Flexible New Deal Scandal:
Flexible New Deal

This is a quick guide on the Department for Work and Pensions‘ Decision Makers Guide… View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The Department for Work and Pensions has been investigating Action 4 Employment and at least 2 other undisclosed training providers for fraud over the last 13 months – this comes after Maatwerk had their contract terminated for fraud.

This means that even though they weren’t restricted or blacklisted from bidding for Flexible New Deal contracts: they will now lose the Flexible New Deal contracts after at least 20 cases of fraud have been discovered in May 2008 at A4e in Hull where two staff members falsified forms meant for the employer and also forged signatures on the forms in order to receive job outcome bonuses from DWP.

Action 4 Employment was also involved in a temporary job recruitment agency scam – thus forcing New Deal participants into temporary work which resulted in more job outcome bonuses from DWP.

Another New Deal provider has been forced to repay £48,000 for fraud – the name of the provider hasn’t been disclosed.

The DWP was happy to pay Pertemps PDG over 2 million when a report clearly stated fraud – in this instance no concerns other than as a report were raised.

Also, so far all fraud cases were consisting of forged signatures on forms and such like – the DWP have not yet picked up on timesheet abuses (paid to be there for x hours, as shown on timesheets, but participants are there for significantly less i.e. 10 hours instead of 30), dismissal abuses (dismissing participants for false or trivial reasons to receive full 13 weeks amount without them being there for even half that time), guaranteed jobs bonuses abuse (some participants have received a job offer before having to do the course starting 2-6 weeks after the course starts, providers still get job outcome payments intended as a bonus if they get the participant work, even if they had nothing to do with it) and future job outcome bonuses abuse (getting participants to enter an agreement where the provider has “permission” to contact any future employer after the course has ended to get job outcome bonus even though you got the job after the course unaided by them) to name a few.

At only 19:55 BST the record number of unique visitors on this blog today has beaten the previous record a week ago (22nd June 2009) by 2 times and has tripled the daily average number of unique visitors. It seems everyone is very interested in the A4E fraud so we will bring more revelations on Action 4 Employment in the future.

Since Monday, in half the country there will be no new referrals to New Deal. This could be due to implementing the Flexible New Deal or due to revelations of New Deal fraud we recently reported, as the Flexible New Deal (if contracts are signed on time) are not due to begin until October allowing a 13 week programme to commence this week.

Is it Flexible New Deal or flexible New Deal? (notice the lowercase f in flexible)

I have noticed different providers and news sources have displayed Flexible New Deal differently, have I said it wrong saying Flexible New Deal instead of flexible New Deal?

I am aware that its basically is New Deal 2.0 but I have reported it as Flexible New Deal because it is the name of a new programme rather than being a new type under an existing New Deal such as flexible New Deal or inflexible New Deal.

Anyone with the official properly written way of saying it?

All New Deal training providers, past and present should be subject to an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.  The fraud investigation can’t be conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions as they also fall under the suspicion of fraudulent activity and other acts of unlawful misconduct and requires an outside independent investigation. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

This potentially fraudulent act involves:

1. Bullying the client into signing…
   • Blank documents or not filled in forms, Or
   • Incomplete (but partially filled in) forms
2. Giving the reason as to “save time”, “I will complete the rest later…” and this is typically enforced by inadequate time for the paperwork to reasonably be completed (such as someone already waiting or an unreasonable target i.e. complete everyone’s paperwork by lunchtime).
3. Threats of dismissal or 6 month sanctions, for non-compliance
4. Verbally agreeing what you will write

   The fraudulent element is as follows…

5. Writing something completely different to what was verbally agreed

Or, This fraudulent act involves:

1. Requiring signature specimens (regardless of any “genuine” reason i.e. security)
2. Using “Windowing” technique with specimens to make someone appear to have signed some document

… is known as “Pre-signing“; the second definition is more likely to use that term in common dialogue. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The illegal act of:

