Obviously of no help to the op, but when I received an unlawful sanction last December it took around six weeks to get sorted out. I'm on ESA WRAG by the way.

Lol, like JCP don't actually know who you are, they haven't already got a sample signature, you never provided proof of ID at the start of the claim. I could go on.

I think some of Zeppelin's quieter compositions would be very fitting for a church, Ozzy's Bloodbath in Paradise, or Mr Crowley however...

The official WP stats for 2014 show that 7/10 claimants return to the Jobcentre after two years, NO provider has managed to get even 15 percent of claimants into three/six months work after one year on the Programme. The providers cannot now say "oh well it's early days yet, better results will filter through" because they plainly haven't. The WP is a failure of epic proportions, if it were not propped up by taxpayers cash it would have gone to the wall long ago.

Money for nothing? Maybe for those that have never paid a penny into the system it is, for the rest of us that in many cases spent all their working lives paying NI in the safe and sure knowledge that the safety net would catch us if we fell, feel differently. It's not free money, we contributed toward any benefits we might get. We are also fairly disgruntled that we are expected to grovel cap-in-hand like beggars for a few scraps off the table.

Highly unlikely that the advisor will face any disciplinary action, the manager will probably offer praise for initiative. In all my dealings with Seetec over two years, the constant harassment culminating in an unlawful sanction despite intervention by the DWP, JCP,and my MP not one single advisor has been brought to book, or even admonished, they're all Teflon coated.

In my experience Seetec will raise a sanction doubt regardless of whether their letters to claimants meet the DWP requirements or not. It's also my experience that DWP decision makers have accepted such letters as proof of a valid MAN without question. Neither party seem too bothered about compliance with DWP guidelines. I would take nothing for granted. If there is any doubt concerning the wording on a letter, raise it with Seetec. Trying to get such a situation sorted out after a sanction doubt has been raised is a nightmare.

As I've said before, many start their work 'journey' with the providers with good intent. However the system grinds them down just as quickly as the unfortunate claimant. I've conversed with a few ex provider employees on other forums, and all have emerged from the experience jaded and disillusioned, we have to remember that the set-up is akin to a sales driven call centre. Profit is the driving force, any compassion or understanding gets eradicated by the relentless march of corporate greed. It's the provider employees that have embraced the brainwashing that are the dangerous ones, they actually believe they are on a god given mission to rid the world of it's so-called feckless layabouts.

Graham Martin, Chief Operating Director at Seetec - 07773 773102 graham.martin@seetec.co.uk Andrew Emerson, Executive Director at Seetec – 07977 002278 andrew.emerson@seetec.co.uk Mark Smith, Operational Director for Mandatory Work Activity, 07870 244087 mark.smith@seetec.co.uk Raymond Gray, Head of Quality at Seetec, 07885 881938, raymond.gray@seetec.co.uk Enjoy!

I'd also check the wording on any MAN letters, providers often send out MAN's to ESA claimants that are JSA specific. The conditionality and potential penalties for non compliance are very different for each claimant group. Almost every other MAN letter I received from Seetec was JSA specific, rubbing their noses with them is such fun.

The number one overriding flaw with the Work Programme is, it is in the hands of the private sector. This should have been an offshoot of JCP. Staffed, monitored and controlled by JCP. Whilst there is profit to be made standards will inevitably suffer. What other private enterprise is: Not allowed to fail. Has its product supplied daily free of charge, then gets to charge the client a £600 stocking fee per item. Gets to keep the product for two years whilst garnering fees for re-packaging, and can hand the product back to the client after the two year period if it hasn't sold. If the product sells itself and the provider can find out who the buyer is the provider still gets a commission.

Which is why I was having such trouble keeping a straight face.

Dunno about that, I think she was simply showing off.

Hmm, lets not have too much sympathy for those that work in the WP sector. I'm sure some start off with good intent but anyone with half a brain soon realises the implications of what they are being asked to do. With regard to ESA, in my experience no one from the top down in the WP sector understands the difference between the two claimant groups they deal with, everyone is a job seeker, sick or not.

