5. When I participated in the New Deal programme, I was not provided with the service that the contract between Jobcentreplus and Pertemps People Development Group Ltd., the private contractor to the government, clearly states that I must receive. I discovered this by witnessing the programme as a participant and by studying the details of that contract.

The results of this were:

Taxpayers money was paid to a private contractor even though they did not meet the clearly defined contractual requirements that they had to deliver. This, I believe, constitutes a misuse of public money.

I and many other participants received a service that did not meet the requirements of the contract and was as a result was generally much less useful than it would have been if it had done so. My potential accumulated experience was reduced and possible employment prospects damaged by not receiving the placement that I requested.

As a result of this experience I tried to obtain further clarification from Jobcentreplus about the state of situation and what action they were going to take. However, they have never answered all my questions with full, salient answers. If everything is in order they should have had no problem doing this and providing the appropriate supporting evidence.

It is reasonable to expect the Department for Work and Pensions, its executive office and ministers involved to be fully accountable to the public and not to spend further public money in order to avoid admission that Pertemps and Jobcentreplus are not ensuring that the terms of the contract are being met.

6. I would like the Ombudsman to make Jobcentreplus answer the following questions, fully and accurately, leaving out nothing. Obviously, it is almost a year since I wrote the letters to them , so it is possible that circumstances have changed. Therefore it would be necessary for the the questions to be treated as at least pertaining to the period of July to November 2006, if the situation between then and the present time has changed, which is unlikely but possible.

When the client attended New Deal in Kidderminster did the provider, Pertemps People Development Group Ltd., deliver the provision to all participants at all times under all circumstances in a way that complied 100% with the terms detailed in the contract between Jobcentreplus and Pertemps People Development Group Ltd. A clear Yes or No answer is required.

If the answer is “yes”, please explain why and provide evidence how this is possible when a report by Jobcentreplus, a copy of which is included, states that this was not the case. Please also explain how this is possible when the client requested work placements which were not provided, when it clearly states in the contract that it was a requirement for the Provider to do so.

If the answer is “no”, please explain what the consequences are. Why is a contractor allowed to carry on and receive payments of public money without delivering the required services that the payment relates to? Why didn't Jobcentreplus ensure that the public were provided with what the contract states they are entitled to? What are they going to do about it?