1. Acknowledging that regardless of the actual period of time the New Deal participant spends on the course they will get the full amount for the entire 13 weeks, unless they exceed their absence limit where they wont
2. Short listing those who appear not to be able to make the entire 13 weeks or those who are close to exceeding permitted absence limits to be dismissed – those who seem likely to “drop out” will not award provider with Job Outcome bonuses thus are surplus to requirements and those that are close to the limit regardless of being in their rights and not committing an offence are likely to become a liability to limit the amount projected to be received.
3. Acknowledging that the Jobseeker cannot appeal or prevent being dismissed, has no rights to find out the reason for dismissal or have a chance to put right/get a second chance,  and that it takes immediate effect.
4. Short listing random people for dismissal to ease overcrowding of training centres
5. Making false declarations under oath of a disclaimer claiming reasons for dismissals as rather severe (misconduct, Health and safety concerns etc.) all being lies, knowing that the Dismissal Form has a sole purpose of helping a Decision Maker impose sanctions on a jobseeker, who doesn’t get to see such a form.
6. Tell the Jobseeker verbally an entire  different story (such as due to attitude, not contributing enough etc.) consisting of rather mild reasons, so when he or she becomes required to give reasons why the training course ended or appeals to a decision of benefit sanctions,  the jobseeker merely complains about something irrelevant to the actual stated reason and becomes sanctioned as a result.
7. When a Decision Maker writes to the Training Provider, the training provider delays the reply so when the Decision Maker writes to the Jobseeker, he or she doesn’t get a copy of the answers provided as the system is intended to do.
8. Now that the people were exited – the training providers profit margins further reach the projections.

… is known as “exiting“. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The illegal act of:

1. Bidding for a contract to a high specification in order to win the contract (this becomes part of the New Deal contract outlined in Part 3 (“The services”), Section 3 (“Provider obligations”) subsections 3.1.1 and 3.1.5, Schedule 2 (and applicable Annexes) and other applicable sections), Or
2. Failing to follow Provider Guidance (breach of subsection 3.1.3 of New Deal contract)

   and

3. Deliberately providing the service different to that promised at tender stage, where the standard is less, where financial cut backs are made to the delivery, understaffed, under resourced and overcrowded premises.

… is known as “misrepresentation“. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The illegal act of:

1. Forcing the New Deal participant to sign a disclaimer giving them permission to contact any future employers, by threatening dismissal if they decline (see “exiting” fraud technique)
2. Contacting the participant’s New Deal Personal Adviser enquiring if they have found employment and with what employer. (NDPA’s are only too happy to disclose such information even when the term of your New Deal course has far been exceeded – i.e. Data Protection Act 1998 violation)
3. Approaching the employer and making them fill in the paperwork required
4. Claiming Job Outcome bonuses, intended as an incentive to find New Deal participants work, NOT to be abused like in this manner where work was found by the ex-New Deal participant after the course ended.

… is known as “leeching“. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

As from today the New Deal Scandal network will be also promoting the abolishment of the Jobseekers Agreement (JSAg), an proposed act of Welfare Reform View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Both Action 4 Employment and Working Links publicly release a statement on the Channel 4 News report broadcast on the 30th June 2009, dated 28/06/2009 (A4e) and 29/06/2009 (Working Links) up to 2 days before the public were aware of their fraudulent activities. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Former Action 4 Employment (A4e) employee Elizabeth Orsman has been jailed for fraud with a total value of £15,833. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The New Deal Scandal blog unique hits yesterday were still rising (at 22%) as concerns increase over Action 4 Employment and Working Links, the entire New Deal scheme which is very vulnerable to fraud and the Flexible New Deal. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

I have absolute no idea why the Government gets Ofsted (famous for schools) to do reports on New Deal providers.  The problem is, whereas with schools, each school is individually assessed; with New Deal each contract region is assessed in just one annual report. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Evidence from 2003 has been uncovered showing information on fraud investigations of New Deal in the first 5 years of New Deal. You may have heard about cases regarding companies such as A4e, Maatwerk and Working Links being investigated for fraud, however, official Parliament documents show that up until winter 2002 there was over 278 in depth fraud investigations against New Deal providers, almost 2000 allegations of fraud committed by New Deal prime contractors and the rate of cases year on year seems to be on the increase. Read on for more! View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

New Deal Scandal can reveal that there were 1,869 allegations of fraud made against New Deal providers within the first 5 years – 15% of these allegations (or roughly 1 in 6) resulted in full fraud investigations being carried out. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

We can reveal that on the 20th April 2009, Mr Neil Watson the Finance Director for Action 4 Employment resigned from a4e Ltd as a director. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

We can reveal that on the 20th April 2009, Mr Neil Watson the Finance Director for Action 4 Employment resigned from a4e Ltd as a director. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

We can reveal that on the 20th April 2009, Mr Neil Watson the Finance Director for Action 4 Employment resigned from a4e Ltd as a director. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

