.
22/12/2006 A letter arrived from Jobcentreplus,
Caxton House, London. I haven't opened it but I imagine it is
from Phil or someone on his behalf. Once I get over my
excitement I will open it.
28/12/2006 After returning from my sabbatical I
opened the letter from Phil Bartlett. Here
it is.
02/01/2007 Do you remember this,
asking Nick Parton about why there is age discrimination on the
New Deal Programme? Well, I do, and I also remember that he
didn't respond, so I have sent it to him again. Don't
hold your breath, his track record is a bit sketchy.
03/01/2007 Once again Trevor Law steps in with his
usual efficiency and is dealing with the letter that I sent to
Nick yesterday. What would they do without him? Apparently the
original letter went AWOL, but it got there according to
Royal Mail records,check out this number, dk09354430 8gb on
their website.
I neglected the age issue to
concentrate on the wider contract aspects, but it is time to
pursue it again. Apart from the fact that it is outright
unethical, the government introduced it's own law against such
practices. I am trying to get a legal
professional to give me advice but so far I have been asked for
a substantial amount of money just to have a simple answer to
one question. There is no justification for limiting
the availability of placements even more than they already do
because you are younger than other participants. They have it
bad enough already with the highest unemployment rates and a
benefit system that says that the cost of living is less if you
are young. Does Tesco have a discounted section for under 25
year olds? No. Do you get a discount on a residence? No. Where
did they get this crap from?
09/01/2007 Another default positive answer
from Jobcentreplus materialises. Unfortunately my
own research and advice from independent employment law
specialists doesn't agree. I have requested a copy of
this legal review cited in the letter.
13/01/2007 Monthly reports and the first formal risk
rating arrived. Pertemps
risk is "Significant", which is the second
worst or third best, depending on how you look at it. The
monthly review here
might be interesting too.
22/01/2007 Chief Executive Leslie Strathie sent me a
letter! She is satisfied Jobcentreplus have fully met
their obligations with respect to my request for Phil to
provide me with the source of information that enabled him to
conclude that Pertemps were meeting the terms of their
contract. Of course, what Phil said has already been totally
debunked by this
report. However, it is interesting to see top officials
giving false information and contradicting their own
department. Do you get the impression that they care
anyway? They appear to be committed to supporting Pertemps no
matter what, including to the point of lying.
5/02/2007 Still waiting on that report, can't wait to
see exactly why the law doesn't apply to Jobcentreplus and its
contractors. Today I had an interview with Jobcentreplus,
the purpose being "to help you back to work". Now,
what this means is that I am under special surveillance to see
if I am complying with the Jobseeker's agreement, and will
possibly have it altered to make it less favourable to me.
That's right, I am talking about the executive office of the
DWP, the very people who cannot keep their own house in order,
falsify information and fail to meet their contractual
requirements.
6/02/2007 Low and behold,once again they fail their
own test. They spend yesterday telling me I have to provide
evidence, but don't think they have to do anything themselves.
Jobcentreplus have refused to
provide me with any evidence that supports their claim that age
discrimination on New deal is legal. Apparently upholding the
law is not in the public interest.
7/02/2007 I took up the offer of an internal review
of the decision. Time and money
wasting prevails with the DWP, getting them to do anything at
all under any circumstances is extremely difficult. It is
likely that this will be refused on exactly the same grounds
that are outlined in Kathryn's letter.
15/02/2007 Kathryn sent
me a less is more clarification of new deal provision. That was
nice of her to take the time, but it doesn't provide me with
the information that I need. Self certification from a body
that is nothing to do with the practice of law is limited in
its usefulness. How about you abolish trials and just let
everyone fill in a declaration that they have committed no
crime? I said.
17/02/2007 Kathryn provides further clarification.
26/02/2007 It was time to confront
Lesley Strathie about the question that I asked her months
ago. Repetition is undesirable but these people necessitate it
by not doing the job correctly in the first place. You know
what to expect.
27/02/2007 I attended an intimidation
session hosted by a Jobcentreplus employee called Peter
Guilfoyle. He wanted to talk about my phone use and how good my
memory is (it is poor).
7/03/2007 Lesley Strathie looks like she still can't
be bothered to reply. The most likely scenario for this is that
I will get an MP to ask John Hutton my question, who will then
pass it on to Lesley because he considers it to be her
job, not his. I tend to think that the use of third
parties is unnecessary, but my views are not shared at
Jobcentreplus. Do I want to send her yet another
reminder? Not really.
