Home

I am only as good as the information that I have available. There are what I believe to be some relevant documents listed below.

New Deal scheme a failure  - Frank Field, Reform full report "Welfare isn't working" (pdf)

Unemployment in 2004, prior to the great influx of EU immigrants which has resulted in 50% of all jobs no longer being available to UK citizens, was 8 million. That is a lot of people.

These guys say it is 10 million. I'm inclined to believe that. It is normal for me to receive letters in response to applications for basic, low paid jobs that you wouldn't choose to do unless you were desperate, saying that they were overwhelmed by the 150+ applications they received. Under such circumstances, what are the other 149 people going to do? I assume they are unemployed.

Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations

Jobseeker's Act

Gross privacy invasion - have a look at these documents that you are expected to sign revealing personal information about yourself. Other examples include providing a driving licence and insurance certificate in order to be paid travelling expenses and "getting a note" from someone trustworthy i.e. not you, explaining why you need to be absent. I seriously recommend not giving consent to have information about you shared and not allowing providers to monitor you, otherwise you could end up in a situation like I found myself in, where a Jobcentreplus staff member obtained a copy of my CV without my permission in order to falsely submit what he purported to be evidence to facilitate a malicious act against me. Controlling your information is important and there is no reason for anybody other than you to have control of it. Is it a good idea to give the name of your next of kin? Hopefully Pertemps don't intend to whack my family members in reprisal for my journalistic hobby.

Know your legislation. My experience is that the average DWP person doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. It is wise to put yourself in a position where you do. One scandalous thing that the DWP try to do is to claim that the opportunity to apply for  a job is one in the same thing as an offer of a job. This is totally inaccurate. Typically the former is merely a 1 in 100 chance of a job. So when they talk about RE (refusal of employment), which a minority of employees appear desperate to accuse you of, it is more often than not, a total misrepresentation.
Jobcentreplus have a procedure of writing things about you without your presence and  agreement. This goes in your record and they declare this as an accurate account of what happened and what you said.  Can you see how such a procedure can be subject to flaws? It basically amounts to unsubstantiated crap.
I can tell you from experience that Jobcentreplus are quite prepared to put lies about you in writing, fabricate what they purport to be evidence and to present it at a tribunal as fact. They do not have any scruples. Be prepared to defend yourself.

Protect yourself from unlawful attack from the government, sign this petition.

Human Rights Act.

The rise of inactive man, "man" being the operative word. An old article but even more relevant today. "There is no merit in paid work for its own sake."

I have been sent a paper copy, at last, of the contract Pertemps have with Jobcentreplus. It is large, so I have listed two key pages where Pertemps look like they are way off target. The area including Kidderminster is known as The Marches District.
Contract

Review of Pertemps October

Review of Pertemps November - is this the one?

Formal Risk Rating

Pertemps have a high opinion of themselves, they made staff redundant whilst having a staff shortage? Strange.

Who wants to be a millionaire? Their contract is valued at £1.6 million for 1 year, if you look here it is £2.26 million in total.

Payments received by Pertemps per client on the New Deal 25+ Intensive Activity Programme

Jobcentreplus states that, in partnership with Pertemps,they will ensure that contract will be met, so what is their justification when that doesn't happen?

Report on fraud (pdf file) - page 25 says that a contractor to the government who received payments for services that they did not provide was committing fraud. Are Pertemps committing fraud by being paid without delivering the minimum services stated in their contract? One thing is for sure, any individual claimant suspected of small time fraud would find themselves in trouble, so why should Pertemps be treated differently?

Provider terms and conditions (pdf file) "individual tailoring needs to take place within the context  of the provision you are contracted to deliver". "One size fits all is not what Jobcentreplus is seeking from you". This is what Jobcentreplus say that  a provider must do.

New deal provider contract (word file)

Age discrimination legislation basics (pdf file)

Age discrimination big version

Unemployment definitions (pdf file) - You won't find New Deal participants included.

Helping you back to work? Somebody call Trading Standards.

A tribunal - me versus the huge might and collective intelligence of the DWP.

Benefit sanctions

My contract to attend the Intensive Activity Period (13 week New Deal) with Jobcentreplus, complete with threat and wildly inaccurate claims by them.

My Jobseeker's Agreement.

The Independent Case Examiners version of an objective investigation. What are they talking about? What has it got to do with the subject?

Good advice from Haile on the subject of New Deal.

The British government intends to go about "coercing" its citizens onto a National Identity Register. Identity crisis


Flexible New Deal - longer and more frequent sentences?

The Prime Minister announces the great success of New Deal in solving the unemployment problem at the same time as there being more than 10 million  people unemployed.

 
New proposals; I love the bit about " paying employment firms and the voluntary sector "by results". This meant they would receive a sum for each person for whom they found a job, with extra cash when workers stayed in their new posts for more than 26 weeks." That is exactly what was supposed to happen with New Deal for years, is that a tacit admission of failure and contract breach?