New Deal Scandal network can announce that Action 4 Employment has two main companies which they swapped names of. We do not suggest that this act was an act of fraudulent company trading however we felt the suspicions of which is significant to match the allegations of widespread fraud in the organisation. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Many New Deal providers are using a whole range of fraudulent techniques to receive money unlawfully from the Government. The Government generally isn’t interested in knowing about these techniques, they only recognise the fraud that is forging employer signatures. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The Government department was involved in a racial experiment with recruitment processes says the Institute of Economic Affairs, which involved sending two identical applications for 1,000 jobs – the difference being one was a typical “white British” name and the other was from a pool of names from different “ethnic minority” groups to compare the outcome . The Equality and Human Rights Commission – those who failed to pick up on New Deal, the proposed Flexible New Deal and Welfare Reform Bill – urges a clause in the Equality Bill to ban names in application forms. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

I can’t stress enough how great it is to have a job which is permanent and secured

Tonight I wish to raise the major unemployment issue: the System’s  Cherry Pick or Park approach.

Regardless of being in a recession or not, there are two distinct groups of unemployed people that are jobseekers who are on benefits:

1) The Lucky.

The lucky group will only be unemployed for a short period typically between 2 weeks and six months and head back into sustainable long term fulltime employment. This employment is likely to be secured by knowing friends and family, and even keeping in the loop of internal job vacancies from previous employers rather than the overcrowded application processes.

and

2)   The Unlucky.

The unlucky group is destined to remain longterm unemployed with the occassional unsustainable short jobs (Agency, temporary etc.) from anything between several hours a week here and there, and 4-9 months. The unlucky ones are forced to register for agencies who are only usually interested in promoting very casual work – which obviously are unsustainable, inadequate to live on, and without much notice (a phone call on the day to work is common) – and requires either signing off for the period (then signing back on afterwards) or going down to sign on and declare work resulting in no payment and probably a staff member reporting you to the fraud squad.

Wonder why there are so many agency jobs advertised at the Jobcentre?

89% of the recuitment industry in the UK is for temporary jobs.  The Government is supporting this multi-billion pound industry and sticking the economy before people as usual (apart from with the banks of course). Putting it another way; the industry’s combined turnover for permanent jobs and normal non-permanent contract jobs make up only around one tenth (11%) of their annual income.

The rest is made up of short term casual short notice jobs. Do you want to be rung up at 7:30am asking if you can start work at 8am for 4 hours at minimum wage?

Employers prefer someone who has stuck at their job for long periods of time

No employer likes candidates who have worked on several different jobs in one year.

Jobseekers Allowance terminated

The jobcentre has for a while allowed jobseekers to be more choosey for jobs they apply for. Generally, if you aren’t better off working than receiving Jobseekers you don’t have to apply. Agency work on the other hand, is an exception to this rule – if you declined the above offer for example – you would likely receive a sanction for it.

New Deal

New Deal is infamous for “Cherry Picking” and “Parking”…

This has to stop!

It actually is a human right for self-progression etc. it is not right for people to just be parked (like a car?) in the car park of unemployment waiting for petrol. Then someone comes along and hand washes the car. The car needs petrol! It doesn’t matter if the car looks brand new, still needs petrol to get anywhere! (don’t ask lol)

Unemployed? What category have you fallen in to?

I don’t believe that the “clever” ones get the jobs and the “dumb” ones don’t. This is why I called the groups “lucky” and “unlucky”. Luck has a part in all this too. Feel free to leave a comment, if you are unemployed, stick which group you think you fall in to, looking back at past events and the current circumstances.

The illegal fraudulent act of:

1. Offering to post letters, CV’s and application forms / previous telling the participant that they will post them

   and

2. Not posting the letters as previously said

   and

3. Delaying the posting of them deliberately with intent so they would exceed deadlines

… is known as “stalling“.

New Deal Scandal recently reported that New Deal Provider Reed in Partnership was under investigation for multi-million pound fraud in 2001; we now can disclose that just two years later the Department for Work and Pensions was involved in a multi agency investigation of a fraud estimated at £3 million involving them finding jobs for illegal immigrants including failed asylum seekers.

DESPITE THESE TWO PREVIOUS MULTI-MILLION POUND FRAUDS:

Reed in Partnership still holds Government Contracts (including New Deal Prime Contractor, Employment Zone, Pathways to Work Phase 2).   Where is the logic in that?

