they may try to sanction him,however they should take into account the stress of the job.a doctors appointment to back up any claims will help also relating to stress."if" there is a sanction. they will try and write to the company to find their account of events but it does sound like there's a staff problem at this company and if they reply,the worst scenario is that they will try and sanction and hardship payments will have to be claimed.but there's a very strong case of appeal if needed and always do so.

never have anything to do with them or ever sign anything.its been termed fruits of the poisonous tree. this reminds me of a story i was reading http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/aug/20/tv-licensing-mum-favour-court

they don't need a notice of assignment if the account has been passed for collection,the most important thing to do is send a letter of dispute giving clear reasons' to fredrickson international recorded delivery and stating that you will defend any action that they pursue.my experience when faced with this the account is then handed back to the original creditor.

if they haven't supplied an agreement they are not entitled to enforce the agreement full stop,if the account was pre apr 07 then its covered by the 1974 act and it may well be that they never had a signed agreement in the first place. if you have never signed an agreement just refer them to s78 of the consumer act and their responsibilities under it.recently from reading they are trying to bluff their way out rather then writing off the debt and confirming this by letter where no agreement exists.

i have made a doctors appointment in regards to signing off and will ask the gp to do so,the stress of this work programme is really to much to deal with.its the job centres role to assist people not controversial private companies that are profit motivated. staying on jsa when enough is enough is far more damaging to health through anxiety and the prospects of work slip further and further away in the process.

it goes a long way to explaining what's happening at least locally regarding the chaos,the pressure being passed down to two staff one is off sick a lot. the job centre forwarding people in droves,no staff at the provider and a weak labour market is quickly taking its toll.price waterhouse pulled out of the work programme as it was called not viable.that raises more questions why the government pursued such a course, the danger now is tax payers money will continue to be ploughed in much like new deal,public statements made that all is well and five years down the road its an acknowledged failure. http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2011/08/will-the-work-programme-work/

its the disclosure of personal information,i had a heated discussion about this at the job centre and refused to sign anything.according to the advisor they didn't need consent as this was already given when the claim was made.i didnt see anything or remember of anything of the such.i suspect i was at best misinformed.there was a very quick gloss over about this also from their part. certainly a4e's sheets of paper have my national insurance number at the top i didnt give them that so it must have come from the dwp,this is highly sensitive personal information. theres more here http://www.refusewp.com/refuse-work-programme/refuse-work-programme-part-1-followup.html

the problem atos faces is no one has had their condition properly evaluated,thats why they are facing a crisis in credibility. unfortunately you do have to fight in the appeals system this may need further evidence from your gp but reading the appeals chances are higher with representation. i am not saying you are disabled obviously i dont know,but those that are there is laws to protect them.

if there is problems with health,its more then minor or trivial and lasts over twelve months your covered by the equality act as a protected characteristic.any attempt to sanction without considering this will fail on appeal.

sometimes these meters use strip type paper cards,any increase in electricity prices isn't made until the meter has been adjusted and can start to build up arrears.

that may be true,it sounds so ridiculous whats happened i found it hard to believe myself as i was typing.theres one person between sixty people,it looks to be operating on a shoestring with few staff and one of these is ill most of the time, and people in increasing numbers and as you say the disabled too.these were usually kept off these programs previously by the dea. the doctor can sign people off of jsa on to e&sa and take the chances with the examination.that will remove the need to attend the work programme at least for now.it pushes up anxiety in those susceptible. it might be best to ignore their cv advice as most people will have one anyway and use what your comfortable with,mistakes stand out a mile while anyone can make one cv's are not the place to have any. the fraud issues which relate to this company were well documented at the time of 2008-9 what stood out was the attempts of cover up/web site removal and an aggressive legal team that stifled any scrutiny of its practices. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/28/fraud-inquiry-government-jobs-scheme

the work programme locally is in chaos. confronted with being late when half an hour early,supposed to have been in some days when i wasn't even down to be attending.no one bothered to check the times before confronting me and they had the exact same paperwork. the latest one is i was booked to be on a session which wasn't even down to be on that day or i wasn't even down to attend for the booked appointment.i sat there for half an hour waiting for a session to start that was never going to.thought it was suspicious as my name wasn't on the log for that day. a doctors appointment is the next step,the job centre cannot send disabled people into this.

whats going on is people are being sent to these companies with already fully prepared cv's and letters' from earlier courses and they are still unemployed,once thats covered there's nothing else to do except apply. there's no skills training. the man who repeats these sessions states that seventy people are applying for each vacancy,add to this health problems and disability and chances are not good.

the posts are not as wild and doom as some are suggesting. this work programme is in total chaos at least locally,so far i have been confronted with appointments that never existed,appointments made and the session was not even running or was i even down to be there that day. placing anyone into this environment let alone a disabled person is totally unacceptable.another ticking timebomb.

sadly its gone on far to long.the the gmc have taken far to long to take action against what is a gross breach of professionalism. the government is entirely to blame for this attempting to drive down professional standards to get results for political self interest. ignoring the costs to the individual and attempting to trivialise illness/disability that can somehow be cured by work.publishing distorted statements to the media whipping up resentment in the general population as if they are somehow shirkers is totally obscene.

your friend is well protected in law. http://www.carersuk.org/newsroom/item/67-millions-of-carers-to-gain-new-rights also if employment is found Employers should be aware of the wider protection against discrimination employees will now enjoy. Employees with caring responsibilities for the disabled and elderly already have rights to request flexible working and to reasonable time off to deal with emergencies in respect of dependents. extracted from botttom here. http://www.harbottle.com/hnl/pages/articles/the_equality_act_and_disabled_employees.php there appears to be a rush at the dwp to forward anyone and everyone onto this work program regardless,there also appears to some question over data sharing with these private companies and is rapidly glossed over quickly at interviews'. the important point arising from the equality act neither the dwp or the provider can simply ignore it or those covered by it.

more here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/13/atos-doctors-improper-conduct-disability

this has happened on here before,from memory the hsbc/metropolitan.they went on, the right of appropriation should have been made before they plundered a woman's account on benefits claiming offset. it may be best speak to the bank and explain the circumstances if they refuse to budge start a basic account elsewhere and protect your money.you need to inform the dwp too.

well the someone cynical may say they tried to wrong foot me with untruths.it certainly seems suspicious given the circumstances .

well i hope for everyone's sake these "sanction referrals" are not made by this company for issues arising that have nothing to do with the person who is claiming benefits. ie not their fault,but everything to do with incompetence.

i don't think a4e know if they are coming or going. this doesn't look an isolated incident i have had a number of problems through their own doing.

you claim it (esa) at an assessment rate for three months,then the medical if that fails then appeal if that fails then you need to consider another benefit.however those that are ill are not going to find employment that easily or feel up to it.

that's a nasty trick they play with that response.leaving the recipient open to the reasons why without explanation.

it does sound as if they have basically nothing,what it does sound like is that by sending threatening letters without any evidence suggests that they are relying on the person to incriminate themselves thus provide evidence.a confession in other words.

unfortunately its the dwp and the private companies contracted to them,their literature implies that sanctions are inevitable if the demands are not complied with.this is highly distressing to any individual unfortunately those with any disability,the anxious and depressed tend to be highly affected by these statements' because of their conditions and implied threats which have detrimental consequences . all this is an immediate breach of the equality act. 19 Indirect discrimination (b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, © it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (3) The relevant protected characteristics are— (3) The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. 20 Duty to make adjustments (3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. 21 Failure to comply with duty (1) A failure to comply with the first, second or third requirement is a failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments. 26 Harassment (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.