The Regulations continue to state that a) candidates may only be forced to sign up to Universal Job Match if a Job Seekers Direction is issued, and even then the candidate would only be forced to create an account, create a profile, upload a CV, make that CV Searchable, and from the Universal Job Match Toolkit, b) the introducion of Universal Job Match makes not change to the General Regulations and candidates cannot be forced to provide access to their Universal Job Match (if they have created an account), and c) the Job Seeker may provided evidence of their Job Search Activity using whatever means they choose. Sufficient evidence will be provided by the traditional Job Search Diary, and Job Printouts or Screenshots taken by a Mobile Phone/Tablet.

According to reports, it will continue until replaced by the "Health and Work Programme" from 2017. Details are pretty sparce, but I suspect that it will be another Gravy Train for existing providers.

We can all amuse ourselves with the thought that a hard pressed Business Manager, having failed to source a candidate for a vacancy through their own Professional Network (it is estimated that about 80% of jobs are never advertised), will receive (say) 1000 CV's from different run of the mill agencies, will ask some temp to make an initial success/reject decision on each CV within 10 seconds (although how long does it take to reject on the basis of age?), and shortlist down to 10 for an interview. A CV does not need to be longer than a page - and I cannot re-emphasize the fact that candidates need not tailor a CV for each and every job that they apply for - that simply indulges the perception that an employer may expect a "perfect" or "ideal" candidate. But, if a candidate wishes to spend days or weeks in devising a perfect CV - such a candidate deserves our commendation and respect. However, the employer will make an initial success/reject decision within, at most 10 seconds, and therefore there is absolutely no point in wasting more than sufficient time on a single application, taking time from other applications that have equal value.

The term "Parking" is even more erroneous in the context of the Welfare To Work Sector, irrespective of whether through the Flexible New Deal or successor Work Programme. The DWP reported through its own research findings that the Work Programme was less effective than doing nothing, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/spending-review/10146659/5bn-Work-Programme-worse-than-doing-nothing.html The scheme was never designed to provide any "help" to any unemployed person, but did help the self-serving Welfare To Work Sector, including the likes of A4E, to grow extremely rich at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Business Model was never sustainable from the outset...in the case of Deloitte-Ingeus (Deloitte entered a joint venture with Ingeus in October 2010 to bid for the Work Programme Contacts {announced December 2010 by the DWP]), bid 70% less than any other party and ended up with 23% of the Prime Contracts), they presumed that all candidates would access employment from the outset and/or become Self Employed vendors for the Acme Corporation (or similar - such as eBay Sellers)) and need not put any effort into the job selection process, and even the Deloitte-Ingeus Employer Services Teams failed to generate any interviews for candidates. In the recent year or so, Deloitte divested itself from the joint venture, and Ingeus sold its stake to a US Private Equity Business Provident Service Corporation (reported on April 1st 2014). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c771c22-b9a7-11e3-b74f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3cfu90KbR The term "Parking" can be quite erroneous...the term simply means that Welfare To Work Clerks within Deloitte-Ingeus did not possess a basic level of competence to speak to employers on behalf of candidates. If the candidate in question, whose sole responsibility was to the Job Seekers Agreement and to Job Centre Plus, did not sign the Data Protection Waiver, then there was little incentive for Welfare To Work Clerks within Deloitte-Ingeus to put any effort in. Given that the DWP own research suggested that the Work Programme was less effective than doing nothing, it is not surprising that the Business Model was a flawed extension of the belief system of George Iain Duncan Smith.

When candidates present themselves at the Front Desk, waiting to be signed on, you simply need to present your appointment card. Any Job Search Evidence can be presented directly to the Civil Servant interviewing you during signing on. Although, according to the Universal Job Match Toolkit Chapter 3 [28 February 2013], the Job Centre may have been able mandate that a canddiate should create an account, create a profile, upload a CV, they cannot mandate that candidates provide access to their Universal Job Match Account. Additionally, it remains entirely at the discretion of the candidate how they should manage their job search diary and provide their job search evidence.