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

It is official: jobseekers have no rights.  Jobcentre Plus doesn’t follow the law. There is no punishment against the Department for Work and Pensions for breaking the law or for human rights violations. Claiming benefits has become more difficult with many Benefit Delivery Centres using lie detectors which work by picking up anxiety etc. in the voice, the norm once been on hold for 20+ minutes, resulting in some people being unable to claim… and to top it off now New Deal Scandal has received numerous reports of jobseekers being removed from the Jobcentre without any legal justification and incriminated. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

We recently reported about Jobcentre Plus suppression regarding the misuse of security officers and police time in ejecting jobseekers from the Jobcentre Plus offices for false incriminating reasons to prevent them getting their legal entitlement.

This misconduct was only the start: a blog reader added more worrying concerns who states that the Hackney Jobcentre Plus prevents Jobseekers using the Jobpoints also requesting police to remove the unemployed from the building. The misuse of public services which could be better used for fighting crime seems to be an growing common trait at the Jobcentre Plus offices around the country.

The Jobcentre now stops the unemployed jobseekers from accessing jobs: a requirement for receiving Jobseekers Allowance; an welfare benefit for those without employment to survive on.

This article focuses on more issues regarding the services provided by the largest UK Government department including making false allegations towards people, a claim I can also personally defend from my own circumstances and various sources all over the country too and also in the case we reported in the above article.  View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

You may have heard about assaults on Jobcentre Plus staff in the news, however, these figures are largely distorted. They refer to Incident Cases and not solely due to physical assault – which we will explain later.

Six months ago Jobcentre Plus boasted over 1,600 security guards costing the taxpayer over £40 million a year.  I am sure this amount will be on the increase as new claimants are increasing.

This article will focus on: a) are all these security guards necessary?  and  b) how many actual assaults were there?

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

What is with the unemployment system?

“Assaults” on staff are to be dealt with by benefit sanctions and not by police.

Awkward customers are to be removed from the Jobcentre Plus office by police after being held by security.

Assaults are crimes, it is a police matter.  Exceeding your time slot or talking back to staff isn’t!

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Jobseekers Allowance: the Scandal (A MUST READ FOR ALL JOBSEEKERS)

How many scandals can there possibly be?!  Its becoming crazy now…

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

205 laptops lost or stolen full of confidential information.

Apparently the figures are as follows

2004 – 75 Laptops
2005 – 46 Laptops
2006 – 28 Laptops
2007 – 15 Laptops
2008 – 41 Laptops

£266,000 spent on entertainment.

2003-04 £79,000 (this particular figure is apparently just a estimate)
2004-05 £28,000
2005-06 £43,000
2006-07 £106,000
2007-08 £10,000

Maybe its all the christmas parties, who knows…

Thanks to the volunteers at the United Kingdom Benefits Information eXchange forums (UKBIX). A very recommended source by New Deal Scandal.

In the last financial year, 2008-09, Action for Employment (a4e), the largest welfare to work provider who has 47 active welfare to work provisions only resulted in 20% of their clients securing employment. This is quite short of the 45% target.

If you are seeking work and claiming Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) you would have heard about the Jobseekers Act 1995 however you are probably more familiar with it being written and acknowledged as the Jobseekers Act 1995 (as amended).

What does this mean? Read on for a brief explanation on the law that applies to you. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) has been asked by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to consider proposals for the above named regulations.
Currently, if the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate is higher than their contractual rent, customers are able to keep the excess benefit up to a maximum of £15 per week. The main change that these proposals would introduce is to limit the amount of Housing Benefit a person can be entitled to, to the level of their rent liability.

These changes would mean that:

• all those claiming housing benefit in the deregulated private sector on or after 5 April 2010 would not be entitled to any excess benefit over their contractual rent; and
• existing claimants who are currently entitled to an excess payment of up to £15, would see a reduction in their benefit when their claims are reviewed, usually on the anniversary date of their claim,

Before the Committee considers and reports on these proposals, it would like to hear from organisations and individuals who have views, in particular on the following aspects of the proposed changes:

• The potential impact of a reduction in income on the customers who will lose out;
• The potential effects of the amendments on child poverty;
• Equality issues, including the potential effect of the proposed changes on minority groups;
• The results of removing such an incentive for the customer to take more responsibility for their housing costs
• The possible unforseen repercussions, such as the behavioural responses of landlords and tenants.

The Committee would also like to hear from welfare rights advisers, landlords and others who may be able to supply information about the customer groups affected by the proposed change.

Those wishing to make representations to the Committee may obtain a copy of the Department’s explanatory memorandum and a copy of the draft regulations from the Secretary to the Committee, Gill Saunders (0207 412 1506) or from the SSAC website: www.ssac.org.uk.