Peter Weller, a Deputy Divisional Manager for the DWP has
conducted a review of my
request for information about ageism practices by
Jobcentreplus. No surprises for guessing that he agrees with
Kathryn McHugh. I've lost track of how many employees I
have encountered who spend public money in order to make
sure nothing gets done. Oh well, on with the next step.
13/03/2007 Moving on from the interruption, I
have reluctantly reopened contact with an MP. I say
reluctantly, because I consider it to be unnecessarily
extravagant and there is nothing like the job you do
yourself. The reminders and repeat requests are over. It looks
like Lesley will never respond, adhering strictly to the
Jobcentreplus motto "waste the maximum amount of
resources, aim to achieve nothing".
5/04/2007 I receive a letter
from Caxton House, London. I don't really understand it, it
doesn't make sense to me, however the bit where they say they
won't be answering in future is clear as daylight.
18/04/2007 Scintillating Ministerial response
has arrived. My sincere thanks to Richard and his team. Looks
like Jim Murphy attended the same school as John Hutton,
Colin Birchall and Lesley Strathie. So there you go, they don't
seem to think that they are accountable to the public about
spending a huge amount of public money in a way that isn't
conducive to the stated criteria.
14/05/2007 I finally got round to writing to the
Independent Case
Examiner, as directed by Mel Groves. Well, he did say that
I had six months and you get used to waiting when dealing with
the DWP. It will be an interesting test of both their power and
impartiality. Judging by Jim's response in the commons,
these people are inclined to think that they are
answerable to nobody but themselves. Check out this report
that tells of the wonders of New Deal. Note, I am not pro
Frank Field in any way, but I admire anyone willing to speak
out on the issue and there is a lack of research on the
subject. I don't endorse every single word in the report.
18/05/2007 The ICE have replied and are going ahead
with investigating my complaint. Bad news is that they say the
that contract compliance is not part of their responsibility.
Quite how that can be the case I don't know, because that is
the major component of determining the standard of service that
you receive. It is considered to be a matter
between Jobcentreplus and Pertemps, i.e. the very people
who are the cause of the problem. If that is true they are
essentially answerable to nobody. What do you think of that? No
New Deal contractor has ever had their contract terminated,
which is probably because there is no procedure in existence to
enforce it. The process of reviews and risk ratings is a
sham.
However, if they check out Jim , John and Lesley and
find out why they just didn't give a straight answer, or
any answer at all, there is a small possibility that some
progress will be made, but I won't be making an attempt on the
world breath holding record. Is there a possibility that the
ICE will say anything other than a "we are satisfied
that Pertemps and the DWP are perfect in everything they
do or don't do"? Probably not.
26/05/2007 The investigation is in progress.
The ICE employee is very helpful. Due to constraints of
referring to the contract i.e. you can't do that, it will
revolve around the inability of Pertemps to provide requested
work placements (which just happens to be a contractual
requirement anyway) and the lack of of an adequate response
from Jobcentreplus. I am more than happy to eat my cynical hat
if it yields anything.
15/06/2007 Whatever I
wrote here originally has disappeared. Anyway all you need to
know is that Jobcentreplus received a severe thrashing
at the hands of myself and the law. In a nutshell,
Jobcentreplus fabricated a bunch of lies about me and made
false accusations which, funnily enough, didn't stand up very
well under scrutiny at the tribunal.
30/07/2007
Did I mention that it was going to take ages?
21/09/2007
An A4 envelope arrived from the Independent Case Examiner
today, but I haven't had the opportunity to check it
out. Before I do, let me remind you that this investigation is
not related to whether Pertemps and Jobcentreplus complied
with the requirements of the contract. The contract method was
chosen as a logical way of achieving objectivity. In its
absence the quality of any "investigation" is
handicapped. Apart from this, all New Deal participants are
compelled to meet the terms of the contract that is forced upon
them without option, suffering immediate attack for suspected
non compliance. It is reasonable to expect Jobcentreplus
to be able to meet their own totalitarian standards rather
than conveniently creating exemptions as they see fit. The
investigation came about after a suggestion by Jobcentreplus at
the same time that they informed me that they would no
longer reply to me, as opposed to replying but not actually
answering. If they suggested it it must be
credible.
22/09/2007 Hat eating not required. The
Independent Case Examiners report
of the investigation turns out to be nothing of the sort;
merely a summary of correspondence and hearsay by
Pertemps. Four months of work just to regurgitate some letters?
This is less than I could possibly have imagined, but an
interesting test of the effectiveness of the system allegedly
designed to protect us from abuse by the government. In that
respect, everything that has come before it pales into
insignificance, because it confirms that no checks exist.