20% of US Citizens believe Barack Hussein Obama is a cactus. http://www.theonion.com/article/poll-1-in-5-americans-believe-obama-is-a-cactus-18127

Interesting subject....although the Signature Capture System linked to the Digital Signing Pad does not record a signature as such, it simply builds up a Signature Profile of those signatures which a Civil Servant deems acceptable at the time the candidate accepts enrollment on the system. I suspect that, before 100% of candidates agree to be enrolled, the Job Centre will simply ditch the technology given the increased time that Civil Servants have to spend in dealing with rejected signatures from valid candidates offering a valid signature.

What Regulations apply to the case of a Tenancy Agreement being entered into, but the gas company refuses to reconnect the gas to the boiler until the debt paid by a previous tenant is paid. Can the Utility Company insist that a new tenant accepts liability for the debt owed by the previous tenant.

Although Universal Credit remains behind schedule, and the Project may never be implemented (watch this space after the next election), the DWP are replacing the Job Seekers Agreement with the Job Seekers Agreement Claimant Commitment (which is covered by the existing legislation), and it may be the case that Ministers may well suggest that Universal Credit has been implemented throughout the UK by January 2015.

What makes you think that TV Autocue Reader Esther McVey was ever qualified to do anything other than read the autocue...and it is doubtful whether, in the absense of a number of photoshopped photographs, whether she would have even made an interview on the Casting Couch.

Just because someone has been unemployed for more than 18 months does not necessarily imply that the candidate skills are redundant....reports suggest a) that 50% of young black men under 24 are unemployed, b) that if you are male, aged 50+, and made redundant, it is difficult to return to the jobs market, and c) some employers will reject against any female between 18-55 for fear of "Child Care" rearing itself within the workplace. Sadly, the Welfare To Work Sector was never envisaged to "help the unemployed" - it remains Sub Prime, and the majority of welfare To Work Clerks employed were either working in the Flexible New Deal, Call Centres or Recruitment Agencies.

Congratulations on the job..... hopefully, it will offer a stepping stone to something more robust, and allow you to make productive use of your skills. However, this could be a case of being creative on the part of Ingeus, offering a job to someone being on the Work Programme, and claiming a bung from the taxpayer for every 4 weeks that they keep them on. Of course, other candidates in your position may not be as desperate as yourself, would be more discerning in their choice of employer, and would not touch the sub-prime Welfare To Work Sector with a barge pole.

Deloitte-Ingeus used to deploy a 4 Phase Programme, entitled the "Every Day Counts" Service Delivery Model, with a different Welfare To Work Clerk assigned to each candidate as they entered each Phase.. Of course, this was before Deloitte- offloaded its stake in Ingeus, and before Ingeus were sold to a Private Equity Business in the US. Phase 1 : Insight (Weeks 1-4) Phase 2 : Intensive Support (Weeks 5-16) Phase 3 : Skills Plus (Weeks 17-52) Phase 3.1 Vocational Routeway (13 weeks) Phase 3.2 Personal Routeway (13 weeks) Phase 4 Breakthrough (Weeks 53-104) http://ingeusstaff.co.uk/diagram [ATTACH=CONFIG]53291[/ATTACH]

Seriously ? Did they tell you this...or are they simply delusional, having spent a few hours playing Call of Duty ?

There is no absolutely need to be defensive....if Welfare To Work Clerks were qualified, they would have been able to secure jobs in the Real World, whereas they weren't, could not even get a job working in the Job Centre Plus Network, and otherwise had to make do with a sector that is frankly sub-prime to Call Centre. If candidates wish to seek Professional Advice concerning Self Assessment, CV Design, Job Search etc, then they should seek a meeting with a Professional Careers Adviser.

Sadly, some people are easily swayed, and buy anything which Snake Oil Salesmen try to sell.

