Hi folks, I had my first appointment with Ingeus this week. It resembled more a car crash than anything constructive. Immediately I was asked for sensitive personal data in an environment that was not private. "Do you have a criminal record?". I refused to give them any personal information other than what the job centre had forwarded (my name and address). My 'adviser' then told me I "was obliged by law" to give him both my telephone number and my email address. I asked him to spell it out several times that against my will he was saying he had the powers to make me surrender my personal details and he asserted himself firmly that this was the case. "Ingeus have been mandated with the authority the same as the job center. You have to give me your email address" he stated. He then threatened me with a sanction if I didnt hand over email address!! So within 10 minutes of my first appointment i'm treatened with a sanction (which would leave me the same as a lot of people have said before in this thread... homeless and destitute) for exercising my right under UK law to protect my data. Satisfied that he wasn't going to acquire my email address from me he demanded my mobile phone number. Which, summarily I refused to part with too. He told me again that the law dictated that I surrender (against my will in this case) my mobile telephone number to him. I told him again of my belief that he had no authority to make such demands and I requested to see the written evidence that this private company I'd never heard of before had exemptions from all UK laws regarding personal data. I wanted to read about a law that empowered this man to have more power over me than a police officer does in the street. He was delighted at this prospect and skipped off to a cupboard. "These are the documents about you having to give us information" he said nonchalantly launching the 5 sheets of paper across the desk. I could see his head sink when it became evident after a few moments that I was reading them. Not what I was expecting and he can't of read properly the 'consent to share information' and 'information disclosure' he just handed me. The information disclosure' document basicly said they abided by the data protection act and so humbly requested my data. The penultimate statement of that form states "Please be aware that not signing this form will not affect your benefits or your access to this programme". Speaks for itself... The Data Protection Act applies to them too. They do not, as my advisor stated, have any sort of exemption or powers to enable them to punish you for exercising your right to withhold from them your personal details and 'sensitive data'. Then the 'consent to share information' form is a joke and I urge no one to sign it. By signing that form you allow Ingues to call your 'future employer' whenever they want to inquire about such things as "The number of hours you work", "the amount of your earnings each week", "the dates of your employment". Which is something I do not want to share with them. Luckily as they are requesting something to which they are not by law entitled to without my permission, again, the form has an advice at the end. It reads: "entitlement to these benefits will not depend on whether I choose to give consent or not. My placement on any programme with Ingeus UK Limited and 'Delivery Partners' (the ambiguously unspecified 'Delivery Partners') I can withdraw my consent at any time by writing....." I use the material he handed me as reference and I point the small matter of the law standing in the way of his attempted illegal theft of my personal data. He points out that I haven't read the bit that says I must surrender my telephone number! That's on the 'Ingeus Expectations' document. He points his finger into the page and I start reading. "As it is a condition of your receipt of JSA that you are available for work, you must have your mobile phone switched on and with you at all times during office hours". "You see?" he inquired. Simple rebuff to such idiocy "my phone will be on.... its just that you wont be able to ring it" It was then pointed out to me that 99.9% of people were happy to give that information away. He tried to force the issue again. I can quote him as saying that my actions might be judged to be sabotaging my job search and, again, this may cause my JSA to be terminated. so, in a nut shell, trying to bully me into handing over my data against my will. I then told him in no uncertain terms that he was not getting my personal data off me and that we were just going around in circles. He turned to his computer and stated that the job centre would be informed of my refusal to complete the forms and surrender data. He told me to speak with the job centre about my concerns and then i was to return a week later and repeat the process (and I can assure everyone that it very much will be a case of repeating that process). To conclude. It struck me very similar to a high pressure sales pitch by a lying, manipulating cheating salesman who would not take no for an answer. I feel very much that been told that Ingeus has a 'government mandate' giving this man the authority to say he is except from the law is sickening. We know why they want specifically my contact details and my personal data it is so they can ensure their own financial gain. and this is the bottom line of it all for me regarding his conduct: If he knew Ingeus did not have the exemptions he stated they did when he said he did then he is in breach of TWO sections of the 2006 Fraud Act Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading Fraud by abuse of position (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, (b) dishonestly abuses that position, and © intends, by means of the abuse of that position— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act. I think by anyone's standard if you threaten someone with effectively making them homeless and possibly starve unless you submit to an illegal demand is an abuse of position and there is no doubt it was a series of 'false representations'. This is a company dealing with lots of vulnerable people and it makes me angry to think others who do not know their rights are are been deceived and bullied into handing over personal data that they do not have to. Fraud does not have to be just about stealing money... and the theft does not have to have taken place it is still fraud even if the [problem] fails.... therefore this is fraud! Thank you for listening.... Next episode Monday! :/