Flexible New Deal Scandal:
Flexible New Deal

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

Some Flexible New Deal interesting links…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Welfare Reforms plans are out and so is Flexible New Deal… they plan to make us work for below that National Minimum Wage; but surely aren’t we getting worked up about nothing? 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

It has came to our attention that the Department for Work and Pensions’ Executive Agency Jobcentre Plus is trying to push as many people in to the New Deal courses before it ends and become replaced with Flexible New Deal.

This is NOT legit and you CAN get out of it. Read on. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Well, not any more…

(former) Secretary of State: James Purnell MP

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The Independent Watchdog for the Department for Work & Pensions

We hope you’ll find us a useful resource in helping to recognize, combat and raise awareness of abuse of power involving the UK government’s largest department, a department dependent upon a sea of civil and judicial servants, we repeatedly find not doing their job properly.

In March 2007 the then Department for Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman MP spoke on BBC1’s Question Time of “transparency” and “adherence to law”.

It is with ongoing sadness, we find her former department failing in the latter, this campaign providing the transparency parliament craves.

On the basis of a detailed body of written evidence demonstrating wrongdoing, we seek; abolition of the Office of Social Security Commissioners (OSSC) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PO), as they stand.

We likewise campaign for lay involvement in social security appeals, whether by jury or panels, to combat abuse of power in these private judicial courts which we find breaking the law, contrary to their function, as Parliament requires; to uphold it.

We also want to see change in the complaints procedure, again by way of truly independent adjudication for staff misconduct and disciplinary action for all demonstrated instances of mischief or illegal activity within the DWP and its associated bodies including the Child Support Agency (CSA), now re-branded the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC).

We aim likewise to inform, how public servants, salaried by the British taxpayer, can, for their own reasons, bully and defraud the weakest members in society , while those judicial servants in place to oversee them, not only condone such, join in, cover up and whitewash their colleagues criminal behaviour, the DWP remaining a bastion of the archaic and corrupt practice of closing ranks; a mentality which invites the campaign.

DWP CORRUPTION – YOU AND “THE LAW”

PRIVATE AGENCIES

As a DWP watchdog, we have found the DWP’s Office for Constitutional Affairs (now re-branded the Ministry of Justice) misusing taxpayer’s money to employ private legal firms to knowingly and successfully plead for corrupt and illegal decisions, from corrupt Social Security Commissioners .

USE OF GAGGING ORDERS

We have likewise found corrupt DWP management misusing taxpayer’s money, to hire private legal agencies to threaten and thereby gag private citizens attempting to pursue legitimate redress of grievance within the DWP’s internal grievance procedure long before the internal procedure is exhausted!

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

With regard to the Human Rights Act 1998, adopted by the U.K. we observe breaches of this legislation by the DWP standard, routine practice, the Appeal Tribunal Service and the OSSC invariably tolerating or paying only lip service to such, the DWP having little or no interest in their customer’s legal rights, a situation most benefit claimants know little about.

The so called “new system of protection” namely the European court, requires “domestic remedies” to have been “exhausted”. Although seemingly well intended, the Act is itself vague, slow and beyond the reach of welfare claimants to pursue, such requiring the employment of an advocate for opinion from the court of appeal and beyond, something generally not covered we understand, by legal aid, not forgetting from past cases it could take over sixteen years to get there as in the Deumeland case.

That protection the public could do without and having sought such, never finding a remedy anyway:

Klaus Deumeland was fined DM800 for bringing “vexatious” proceedings his complaint being that the proceedings were extraordinary protracted .

Make up your own mind whether sixteen years is a reasonable period to obtain (or in his case not obtain) the said protection but otherwise keep the legal profession in work at the expense of both the public purse and the victim.

More DWP Jobcentre Plus corruption on www.ukcorruptiontoday.com

I was reading a great article on Welfare Reform (the Welfare Reform Bill 2009) however I greatly disagreed with the points made in the article so I decided to quote sections of it and comment!

The Welfare Reform Bill is to be a tough piece of legislation that will compel people in meeting with their obligations. It comes as no surprise and is long overdue. One of the first targets will be in removing 1 million people off Incapacity Benefit and into work. The entire benefits system is to be streamlined with Income Support being replaced with a leaner ‘out of work benefits’ system. The time has come by which those who “fiddle” the system should take account of what their obligations and duties are.

Removing one million people off “Incapacity Benefit”? Incapacity Benefit doesn’t exist. To the best of my knowledge the Welfare Reform Act 2007 replaced Incapacity Benefit and Income Support with an Employment and Support Allowance in 2008.

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

It has been discovered that Dencora House in Ipswich, a training centre run and rented by YMCA Training didn’t have planning permission for over 6 months.  To run a training centre you require D1 planning consent. Dencora House and it’s 10 units all had B1 Offices planning consent.  When YMCA Training, one of the largest training providers with 31 years experience and over 40 locations, rented units  it was unaware of the law and therefore traded without permission.

Ipswich Borough Council took enforcement action when they discovered that they were illegally trading when they only had consent for offices. The council forced them to apply for planning permission.  After YMCA Training were responsible for a long list of problems including damage to cars, litter and noise disturbances – the neighbouring businesses downstairs of Dencora House and in the local area appealed against their application.

It wasn’t until July that year where they were granted full planning permission to change use from B1 offices to D1 non-residential training centre for a year trial period. It will expire July 31st 2009.

It is not known why DWP and Jobcentre Plus didn’t notice that they did not have planning permission when they did their checks to see if the training centre was up to a required standard to be used for New Deal.

Feel free to view the below posts about each attempt:

• YMCA Training’s first attempt for planning permission (appealed)
• YMCA Training’s second and successful attempt for planning permission (only granted for 1 year though)

YMCA Training who has dismissed a New Deal participant in just little over 30 minutes of the New Deal course Induction Week due to conflict of personal opinion (breach of the “Freedom of Expression”/”Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Thought”/”Freedom of Conscience” Human Rights) has justified their reason as such views were a “Health and Safety concern“.

This is obviously complete nonsense.  The Jobcentre however warranted their request for dismissal even though staff were said to be against their reasons.  The participant therefore is likely to be pending 26 week sanctions