Dont get too stressed..... for the sake of clarification, note that Welfare To Work Clerks, who you meet within the Work Programme, are not THAT QUALIFIED, are more than likely to have moved out of their previous role (which could be a Sales Clerk working in a Call Centre), and there has been a trend (which commenced within the Flexible New Deal) that lowly Welfare To Work Clerks may be given the ego boosting term of "Consultant". If you wish to discuss you case further, I suggest that you seek a meeting with a Professional Careers Advisor..... any Welfare To Work Clerk who you meet (even when they have a grand sounding job title) is not going to be of any use.

Of course, no-one should be criticised for simply doing their job. A job, is a job, is a job...even if simply one stage above slime in the Welfare To Work Sector.....conversely, Welfare To Work Clerks who otherwise eschew the mannerisms of Jobsworths, and set to make lives of candidates difficult, are simply fair game.

Perhaps the Welfare To Work Clerk coordinating the session was on Mandatory Work Activity, directed to report at the volition of Job Centre Plus, preparing him/her to become a student in a kindergarten class.

The ability of Ingeus (or any other Welfare To Work Subprime Business) to share your data stems from your relationship with Job Centre Plus.... under Data Protection Legislation, Job Centre Plus (as a Data Processor) can share your personal data to any organisation within the Welfare To Work Sector, such as Ingeus and its Sub contractors, and need not secure your permission or approval to do so. There is some confusion.... if any candidate wishes to seek help, they have ample opportunity to approach Skilled and Qualified Professionals, such as Professional Careers Advisers within the Careers Service. Unless a candidate asks to be sent on the Work Programme (the theoretical possibility exists), where it may be inferred that they have asked for some help, then help may be given.... but, if a candidate is told to go on the Work Programme in threat of any sanction, then they have clearly not asked for any help, and any Welfare To Work Clerk proceeding to offer "help" is simply impudent and insolent. There is an additional argument as to whether any Welfare To Work Clerk is really qualified to delve into matters (such as Candidate Assessment, CV Design etc) where they may not necessarily be qualified to do so. And, in our society, We normally despise people who attempt to practice medicine without possessing a license and accurately suggest that they may be merely "Quacks".

If a future Administrative Assistant (despite calling themselves the ego-boosting term Work Coach) wishes to arrange an MWA - then advise them to Bring It On, and simply respectfully suggest that Voluntary Work is not Voluntary if there is even a hint of coersion. And simply cordially suggest that, if they were to ring an employer on your behalf, they may even be able to arrange an interview, and a job offer. If you are skilled for the jobs that you are applying for, and possess qualifications, and do everything which is specified within the Job Seekers Agreement, then there is no logic to waste time on MWA - however, there is logic in such an eventuality for you to report the Placement Organisation to HMRC for an attempt to perpetrate Tax Fraud. If you are doing any form of job, and subject to a Verbal or Written Contract of Employment, then are you are legally entitled to National Minimum Wage, and the State entitled to its fair share through Tax and National Insurance.

If a Welfare To Work Clerk within the Welfare To Work Business offered an unconditional commitment towards reimbursing Professional Expenses, and you have written evidence to this effect, then simply put the claim in....your only commitment and obligation is to Job Centre Plus through the Job Seekers Agreement. If the W2W Business refuses to honour their obligation and responsibilities, speak to the Citizens Advice Bureau, and if applicable instigate litigation for redress.

Given that you sign on at JCP, the Job Seekers Agreement remains an imperative....and provided that you do all that is expected of you, and fulfil the Job Seekers Agreement, that is sufficient. In fact, the Job Diary that you present to JCP when you sign on can be reused, and presented to Welfare To Work Clerks within Ingeus.

You have to sympathise with any Welfare To Work Clerk for such delusions....if they wanted to "help" job seekers, they would have returned to school and college (assuming that they had GCSE's), trained to be a Professional Careers Adviser, and after being employed in this capacity for 3-5 years, may then be taken seriously as a credible authority to disperse careers advice. But, sadly, Welfare To Work Clerks are not that qualified, and as much as they may be lucky to be employed, they are really extending themselves beyond their domain of competence.