Before you take the time to read it, anyone who is familiar
with the website might find that they experience deja vu.
25/09/2007 Have you seen this programme?
It talks about a number of things which are similar to what I
have experienced with New Deal. How did Jobcentreplus, John
Hutton, and Jim Murphy ever get away with not answering
my public accountability questions? How did the Independent
Case Examiner conclude that I my questions where answered when
it is clear as daylight that I am still waiting for a "yes"
or "no" answer on the subject of whether the contract
is being complied with, complete with accompanying evidence to
refute that which I already have? The programme looks at the
following:
MP's creating rules for
others while exempting themselves form those rules.
"independent"
watchdogs lacking power or true independence
MP's going to great lengths to avoid answering
questions that they don't think they should have to answer
e.g. the enormous amounts of your money that they spend
26/09/2007 I am chatting with the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman to try to see who is responsible for
enforcing government contracts. You might think that they
actually had to deliver in order to maintain that contract and
receive payment, but strangely a variety of government
watchdogs shy away from it. After all, it does say clearly here
that to not do so is an irregularity.
27/09/2007
It turns out that the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman are not sure whether they are suitable for the job in
hand, so they have asked me to submit my request first, then
they will determine if they are able to do the job afterwards.
It is amazing that nobody seems to have any idea who
is responsible for ensuring that a private contractor
actually does what they are supposed to do in order to get
paid. Oh well, as always I have done my utmost to save time,
effort and money, but am thwarted all the way by third
parties.
6/11/2007 The Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman have received their complaint form.
Whether they have the ability to do anything remains to
be seen. If they don't, I will continue to look
elsewhere. A long wait is likely.
12/12/2007 I
had a chat to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is in
the process of deciding whether to investigate the complaint.
It looks unlikely to me as they are not going to fully address
the issue that I am looking at, which is contract compliance,
although they will look at it partially if they decide to
accept it. They want to know how I as an individual have
suffered from the way that New Deal was conducted. That is
quite strange as I was never really interested in what had
happened to me. They make it sound like a personal injury
litigation case. This is because it is my individual complaint
and what has been done to anyone else is considered irrelevant
unless they make their own complaints. If you look at the
form
you can see how they structure it. Here
is what I wrote on the form, but they're just not going to do
the things that I ask for.
The real aim of any investigation
into New Deal is to have a situation where New Deal is as
effective in reducing unemployment as it is an exercise in how
to waste £3.5 billion. If it isn't the former there is no
reason for it to exist.
They agree that Jobcentreplus have
never given me a straightforward "yes" or "no"
answer, but won't be addressing that. It is also possible, in
their opinion, that they will conclude that if I was provided
with any kind of placement whatsoever then that can be in some
way construed as being potentially beneficial to me and under
such circumstances that means that I was provided with what I
was supposed to be provided with by Pertemps, regardless of
anything else. There is no possibility of that being in
any way adequate or in line with Provider
Terms and Conditions.
They have suggested that the only
way to pursue this probably lies in the courts as there isn't a
government watchdog that actually polices contracts between the
government and private companies such as Pertemps as a New Deal
Provider. Essentially it looks as though Jobcentreplus have the
role of policing the contract and if they decide to ignore
things or be highly flexible in how the Provider conducts
itself then the buck pretty much stops there.
29/02/2008
Today I received a call from the Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman. They have come to a decision and they have
decided to refer the case back to the ICE. I wasn't able to ask
any questions over the phone because the caller put the phone
down almost immediately. Although it is true that the ICE
did a truly pathetic, almost non existent job in the
first place, and that it would be no bad thing for them to go
back and do it properly, it is curious because they
insisted that they were in no position to look at contractual
issues. Have they suddenly changed their mind? What do you have
to do to get someone to give you straight answers, get on with
the job and stop arsing around?
01/04/2008 I
wrote a short email to the Independent Case Examiner
explaining the aim of any action that they are to take. If
they can't do the job correctly and actually address the
subject there is no point in in them doing it at all. How much
public money have all the parties involved spent by ploughing
their efforts into avoidance and time wasting? I guess that
it must be in the thousands of pounds. Here is what I
said:
"What I am requesting is for the relevant
body to determine whether Pertemps People Development Group
Ltd. delivered New Deal provision, during the period that I
attended the programme in the Marches District, completely and
totally in accordance with the contract that they had with
Jobcentreplus and all other relevant pieces of legislation
under which they have to operate, for example the Terms and
Conditions for Providers. The conclusion should include a
straightforward "yes" or "no", with
accompanying evidence. As you are probably already aware,
Jobcentreplus have never answered my questions and informed me
that they would not reply to me in future concerning the
subject, leaving me with no other option than to pursue the
matter via alternative means."