Representations should be sent to the Committee at New Court, 48 Carey Street, London, WC2A 2LS, or by email to ssac@dwp.gsi.gov.uk, or via the consultation response facility on the website, to arrive no later than 03/08/2009

Comments welcome. From DWP News.

New Deal wasn’t designed for those with higher skills: why not? View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

So you are unemployed, about to make a claim for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) or have made a new claim for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) however not attended an New Jobseeker Interview (NJI) yet. This article explains what you need to know about claiming Jobseekers Allowance.

You wouldn’t have thought that the Jobseekers Agreement (JSAg) would be a crutial element to claiming. The problem is most claimants see it as simply a pathetic agreement which is created just as procedure, whereas the truth is the Jobseekers Agreement is in effect, within a limited capacity, your power to create a law to your specification of how some elements of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (as amended) are implemented and used.

The Jobseekers Agreement (JSAg) has two main uses:- The first is to trap the typical naive Jobseeker in to being required to apply for more widespread jobs than otherwise could be argued as reasonable. As the average jobseeker doesn’t realise the full impact of the Jobseekers Agreement they will go along with whatever the Employment Officer (EO) suggests, they then sign and it becomes a large element of the rules for receiving Jobseekers Allowance. The second reason is for the Jobseekers Agreement to be used for enforcement – or should I say to decide about applying sanctions or refusing later benefit claims.

You may also hear the Jobseekers Agreement (JSAg) being an agreement you negotiate, where you pledge what you will do weekly to find work, what your responsibilities are, your availability and what restrictions you have.

Was it just me? ..Or did I hear the word negotiate mentioned? Read on… View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

People are increasingly loosing jobs, forced to sign on to receive Jobseekers Allowance to scrape by, hundreds of people are now applying for the same jobs and if that wasn’t bad enough, in a bid to save £234 million a year, the Government has decided to pull the £15 per week excess from Local Housing Allowance which is to affect over 300,000 claimants including families.

New Deal Scandal believes that with the surge in new claims, that £234 million a year figure could rise to £250 million within a few months after coming in to effect next year.

At this time of widespread need, the public should be able to rely on the Government giving them extra support – after all collectively we have been paying taxes and their wages for the last few decades. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Statistics published on New Deal for Young People (NDYP) up to November 2008, shows a worrying trend with almost a third (31.27%) of New Deal participants not securing employment and not reclaiming benefit.

Previously published articles such as Dencora House detention centre and various news articles on “jobseekers being treated like cattle”  showing the poor under resourced and mistreatment of participants comes to no surprise how so many people (411,190 to be exact) have decided to plunge deeper into poverty to have their Human Rights respected.  I am sure a few people would have won some money on the horses or on the lottery but in the majority of cases will be strictly relying on friends and family to survive. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

As a Jobseekers Allowance claimant myself (when my claim hasn’t been stopped or suspended for trivial reasons such as not attending an interview they never told me about) I am not surprised that the National Audit Office (NAO) has reported a £1.2 billion under spend last year.

To stick this figure into prospective (remember it is the DWP as a whole not just JSA) if the figure comprised totally of Jobseekers Allowance at the higher rate of £60 per week, it makes 10 million payments of 20 million benefit weeks not being paid out, or 384,615 claimants a year receiving no Jobseekers Allowance at all even though entitled to do so by law.

In fact this raises a huge question about DWP, Jobcentre Plus; and their repeatedly unlawful tactics and techniques to take ones legal entitlement away, which I will explain later in to the article. As the Jobseekers Act 1995 (as amended) makes it your legal entitlement and the Jobcentre is doing the best to avoid paying that money out to you this comes under fraud in my definition and as such this £1.2 billion under spend will be categorised as a £1.2 billion fraud.

This is on top of the £750 million under spending on the Tax Credits system – resulting in 1.2 million claims not being made. We recently reported about the Jobseekers Allowance Scandal and the quarter of a billion pounds a year Housing Allowance cut. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Just a brief overall of recent content on ”New Deal Scandal & Welfare Reform” and “Ipswich Unemployed Action” blogs.  This might be easier to some then using Wordpress pages as some sticky posts make normal ones difficult to see sometimes.  View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

If the answer is yes, then you should think again!

