Covert recording really is a lifesaver if you are put in the position of having to make a formal complaint. It's one thing to repeat their words in writing, but when you can add the threatening or condescending manner in which the words were delivered, it adds a whole new dimension. I did just that, and sent a CD-ROM with an MP3 file of the recorded meeting as well as a typed transcript as evidence to both the regional manager and my MP. At the next meeting, I continued to covertly record whilst the advisor made a vehement denial of the details of the complaint but had been unaware of the recorded evidence, at which point I produced my recorder and told them it was still running, and that it had been on every previous meeting. The phrase 'dropping a bombshell' doesn't quite do the reaction justice

Hi, You are well within your rights to decline signing the consent forms, you dont not have to give any reason or explanantion as to why you are declining, nor can you be sanctioned for not doing so. Though if challenged on this, state that you are simply declining to sign rather than say "I refuse.." You do not have to provide any electronic or paper copy of your CV. Take a hard cop of your CV with you to WP interviews so they can evidence that you do have one, but decline to let them keep it. By not signing the forms, the WP cannot share any of your personal data with their subcontractors. And declining to provide a copy of your CV means they cannot send it to any employer they see fit (such as the Casino you mentioned) and puts you in a position of control.

No doubt that the run-on funding will instead be handed to the WP pimps to offer as a bribe for compliance to provide employer details on staring a job, so making their reward all the more certain.

What I'd like to know is, who and/or what organisations are the majority shareholders in those companies listed? It'll be they (such as the pension investment funds) who are determining business practices to drive down one of the costliest overheads of running any business - that of the employment of labour. If that cost can be reduced as far as possible through restructuring and redundancy of percieved inefficiency, and replaced through a petition to lobby the politicians to endorse such policies as the social-welfare 'work programmes' to compel those fired through such efficiency drives to now work for free, so the profits on the balance sheets of those companies increase, therefore creating an increasing return for those shareholders (such as the pension fund managers who's prime directive is to seek out the best return for their policy holders) As the old adage goes...'follow the money'

I've done exactly that, and have a complaint of attempted bribery/fraud and sanction threats (along with a typed transcript and CD of the digital recording) that's been sent to both the provider and my MP... I've meetings with both today as the formal complaints only landed on their respective doormats a couple of days ago (according to the recorded proof of delivery). Will be happy to report what I can later today Edit to add.. I'm aware I can't broadcast the audio recording itself without breaching the Data Protection Act, but where would I stand on publishing a written transcript of the recorded conversation?

Anyone can make a Subject Access Request to any organisation that holds personal information on them under the Data Protection Act. You cannot be penalised for doing so, nor do you have to disclose your reasons for making such a request. If you decide to do so, it may be a good idea to send it via the post office 'signed for' service (you use the Royal Mail 'track & trace' facility online to see exactly when it was delivered and get a screenshot of the name & signature of the person who signed for it on delivery) to the head office who will pass it on to their Data Compliance office. The local office you attend will not have any notification you are doing so and try putting you on the spot with questions as to your intentions. There's a number of SAR templates available on this website that you could use, I'm in the process of drafting my own for my complaint and will be happy to post my version on here if it will help anyone else. In the meantime I'd suggest having a few trial runs with your recording device to see how best to hide it and record any further meetings to back yourself up ETA: The http://www.consent.me.uk/letter/ website has an excellent template letter you can use to withdraw any previously signed forms for consent to share data or contact any future employers to obtain outcome payments. Again, you cannot be sanctioned for doing so, nor do you have to give any explanation for your withdrawal.

My advisor first offered me a £100 payment if I signed the employer consent. I declined to agree with this and stated that I'd get the JC+ £100 back-to-work bonus anyway. They then stated that that payment was dependant on 'a statement from the provider that I was complying with the work programme' and if I was determined not to be, wouldn't recieve it. They then offered to give me £200 in total for 'forgetting my principles' and signing the form. I still disagreed. Then they informed me that the provider would recieve the outcome payments regardless of my declining to sign, and that I could be sanctioned upto 6 months on my NI contributions if I or my employer refused to confirm employment status.. They'd have not said anything had they willingly agreed to the meeting being recorded. And whilst perhaps not admissable in a court of law, the ICE may well accept it as evidence to back up a complaint. Otherwise it's just our word against theirs, and we know which way the decision would swing in that case..

On the matter of advisors offering payments and/or sanctions to get a client to sign the employer-consent forms and get their hands on the outcome payment, I wondered if this could be used as a blunt instrument to add to complaints.. One very good reason to covertly record all your meetings/phonecalls to use as evidence if required!