Things don't look
good on the surface, because The Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman seem to have no clue what they are talking
about. They say that I complained that ICE:
That isn't what happened. I didn't complain about ICE at
all, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman decided
that all on their own. Incompetence rules.
10/04/2008
Attempts by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to
pass the buck failed badly. The Independent Case Examiner has
written to me to confirm that "it was not the role of
this office to audit the robustness of the contractual
management arrangements between Jobcentre Plus and its New Deal
providers except in so far as they have direct bearing on a
specific complaint under investigation." It is
interesting wording, because not only did it have bearing, it
was the entire subject.
24/04/2008 I have
received another letter from The Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman harping on about me allegedly not being
happy about the decision of the ICE. I couldn't care less about
what they said. The issue is about Pertemps and Jobcentreplus,
but they have decided to change the subject. I will have to
write to them to remind them about what they are supposed to be
doing.
9/06/2008 No information is forthcoming
from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman since I
wrote
to them on 28.04.2008, but an auto responder confirmed that
they received the message.
17/06/2008 Today I
received a letter from the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman explaining that the assessment of my complaint is
likely to take approximately 6 more months. This is due to the
large volume of work that they have to deal with. It looks like
there won't be anything too exciting for you to read for
some time. However, I am much more interested in how thoroughly
things are done than how fast they are done. Almost two years
have already passed, what is another 6 months?
As a
potentially interesting sideline, I have been given a note
informing me that I have an appointment to once again attend
some element of New Deal, on Friday. It says "You may have
heard about New Deal which is a fresh approach aimed at helping
you improve your chances of finding the job that you want to
do." Yes that is correct, I have certainly heard of it. In
the past I have written about the
large proportion of returnees to the New Deal programme, which
implies that perhaps it doesn't work very well?
7/07/08
As of today I am attending the Gateway Programme, which
is a part of New Deal. This is essentially 13 weeks of 4 hours
per week jobsearch plus an induction, with specially poor
conditions for young people that the "discrimination is
illegal" UK government typically imposes. Prior to today,
the taxpayer was getting the same deal plus more, but without
having to pay extra money to a private contractor. It is hard
to see how it is possible for Pertemps to mess this one up
because the client does everything for them in order to ensure
that they are paid by the state. It is a long time since
I checked the Contract between Pertemps and Jobcentreplus, but
either it has already finished or will finish within several
weeks. If Jobcentreplus have even a quarter of the intelligence
that I don't credit them with, they have perhaps concluded that
the way to make sure you don't have contractual compliance
problems is to make it so that the demands are non-existent?
Is it a coincidence that people are attempting to search this
website from Pertemps office computers about "Pertemps new
flexible new deal contracts"?
Are the grapes sour
at Pertemps People Development Group? Perhaps. While I was
there I was misrepresented to other participants as someone who
"doesn't like New Deal", rather than someone
who performed a simple audit and discovered breach of
Contract and Provider Terms and Conditions. The two are not
at all similar, but it is not the first time that Pertemps have
issued false information and it probably won't be the last.
I
have no intention of giving a running commentary about
Gateway here, because I don't feel it will enhance the
information available. If a participant has to return after 20
months, you don't need me to tell you that New Deal doesn't
reduce unemployment. The fact is that the original issue
is current and unresolved, so no diversion is necessary.
9/07/08 The Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman wrote to me again. They have passed the case on to
yet another person in the organisation. I can only speculate
why that might be. Maybe they are all scared to put the their
name to it and therefore find themselves looking for "a
greater fool" who will? Historically they are
non-committal, but we will have to wait at least a few more
months to see.
18/08/08 The Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman are routinely sending me letters
approximately every month informing me that it will take
another three to four months before they are in a position to
complete the assessment of my compliant. Don't you just love
how they call it a "complaint"? Nothing that you say
to them is taken on board. I wonder if they will be in a hurry
to transfer it to the dustbin?
15/09/08 Apart
from receiving another of those repetitive letters from The
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman I have decided to
have a look at what all the fuss about
Flexible New Deal is.
02/12/2008 I am of the
opinion that The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
might be a little later than they said, but it is not the time
that is important, it is the quality, right? What to do you
think can possibly happen when no contract with the DWP as ever
been cancelled and that Pertemps, or any other company
tendering for such "work", can promise to deliver
anything (or nothing) at any price in the sure knowledge that
the repercussions on every single occasion in the past
have been zero. In the meantime, lots of Jobseeker's Allowance
contracts are about to have their terms modified in a much less
accommodating way.