Details published from DWP themselves from the DWP Survey 2009 – a survey of 73,006 people (71%) – a response of under 3 in 4 members of staff, show some worrying statistics. Is your data safe? View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The latest statistics show that 67% of DWP employees would like to still work at DWP in 12 months time – 33% said they didn’t wish to. 48,914 would still like to work for the Department for Work and Pensions in a years time while 24,092 stated that they would not like to. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The DWP Survey 2009, states that 26% of employees taking the survey (71% of the total workforce) answered “not sure” to the following question: “Do you possess a Level 2 qualification (NVQ, BTEC, 5 GCSEs Grade A-C, or equivalent) or above?“. That is 18,982 employees not sure about their own qualifications. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

This is criticism against A4e and how they manage their business. This is relevant because they are the largest New Deal provider receiving money from, (guess who?) you, the taxpayer!

I couldn’t resist but to disclose how strange A4e operates being such a large company and all. I don’t know of anything like it. Please feel to continue reading (no its got nothing to do with the fraud investigation) View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Just looked at the statistics on display at the Jobcentre the other day. In the last few months (last quarter) they received 247 complaints to only 5 praises.  A complaint is one to the District Manager in writing not a verbal complaint, written complaint/letter to your personal adviser or unofficial complaint made online in form of feedback.

If this figure included verbal complaints and complaints to your personal adviser then it would be much higher.

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Call it another scandal if you wish, it seems that New Deal providers are exempt from planning legislation.

Banbury based YMCA Training, who have recently viewed this site today (leave a comment and say hello)  manages to deliver New Deal training courses without first acquiring the required D1 planning consent.

• YMCA Training     Ipswich      Wolsey House
• YMCA Training     Ipswich      517 London Road
• YMCA Training     Ipswich      Dencora House
• YMCA Training     Southend   Baryta House
• YMCA Training     Romford    Lambourne House

If you know of any others let me know.

Update: Added “Lambourne House” – Havering has responded to me stating they don’t have D1 consent and they should apply for retrospective planning permission costing around £335 for an application if they still use the building.

UKBIX announces to New Deal Scandal that Mark Hamilton, 36, a civil servant working at a Jobcentre Plus office in Scotland stole over £24,000 from Giros he made and cashed after he stole blank giros when the Jobcentre Plus office merged with another.

His seven month scamming spree was brought to a close when the DWP Fraud team contacted the police.

What took the DWP so long to notice?   View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Just a brief overall of recent content on ”New Deal Scandal & Welfare Reform” blog. This might be easier to some then using WordPress pages as some sticky posts make normal ones difficult to see sometimes. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

If you receive “D W P ADVICE CONFIRMS” on your bank statement instead of the usual “AB123456C DWP JSA” read on. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

New Deal Scandal can reveal that the new Jobcentre Plus CEO, Darra Singh OBE, was one of the masterminds behind a new National Service system where in particular young unemployed people are to be forced to “volunteer” or lose their benefits. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

New Deal Scandal can confirm that in the last year (2008-09) the Department for Work and Pensions spent £184,857,504 on Royal Mail postage services. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

After some extensive research into UK Unemployment Benefit (Jobseekers Allowance) and New Deal related legislation, New Deal Scandal can inform you, confirmed by DWP, that the £4 weekly travel deductions are unlawful.  This means New Deal participants past and present are entitled to be reimbursed. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

If you have been on New Deal the chances are you had £4 unlawfully deducted weekly from travel reimbursements and expected to cover that from your training allowance.

New Deal Scandal and Ipswich Unemployed Action has confirmed this is in fact unlawful and New Deal participants may take action to recover the £52 deduction for the 13 weeks they attended. If participants have attended New Deal in the past they can still claim £52 for each 13 weeks they completed on New Deal. This could be £156 for some people.

Under 13 weeks? You can claim £4 per week for each deduction that occured.

You can also claim interest on outstanding amounts.

New Deal Scandal can reveal that as of the end of July 2009 there are 4 ongoing fraud investigations regarding New Deal and 1 regarding Pathways to Work. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

New Deal Scandal can reveal that the Department for Work and Pensions has no intention for making any prosecutions for prime contractors deliberately defrauding the system. The Department for Work and Pensions currently has no plans of stopping Flexible New Deal contracts being awarded to prime contractors who have previously defrauded the system on numerous occassions for the New Deal contracts. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Articles and Discussion on A4e/Studio Lambert Benefit Busters Series 1: Episodes 1 & 2. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

A is for Abuse

Jobseekers are in receipt of continuous abuse, harassment and defamation from New Deal Providers and even Jobcentre Plus staff.