@RealName.. There's also the DWP's own guidelines on travel to work which would mean that any commute to site outside the stated 90-minute limit could be defined as unreasonable

The English & Maths/Self Employment/CV entries may relate to the workshops & courses they earn fat fees for people attending

@YorkyLad "In regards to your data been passed on, Ingeus is authorised to pass on client information to our delivery partners, who are legally authorised to carry out any of our functions on our behalf. This can be done without client consent" Then why do they require you to sign the data-sharing consent form for them to do so, if they believe they are able to share personal information without your consent?? As for the statement of DNA appointments, If you have audio-recordings made at the time of those 24 meetings where your advisor failed to show, then you may have a good cause to create a headache of a complaint against them

I'd do two things.. Firstly I'd make sure I was recording the entire interview process. Secondly, given the nature of the job you are being forced to attend interview for, I would make sure that I asked many detailed questions regarding the nature of possible chemical and biological hazards that the job may put you in contact with. I would ask what form of liability insurance the employer has and the amount of coverage it offers in the event of a chemical or biological contamination due to the nature of the work I would also ask for the employer to cover costs for Hepatitis & Tetanus vaccinations. Maybe make a point to ask what employee sanitation (showers/laundry) is available at each site... I'm sure you could put the fear of litigation into them with a few other choice questions

I've found exactly the same.. I managed to independantly secure a graduate-level job with an 8-week initial training period. When I made enquiries for help with travel expenses to get to the workplace I was given a rebuff of "we'll only accept a couple of days" but had to fight tooth and nail to get 2 weeks worth of fares at first. When I went back to them to explain that I had been given an offer of a permanent job after the 8-weeks, but needed a further 6 weeks worth of travel assistance to complete the training, they refused stating that "Their business model and budgeting didn't account for those sorts of costs", that I had allegedly "Stated discrepancies in how long the placement was for when I made the first request", despite providing them with the original offer from the employer in writing, and that they "Only ever allow a budget of £100 per client" Despite the tentative offer that would kickstart my career and the employer providing industry-related training that I could not otherwise afford to fund by myself, I was also told that the employer was exploiting me and that they would not provide any further financial assistance. I'm now left with having to fund th etravel costs to the tune of half my JSA a week to get to the placement, and if I cannot complete the remaing time, will lose a golden employment opportunity It's my belief that they have refused as a form of vindictive and punitive measures as I declined to sign the DPA consent forms that would enable them to claim their £4,000+ bounty. I base this on a previous meeting where I was asked why I had declined to sign the forms, and I stated that I objected to their getting thousands of pounds in outcome payment when I had found a job by myself and they had offered me nothing in assistance to-date despite numerous requests. The advisor told me "I've got £100 available, it may be a slap in the face, but it's a £100 slap in the face, just think of what that money could do, all you have to do is forget about your principles and sign the form..". They then went on to say that even if I won't sign the form once I had secured a job, they would get the payment anyway, and that if I refused to be contacted and give consent, I could recieve a sanction on any future NI contributions. Could that be defined as bribery and blackmail in an attempt to coerce signing away a statutory legal right?

I'm not sure how accurate the information given was, but I was told quite pointedly by my advisor that if I continued to decline DPA consent to contact an employer once I started work and blocked the provider's claim to the outcome payments, that sanctions would be applied to NI contributions

I'd suggest trying to secure yourself a volunteer position of some sort before you start with the provider and declaring it with the JC on an A15C form. That way, not only will it look more favorable on your CV to an employer that you have organised voluntary work by your own initiative, it will also exempt you from any Mandatory Work Activity schemes. I'm not sure if the CV Writing /Basic Literacy & Numeracy/Interview Skills etc courses are classed as MWA's though? I'd also suggest that they will be very unlikely to allow you to take any of their offered courses through an independant as the WP providers make hefty profits through the European Social Fund payments. I understand that the Basic Literacy & Numeracy courses are worth around £1,300 to the provider per person referred to each course

The A4E fraud arrest-count now stands at 6. This time, its someone from their Milton Keynes office http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17792718 How many different offices will need to be investigated before it can be called 'systemic'? (Incidentally, I notice that all the posts on this topic are all dated on the 22nd of the month...strange)

Yep. My recent 'threat' as mentioned previously, was a sanction of NI contributions if I started a job but refused to sign the employer waiver to allow collection of the outcome payments. As you've not signed the employer waiver, you could provide them with all the application and contact details asked for, but there's nothing they can do to confirm with the employer you have applied. As you're also recording all your meetings, you have the potential to trip them up and have them slapped with a £5000 fine from the ICE for a complaint of a breach of the data protection act with an audio recording as evidence. Perhaps we could all do our bit to ruin their profit margin.

Hi from another Ingeus inmate I'va been 'attached' to them since last august, had a grand total of 6 basic meetings in all that time, and not had to take any in-house or other courses or dealings with any of their subcontractors The saving grace has been to find my own unpaid volunteer job (through www.do-it.org.uk) that's relevant to my skills and qualifications, enhances my CV, and that I really enjoy...the bonus is that regardless of how many hours you volunteer for, as long as you declare yourself as 'unpaid volunteer worker' through the jobcentre, you're exempted from MWAs See: https://mandatoryvoluntarywork.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/mandatory-work-good-cause-opt-opts-internal-information-from-jobcentre-plus/ "3. Given the policy intent of MWA, the following claimants must not be considered for referral to MWA: currently working (paid or voluntary) undertaking employment related study / training taking part in or recently completed* another employment measure (contracted or non-contracted) aimed at helping them move closer to the labour market" The other step was to withdraw the DPA waiver that I'd originally signed. Now I'm left alone to get on with searching for a job under my own steam, they can't contact any job application or voluntary employer, can't refer me or my personal details to any other sub-contractor, and can't mandadte me to any activity