An update on my Seetec adventures. So I attend today at 4 pm and go through the usual spiel with the receptionist Receptionist 'oh just sign the register and take a seat Mr Osdset and someone will be with you shortly' Me 'I'm not here to engage with anyone, I'm here to find out why I keep getting MAN letters when I'm not on your programme. And before you ask me to do anything else please read this' (I show her the letter dated March this year from Seetec's operational director which says I'm not to be bothered again). Receptionist 'oh dear, ahh, erm, well I don't quite know what to do here (she looks furtively at the glass walled office in front of her), um, the manager is in a meeting at the moment'. Me 'that's OK I'll wait' Receptionist 'Oh look she's just come out, I'll call her over' Rather fetching suntanned young lady sashays over to the desk and takes over, reads my paperwork and immediately starts bashing the keyboard. Manager 'Ah Mr Osdset it seems that whilst there are copious notes on the system stating do not contact this claimant again, no one has actually taken this on board, what I'll now do is remove your contact details from the system so that when the next letter gets generated we have nowhere to send it to, and we can't phone you about it!' I am now trying really hard to stifle my amusement, but fail, I'm fumbling around for my glasses so I can read the screen that miss lovely has swiveled in my direction to prove she's removed my details. Once I regained my composure I casually ask what had happened to the previous manager ( a really nasty piece of work) 'oh he's been promoted to head office' reply's the manager (whom I'm now almost in love with) yes she is that stunning. I'm frankly gobsmacked at this news as this barsteward deserves the dole queue more than anyone I know, however I'm guessing that his jackboot attitude to claimants actually makes Seetec money, so they regard him as an asset. I reluctantly say farewell to the bronzed beauty, and take my leave. Now to badger Seetec's upper echelon for a final response so I can move this charade onto the ICE's desk.

The main stumbling block with taking a complaint to the ICE is getting Seetec to issue a final response that explains that you can take your case to the ICE if you’re not satisfied with their decision. Seetec have been careful not to issue me with a final response, Seetec's operational director knows full well that I'm trying to steer the complaint in that direction. I'm fairly sure he thinks I'll eventually give up hitting my head against the wall if he obfuscates for long enough, he's wrong.

Make it clear? Trust me, no one has made it clearer. I'm currently reviewing a letter forwarded to me by my MP from The Operations Correspondence Unit at the DWP, the author goes considerably round the houses with a semi apology for the whole two year charade, he added that should I remain unhappy with the 'service' I've received from Seetec, I can avail myself of the strengthened complaints process that was ( who knows when) introduced for the Work Programme. The problem is no one, I repeat no one has a scooby as to what this process is, how to initiate it, and what outcome there may be, the DWP tell me to complain to the provider under this procedure, the provider reckons they have never heard of it. My MP is confused with the whole affair because she gets conflicting stories from JCP the DWP and Seetec. I've now decided that either Seetec are incompetent in the extreme, or they are simply engaging in malicious harassment, there can be no grey area between the two.

Good luck with that! I was wrongfully mandated to the WP (Seetec) nearly two years ago and despite Seetec being read the riot act by JCP, the DWP and my MP they are still sending me MAN letters. No amount of complaint official or otherwise has any effect. I have a written assurance from one of Seetec's directors that I won't be bothered again, this was issued in March this year, since then I've had three MAN letters, nothing gets through to these people.

I think perhaps the volume of evidence supplied is overwhelming and if the tribunal feel they have to trawl through the lot it's bound to lead to delays. However one would assume that cherry picking the most relevant evidence and basing a decision on that would be the sensible way to proceed.

The DWP hardly ever attend tribunals, that way they avoid being asked very awkward questions by tribunal judges.

I think the 13 week assessment period has been quietly scrapped due to the DWP/ATOS being unable to get claimants assessed within the timescale, the assessment period is now as long as it takes which is pretty unfair to most claimants. If you score zero at the WCA the DWP will terminate your claim for ESA. The only option is to ask for a mandatory reconsideration pending an appeal. no ESA payments will be made during a mandatory reconsideration, either way you are looking at claiming JSA. If you do claim JSA and start waving a med cert around the advisor will most likely tell you to claim ESA as you're unfit for work.

Perhaps Cameron put a toe in the water and discovered that no one else wanted the job. IDS has made the position toxic.

Crikey! If all of us that failed the WCA and subsequently won at appeal could sue, it would probably bankrupt the DWP.

£108.15, hardly a life changing amount of money, someones idea of support I suppose.

The blanket deferral thing just had to be too good to be true. This is just one of the reasons I avoid the B&W site, I don't agree with charging for advice for a start, but if you're going to dole out advice or news then at least make sure it's valid.