As highlighted on the Benefit Busters series, in particular the second Episode, not only is the environment for jobseekers extremely bad natured but the treatment by staff is. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

B is for Boredom

Whether you are 18, 30 or 60 you will find the disorganised 13 Week New Deal courses very boring. Episode 2 of Benefit Busters clearly highlights sticking a pool of people into overcrowded rooms without a timetable doing 30 hours a week of “intensive job search”. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

An Article posted by a blog visitor on our wordpress website.

NEW DEAL OR BUM DEAL? By Alfred Doolittle.

This report is reprinted, by kind permission of the editor, from issue no. 10 of Northern Voices, c/o 52, Todmorden Road, Burnley, Lancashire, BB10 4AH, E-mail : northernvoices@hotmail.com

I’VE just finished a 10-month sentence. Although I wasn’t an inmate in a prison or a mental institution, at times it certainly felt like it. I am one of the many thousands of undeserving poor who each year are coerced into attending one of New Labour’s spurious training schemes aimed at motivating the so-called work-shy.As a middle-aged unemployed man living in Greater Manchester, I was put on the government’s New Deal scheme at the beginning of 2008.

Having a university degree, I initially saw it as an opportunity to take up the government’s offer of training and retraining to improve my job prospects. But any ideas that I may have had about training were soon dispelled after my first meeting with my New Deal advisor.  View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

C is for Cherry picking!

Government contractors (those that deliver welfare schemes such as New Deal) are well known to “Cherry pick” (Also known as “creaming“) and to “park” clients. “Cherry picking” (or “creaming”) means selecting those that are easier to help (in the case of New Deal; those that are deemed closer to the labour market or simply put “job ready” – as highlighted by Benefit Busters Episode 2 where New Deal participants were segregated into rooms).

“Parking” is when clients are deemed too difficult to help (such as not being “job ready”; regardless of being paid to do so) and receive little or none help at all. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Ipswich Unemployed Action and New Deal Scandal has confirmed that Ipswich Borough Council has granted YMCA Training full planning consent for Dencora House.

Dencora House is a detention centre located on Whitehouse Industrial Estate – isolating New Deal participants from society. Even in an industrial estate, the property has a perimeter fence, the entrance is a vast distance from the main road and towards the opposite side the place is shielded from an even busier road by trees – it is good to see trees but I can’t help thinking that this place was chosen to keep the unemployed away from the town centre where most of the towns jobs actually are: funny that …and also where all the recruitment agencies are and the Jobcentre. They think the unemployed goes around creating crime such as stealing so sticking a large group of them in an industrial estate seems a way of solving that problem.

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Because the Department for Work and Pensions intentionally uses abbreviations for almost everything (you will see later) it confuses claimants as well as their own staff. You have to personally contact DWP to request a copy of such. Not no more, New Deal Scandal has published just for you a list of the abbreviations they use from A-Z.

In this post we will focus on A-C. The rest of the letters can be found on this site too in the same category. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Because the Department for Work and Pensions intentionally uses abbreviations for almost everything (you will see later) it confuses claimants as well as their own staff. You have to personally contact DWP to request a copy of such. Not no more, New Deal Scandal has published just for you a list of the abbreviations they use from A-Z. This is the second posting.

In this post we will focus on D-F. The rest of the letters can be found on this site too in the same category. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Because the Department for Work and Pensions intentionally uses abbreviations for almost everything (you will see later) it confuses claimants as well as their own staff. You have to personally contact DWP to request a copy of such. Not no more, New Deal Scandal has published just for you a list of the abbreviations they use from A-Z. This is the third posting. In this post we will focus on G-M. The rest of the letters can be found on this site too in the same category. We hope you find these useful. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Because the Department for Work and Pensions intentionally uses abbreviations for almost everything (you will see later) it confuses claimants as well as their own staff. You have to personally contact DWP to request a copy of such. Not no more, New Deal Scandal has published just for you a list of the abbreviations they use from A-Z. This is the forth posting. In this post we will focus on N-Q. The rest of the letters can be found on this site too in the same category. We hope you find these useful. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Because the Department for Work and Pensions intentionally uses abbreviations for almost everything (you will see later) it confuses claimants as well as their own staff. You have to personally contact DWP to request a copy of such. Not no more, New Deal Scandal has published just for you a list of the abbreviations they use from A-Z. This is the fifth posting. In this post we will focus on R-T. The rest of the letters can be found on this site too in the same category. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Because the Department for Work and Pensions intentionally uses abbreviations for almost everything (you will see later) it confuses claimants as well as their own staff. You have to personally contact DWP to request a copy of such. Not no more, New Deal Scandal has published just for you a list of the abbreviations they use from A-Z. This is the sixth and final posting. In this post we will focus on U-Z. The rest of the letters can be found on this site too in the same category. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

D is for Demotivation

New Deal without a doubt is very demotivating for participants. People generally on New Deal have a one week honeymoon period. This is called Induction. This is the best week of the course although some people criticise it for being stretched out for activities that could be completed in 2 days maximum.