If you signed both the forms at the first meeting with the provider, in particular the second 'employer consent' form, it's likely they will have gotten a payment of some sort out of it, especially if you worked with a larger company with a HR department so that any employment queries from them may not have gotten back to you, regardless of you having found the job yourself. I've looked through every scrap of paperwork I have from both Inglorious and the JC and there's nothing whatsoever about being retained to them for 2 years. Nor do I recall any mention of it at any JC interview prior to referral. Yet we are bound to them for 2 years. There has to be some legal precedent under contract law that can be used against them surely? On the previous scheme, New Deal, it meant you signed a contract with whoever you were placed with and you recieved a P45 from the JC, so indicating a legally-binding contractual obligation, but there's nothing like that with these providers. The way I can see it, is that the prime provider is a sub-contractor to the JC for the Work Programme, so legal responsibility will lie with the JC, and in effect deputised, as they have been granted the power of sanction, but not the right to enforce it or end your claim. Even if you work less than 16 hours a week and are on what the JC classes as a low income, they insist you have to still claim JSA and therefore still bound to the prime provider as you are a claimant of that benefit. However, I am trying to investigate whether declaring yourself as self-employed but working less than 16 p/wk would actually qualify you to recieve Income support, and have to declare your earnings on a B16 form instead. I've only found conflicting information on this so far, but if it could be determined as fact that you can indeed claim IS as being self-employed (perhaps declaring 1 hour per week at £1 per hour, as being self-employed exempts you from the National Minimum Wage), it would be a way to scupper the Work Programme plans and Ingeus profits.

I think you have to be in work for the maximum of 2 years, hence the 2 year 'obligation' to whichever provider you are sent to. I'm quite possibly wrong on that though and it could just be 26 weeks (6 months) between claim dates. Incidentally, one of the points in signing off and to get the £100 back-to-work payment, along with the 4 week benefit run-on is whether the work is to last 5 weeks or longer. I'm assuming it was Ingeus that found you that job that lasted for only 5 weeks? If so they'd still get a result payment, regardless of it of being of any long-term benefit to yourself, which no-doubt they'd paint it as.

Unfortunately, what "providing relevant skills and support" means in Ingeus-speak, is getting as many people to sit their in-house courses in CV writing, literacy & numeracy, et al, as possible for inflated course fees per participant, which they then get paid for delivering through the European Social Fund. It's simply another revenue stream to them, regardless of whether it's of any real benefit to the participant. Edit to add.. I wonder...Maybe the E.S.F. should be renamed the 'European Slush Fund' as it's a handy vehicle to hide the amount that's actually being paid to the private-sector providers via the Gov'ts EU contributions and keeping the real cost of the programme off the accounts books? ..back on topic

I've been looking at how/where any contract for 2 years duration between provider and client actually exists. There's nothing in those two documents you're presented with at the first meeting that states any form of contractual agreement, nor was anything presented by the JC at the time of referral. As soon as you sign off, your contractual relationship with the jobcentre ceases, along with any obligations, so where does Ingeus fit into that equation?

The £100 'return to work' payment plus 4 weeks worth of benefit run-on should come direct from the DWP if you've been claiming for more than 26 weeks, and as it's benefit related, should be payable even if you've refused DPA consent. There's the paragraph in the consent form that reads something like "Your entitlement to benefits will not be affected if you choose not to give consent" So it can't be witheld by the provider and dangled in the form of a bribe for signing If Injurous want to offer a further payment of their own for signing the consent form (that'll be rendered useless as soon as the cash is recieved) then that's their problem, plus as you'll have already signed-off there's no comeback on money eaned/recieved. The question is, how much can we get out of them? If they're willing to offer £75, then why not try and and negotiate upwards and demand a bigger sum. You could always call it an administration fee, afterall, that's the same wheeze the banks play!

I've been sold by the DWP to Disingenuous too.. However, I'm about to declare myself as self-employed and Yorky Lad's post gave me an idea.. As I've also declined to sign the DPA consent forms, if Disingenous contact me to offer a similar 'bribe' to sign the forms once have signed off, what's to stop anyone from signing their forms with their own name, address, and phone number as 'self-employed' details and taking the money as soon as it hits their account, and then sending the DWP and prime provider a full withdrawal of DPA consent letter?

Sorry to hear of your situation with HSBC/First Direct. After going through the files and papers from start to finish, and the pragmatic advice of a good friend, I've made a well-considered withdrawal from the battle. Nothing hs been lost from the experience by any means though. I've aquired a whole load of research skills, knowledge, and assertiveness that has since come in very handy, have a restored and squeaky-clean credit-rating again, and have won some £300 in various goodwill-compensation payouts. Had it not been for CAG I'd have gotten a whole lot less. Onwards and upwards!