04/12/2008 I asked Pertemps to
scrub all the information that they hold about me, after I
discovered that they hold a variety of information about all
participants as long as they want without asking for their
approval. Unfortunately I am guilty of being far too
apathetic about securing my personal data, like the time I
recklessly handed over my CV to this
person. Anyway, here is what they said:
Contractually
we are bound to maintain records until at least 31
December
2014 as this contract was match funded and ESF rules apply.
To
support this requirement however, we are also contracted to
comply at
all times with the DPA - this gives protection to
personal data being
held in connection with the
provision.
When an individual participates on a
mandatory Jobcentreplus provision,
we have a contractual
obligation to store certain information in line
with
Jobcentreplus policy and the Data Protection Act. The storage
of
data is driven by Jobcentreplus policy and is a component
of a claim for
Job Seekers Allowance. Any data relating to
an individual and stored by
Jobcentreplus or a contracted
provider can be viewed inline with the
Data Protection Act.
However, this is not a problem as all your information
is guaranteed totally secure, just like it was in the hands of
Peter and Jobcentreplus.
Have a look at the new Bill
to further undermine the so called Data Protection Act. Writing
to your MP about this is a good idea.
11/01/2009
In my first post of the year I would like to take the
opportunity to write about the huge fraud we are currently
being subjected to by the government and the media. I refer to
the so called "downturn", "recession" and
"credit crisis".
30/01/2009
A letter from The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
arrived once again referring to my complaint about Jobcentre
Plus and the Independent Case Examiner. Do I really have to
write to them again to tell them that it is about Pertemps, not
the ICE?
They hope soon to be in a position to let me know
whether they will investigate my complaint.
Update:
I emailed them and they seem to think that looking at the ICE
is possibly one of the ways that they can try to help. The
reason for this is that the issue of commercial contracts is
one that they are not supposed to look at under the powers
(or lack of power) that they have by law. Here we have
the crucial issue; nobody is watching what private contractors
working for public bodies, receiving money from the
taxpayer, are doing. What does that mean? A free for
all.
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Pertemps; defaulting
on their contract and taking public money because nobody tried
to stop them and they can do it if they want
to.
10/02/2009 I am currently talking to The
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about ways of
proceeding without the use of the objectivity of the
contract, which is prohibited as far as their power is
concerned, whilst avoiding the gross negligence of The
Independent Case Examiner.
25/02/2009 The
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has decided to
"accept my complaint for investigation". I have no
idea exactly what issues it will address, but it is certain
that it cannot include the contract, so I will have to continue
to search to see if any checks at all exist for private
contractors to public services. Is it only me that that thinks
that leaving them to have a free for all probably isn't the
best way to serve the public interest?
27/04/2009
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has begun
the investigation. It doesn't appear to be quite what I was
looking for in terms of scope and subject area and they are in
total control of determining what the consequences are of any
irregularities they might find, if that ever comes to pass. It
has that "flaky", lacking objectivity feel to me, but
I could be wrong and will be very happy if I am wrong. However,
it is too early to judge them so we will just have to wait and
see.
08/06/2009 Nothing to say at this
moment in time as I am only waiting for The Parliamentary
and Health Service Ombudsman . However, whatever happens it is
likely that I will have to take further action with an
organisation that does something other than ignore contracts,
if it is possible to find such a thing.
Well, I thought I
had encountered incredible levels of cowardice but this
takes the biscuit. The victim in question might want to try one
of these.
By the way, just so
everyone is clear, you are all at liberty to link, copy, peer
to peer or anything else you like with the material on
new-deal-work.info.
23/11/2009 Well in my absence, the site has been more
popular than ever. Perhaps it is better that I don't write very
often? The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
tell me that their investigation report is shortly underway to
me, or at least where I used to be. In the meantime this is the
first opportunity that I have had to access the website since
June because I have left Kidderminster to seek something a
litte different in life.. What it will yield I don't know, but
you can be certain that I won't be joining New deal again for a
while because it doesn't exist in my current location.
21/12/2009 I have received the report
from The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
There is a slight problem in that I am not allowed to share the
information with anyone. My initial reaction is that I am
inclined to ignore that on principle. I am no longer subject to
the laws of the UK and normal citizens are subject to
information sharing and no privacy, so why should they be any
different? Here.
|