This typically consists of everything done in Gateway 2 Work and job search. It gets worse for the following weeks after induction. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Today I have received an email from a New Deal Scandal blog reader and ex-New Deal participant who is upset at his mistreatment of this New Deal farce:

I know its a diabolical situation & I am so glad I found your website because I was beginning to think it was just me who thought the New Deal Programme was such a farce & I was being forced to sign off just to get the unemployment figures down.

Here is a copy of the still yet unanswered letter that has been sent to the manager of the Jobcentre Plus office in Lewisham, all the major tabloids, Yvette Cooper (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Work & Prisons W*nkers and Pillocks), Darra Singh CEO of Jobcentre Plus and Gordon Brown! (Read on) View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

SAVE DLA AND ALL DISABILITY BENEFITS
Tony Greenstein

Having already abolished Incapacity Benefit, New Labour has now made it clear that it wants to scrap ALL disability benefits. On July 14th New Labour published a Green Paper, Shaping the Future of Care. Reading through the spin, the message is clear. Disability Living Allowance is ‘inefficient’ ‘poorly targeted’ [because it’s not means tested!] and therefore has to go towards paying for a new national care service.

Disability Living Allowance is the best benefit there is. If your needs are great enough, if you cannot care and need help with bodily functions for part or all of the day (and night) you are eligible for Disability Living Allowance. There are 3 bands – lower, middle and higher. Receipt of Disability Living Allowance does not overlap with other benefits and is not counted as taxable income.

The result is that people who are the most vulnerable and sick in this society see a small increase in their standard of living. This is what New Labour hate most of all. The proposal is to use the money for ‘individual budgets’ run by private companies, whereby the disabled, in agreement with the local authority, can spend the money on care. Of course they’ll never actually see the money!!

The whole system will be discretionary and, of course, liable to cuts. Anyone with any experience of the existing system of individual budgets knows what a nightmare the whole system is.

The Green Paper talks about abolishing Attendance Allowance which is paid to those 65 and over (Attendance Allowance is the equivalent of the care component of Disability Living Allowance). Instead they intend to force the elderly to pay £20,000 to insure themselves!! The Green Paper talks about replacing not just Attendance Allowance but ‘disability benefits’ – a clear sign that it is not just Attendance Allowance which is in their sights. And the Green Paper dresses up its purpose with the usual New Labour waffle such as proclaiming that “our aspiration (is) to build a stronger, fairer Britain.”

The Attlee Government of 1945-51, which was a right-wing cold war Labour government, introduced the building blocs of the welfare state which New Labour is intent on dismantling. They introduced the 1948 National Assistance Act intended to act as a safety net for those who fell below a certain level of income. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Flexible New Deal Open to Abuse

Whereas there were initial concerns about the financial profits of providers with the New New Deal (called Flexible New Deal) due to a greater emphasis on pay for results – that is paid for actual job outcomes (both short and sustained). This is largely conditional on the economy and job market which is likely to improve.

Previously New Deal providers had only a chance of claiming Job Outcome bonuses for the 13 week course plus up to 3 months (started off at 6 weeks) afterwards; this has all changed under Flexible New Deal.

New Deal providers also committed a New Deal Fraud technique of leeching – that is entering the New Deal participant into an agreement that gives permission for them to contact any future employer (subject to timescales) to claim a Job Outcome Bonus although the provider hasn’t got the participant the job, even months after the course ended, also tying in the responsibility for the New Deal participant to contact their old provider to make them aware of the job although they shouldn’t be holding their details anymore.

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Fancy sending your Flexible New Deal clients to the wrong place…  View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

A4e, Avanta (TNG) and Jobcentre Plus all amongst New Years Honours List

Or

Perhaps sanctioned if Actively Seeking Employment however not the steps stated on your Jobseeker Agreement?

This is a must read for anyone whom Jobcentre Plus has sanctioned for accusing them of not Actively Seeking Work for not following their Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg). Basically, the law doesn’t even require such steps to be followed as long as you are looking for work and have done reasonable steps with the required evidence. Read before making an appeal. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal