Victimisation and Attempted Prosecution by Jobcentre

[ccridersuz]

OMG:shock:

 

That means she is let lose as a DWP employee!!! No wonder I feel like a criminal for just signing on. If this security guard has been in court and been proved a liar, how the hell can they employ this person with such a background? and what about data protection. It's seriously worrying that this person now has access to your friends personnel files, or anyone elses for that matter!

I have issues with data protection while signing on as, every time I go into my local jobcentre, all the people in there are new as you don't see the same person twice. For someone like this to possibly be in MY jobcentre, is very alarming.

[ErikaPNP]

I believe front line staff only have access to certain (basic) records. They won't have the higher access required which holds in depth information, like the benefit delivery centres. Every keystroke is logged on a govt computer, staff have chipped cards so everything can be traced back to them. An audit trail of a customer's account will show all activity on that account, even if notes have been deleted, it will show when notes were deleted and by whom. Staff have to have a valid reason for accessing a particular record. Such as processing an application, they would be required to produce the claim form. Or changing an address, they would have to produce the letter from the claimant asking for this to be done. They can't just access to view and change things willy nilly. Some records can only be accessed by a person of a particular grade in a particular BDC.

 

If, for example, someone in another district tried to access a record of someone who was registered to a jobcentre in another district, this action would be reported by the computer to security staff (I mean security staff within DWP who deal with security breaches, not the security staff who are a presence within the jobcentre)

 

I helped a friend in this situation where a full audit trail had to be performed, though I can't go into details why as it wouldn't be right to put his situation on a public forum without his permission.

 

One of the JCP bods may know a bit more than me.

[Jan4a]

As Antone commented on another thread, JC are very strict with Performance Development reviews. So, if she is doing anything at all wrong I would imagine it will be picked up and dealt with immediately. And if they are aware of her past, they will be watching her very closely.

 

Although I do find it very strange that they have employed her at all!

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks everyone for the discussion.

 

My friend and I are not too worried about the former guard accessing information about us on JCP systems. From what Erika says, she would probably be caught out if she tried it.

 

Mind you, I may put in for a full audit trail of my claim in the New Year just to double-check.

 

Our big worry is that she is vindictive and a malicious liar. If she takes a dislike to someone signing on, or gets into an argument with them, she may easily lie by claiming to have been threatened or sworn at, as she has done in the past.

 

She could easily get someone marked as PV by twisting the truth, or start going to the police again with malicious complaints. To my mind, she's like a dog that's tasted blood.

 

That's our big worry: that she will start creating new problems following the pattern of her past behaviour.

 

And if they are aware of her past, they will be watching her very closely.

 

Thanks Jan.

 

I'm not sure whether the people who gave her the job, or the people she's now working with, know about all the past problems with her. But we certainly have the goods on her - Incident Reports, police statements, copies of complaint letters, her offensive internet writings, CCTV, etc - and it's a past she's not going to escape from easily.

 

I think our jobcentre have tried to hush things up, and probably kept their new staff in the dark about the problems with her. After all, it was a new member of staff who so casually spilled the beans to me about where she is now working ...

 

If the jobcentre manager knew what her new staff member had told me I suspect she would be very angry. But I'm not going to cause any problems for my unwitting informant. She is definitely in my good books.

[ErikaPNP]

Just a word of advice, Fitz. If you request a full audit trail, they will not tell you who has accessed your records; only security personel and the member of staff's manager will know this. It will simply show when your account has been accessed, and for what reason.

 

If there is any concern over what was accessed, then obviously the employee would be dealt with, and if found to be accessing them for purposes which is not legitimate, I would think the dealing with of them would be very severe indeed.

[MIKEY DABODEE]

Erika is right.

Nobody can just access any NINO just as the fancy takes them

To go into an account you have to able to show that you have a legitimate reason. This may be as a result of speaking to the customer or piece of post.. Test checks are done and forms have to be filled out and evidence shown.

 

If you work on Income Support you are giving access to view other benefits eg JSA CHB but you can not access the account to change it in any way. And its the same but visa versa if you process JSA you can view I.S Screems only

 

Accessing NINOs without any good reason is a sackable offence and the department takes security seriously

 

PV indicators can only be given to customers by HEOs and these are reviewed every twelve months

 

All employees are given a full security check before starting and some have gotten through all the selection process to fail the check

[MIKEY DABODEE]

Fitz you are entitled to ask for your account to have restricted access if you have reasons

this means no one can just access your account without special authority

If an account has a restrication on it then nobody can just access it with out given access by the CSO thats the computer support officer.

This has to come from your line manager

 

Having restricted access can make your life difficult say you ring up with your NINO to get help with your claim then nobody can just get straight into your account to help you

Just an option

[ErikaPNP]

I believe that the restriction of accounts these days are not done as easily as they used to be. I think it only applies to famous people (or indeed, infamous), people in witness protection and transgender people. Again, assisting a person who wanted a restriction on her account because a family member worked there taught me this.

 

Once upon a time, each member of staff employed across DWP also had restrictions on their accounts, but I don't believe this to be the case anymore.

[Jan4a]

It sounds very much like a law firm I used to work for, they had a system in place that could tell them who had accessed every file on the system.

 

Famous people such as Man U footballers had all their files restricted so only two people in the whole firm could access them.

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks everyone.

 

Like I say, my friend and I are not too worried about attempts at unauthorised access to our records. From what everyone is saying it looks like internal security would soon pick it up.

 

I don't know whether the former guard would try accessing records of people from our jobcentre. It doesn't fit any pattern of behaviour that I've seen in the past. But I wouldn't mind if she tried it and got caught ...

 

My concern about PV markers is not that she might give one herself, because she is not senior enough, but that she might falsely allege bad behaviour in an Incident Report that would then be used to give a PV marker.

 

This is certainly something she's tried in the past, falsely claiming to have been threatened etc. She did it in Jan 2008 (her Incident Report seriously contradicted by that of another staff member) and in Dec 2008 (her Incident Report shown to be false by the CCTV shown in court).

 

She also made an Incident Report in April 2008 that contributed to my friend being marked PV. Although in that case her account of events was fairly consistent with that of another member of staff.

 

By my reckoning, having only seen these three Incident Reports, she lied in two of them and may have been truthful in the other one. Not a good track record for someone now employed in a jobcentre.

 

* * *

 

I won't ask for my account to be restricted. I'm not famous or in witness protection or transgendered, but I am working on all three ...

[antone]

Thanks everyone.

 

Like I say, my friend and I are not too worried about attempts at unauthorised access to our records. From what everyone is saying it looks like internal security would soon pick it up.

 

I don't know whether the former guard would try accessing records of people from our jobcentre. It doesn't fit any pattern of behaviour that I've seen in the past. But I wouldn't mind if she tried it and got caught ...

 

My concern about PV markers is not that she might give one herself, because she is not senior enough, but that she might falsely allege bad behaviour in an Incident Report that would then be used to give a PV marker.

 

This is certainly something she's tried in the past, falsely claiming to have been threatened etc. She did it in Jan 2008 (her Incident Report seriously contradicted by that of another staff member) and in Dec 2008 (her Incident Report shown to be false by the CCTV shown in court).

 

She also made an Incident Report in April 2008 that contributed to my friend being marked PV. Although in that case her account of events was fairly consistent with that of another member of staff.

 

By my reckoning, having only seen these three Incident Reports, she lied in two of them and may have been truthful in the other one. Not a good track record for someone now employed in a jobcentre.

 

* * *

 

I won't ask for my account to be restricted. I'm not famous or in witness protection or transgendered, but I am working on all three ...

 

Just to add to the accurate comments already made, "test checks" apply to about 1 in 100 accesses to personal records made by DWP staff. We need to complete a form showing justification for that access. Of course, this doesn't happen every time, but usually it's entirely random - you never know when that little message will pop up on the screen.

 

Sometimes it's not random - for example, as a JCP employee, I would normally have no reason to look at the records of a person under 16 or over pension age. If I do, a test check will apply. This also applies to records which are marked locally or nationally sensitive - that's what's being discussed above.

 

The upshot is that yes, if the person you are worried about does try to access information about you or your friend (or anyone else, for that matter), and can't give a valid business reason why she's doing so, she will eventually get caught. Internal security is a very serious business in the DWP as a whole, and JCP specifically.

[FitzWilliam]

The former security guard

 

We now have more reliable information about the former security guard.

 

She is working at a DWP benefits processing centre. We are pretty sure she is an Administrative Officer (AO = fairly lowly position) and is doing either telephony (i.e. giving benefits advice to claimants) or data processing.

 

This processing centre is where claims from our town are processed.

 

Needless to say, my friend and I do not consider her a suitable person to be working for the DWP, let alone in the processing centre for our jobcentre. We are putting in a complaint about her next year to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

[ErikaPNP]

AO's can be telephonists or decision makers. EO's can be managers or decision makers. AA's do filing and data processing.

[FitzWilliam]

Time for an update

 

I've neglected this thread for quite a long time now. There have been all sorts of interesting developments so I'll try to bring it up to date.

 

Okay, I'll start with the former guard, now working at the DWP processing centre ...

 

Cabinet Minister orders investigation into events at our jobcentre

 

A few weeks ago I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Yvette Cooper, to complain about the former guard, and about the jobcentre's failure to act against her when they had so much evidence that she was making false accusations against people to the police.

 

I said that I regard her employment by the DWP as unacceptable. She has proved her unsuitability by her disgraceful lying behaviour while working at our jobcentre.

 

My local MP supported me in registering the complaint. Of course, I had first written to him in July 2009 during my friend's trial, and he has been very helpful ever since.

 

On 6 April 2010 I received a letter informing me that the Secretary of State had ordered an investigation, and that Jobcentre Plus expect it to take three months to complete.

 

'You raise issues that are both serious and complex', says the letter, '... and this will require us to interview a significant number of people which takes time.'

 

I have completed a report on the former guard with several appendices of documents (police statements, incident reports, CCTV screen captures, her offensive internet writings, etc, etc). I am about to send this to the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, who is overseeing the investigation.

 

Of course, there are going to be big political changes before the DWP's internal investigation is complete. Almost certainly there will be a new Work and Pensions Secretary after the general election next week.

 

I don't know how that will affect things. I guess I will just have to submit my report and then sit back and wait.

 

All the same, this investigation is a big development and great news for everyone who suffered because of the security guard.

Edited May 1, 2010 by FitzWilliam
spelling

[kiptower]

good on you for not letting it go,

 

lets hope everything comes out in the open, and nothing is lost in a possible change of goverment

[FitzWilliam]

My friend gets Legal Aid!

 

In January 2010, my friend's solicitor put in an application for legal aid and it was granted.

 

The legal aid is to get the case against the DWP started, and there is still quite a long way to go. There have been no major developments in the case since then.

 

(Of course, the case is mostly to do with the sanctions wrongly put on my friend's claim, which stopped him starting work. The solicitor is claiming for loss of earnings amounting to several thousand pounds. But the case also involves his general mistreatment by the jobcentre, including by the former guard.)

 

Shortly after seeing the paperwork showing that the legal aid had come through, I was in the jobcentre and took pleasure in telling the jobcentre manager that my friend is now suing the DWP.

 

At the same time, I told her I was about to write to the Work and Pensions Secretary to complain about the scandalous events at the jobcentre.

 

She did not appear happy at hearing either piece of news.

 

We get hundreds of documents from our 'full audit trail' request

 

In February 2010, my friend got the response to his 'full audit trail' request. I could hardly believe it when I saw it. It was a huge pile of documents that came by post in several separate packages.

 

In total, it weighed 18 pounds and was seven inches deep!

 

There was a huge amount of trivial material - boring admin stuff and so on - but also a few little nuggets of gold.

 

I identified one very important file, and the next day my friend took it to his solicitor, and I spent several hours reading through the other files. I photocopied a handful of useful documents and sent them to the solicitor.

 

I am tempted to discuss the materials in that one most important file, but of course the case is now sub judice. Suffice to say it is GOOD STUFF.

 

* * *

 

I will add some more updates later, hopefully during this weekend.

[Fuzzgin]

Good luck to you and your friend. I'm glad things are happening.

[hendo001]

good luck with the case!

 

I have read the whole thread and am quite shocked at the treatment of your friend by the DWP and that security guard.

 

Hopefully this sort of thing will never happen again, as such incidents like this a few and far between, rather than an everyday thing.

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks for those words of support. Updates continue ...

 

Still pushing for those Incident Reports

 

We've been struggling hard to get the full set of jobcentre Incident Reports about my friend from the DWP.

 

I did a SAR for him in October 2009 asking for all the Incident Reports, and we got just 2 of them. I then applied again giving precise dates of known incidents, and we got a couple more.

 

Just the other day, about a week ago, we received two more. One of them was the Incident Report written by the security guard on 16 Dec 2008 (the day she called the police to claim my friend had threatened her, leading to his arrest and trail).

 

But we still haven't got the Incident Report written by the jobcentre manager that same day.

 

That is the Incident Report I really want to see. I'm pretty sure it will contain contradictions to the security guard's version of events.

 

More on that jobcentre manager

 

A few weeks ago, I drafted a letter for my friend to the jobcentre manager who was witness to events on 16 Dec 2008 (the one the guard claimed 'enforced' her order for my friend to leave the jobcentre and who appears in the CCTV).

 

In her reply, made through the district manager of the DWP, she confirms that she wrote an Incident Report on 16 Dec 2008. She also says that the reason why she could not come to court to testify for the defence was 'an important prior appointment'.

 

In total, she missed three court dates.

 

1. The first time she was 'on holiday'. That was in April 2009 when the trial was originally scheduled, and the defence barrister got the trial postponed so that she could appear.

 

2. The second time she was again 'on holiday'. That was on 2 July 2009, the first day of the trial. (As it turned out, only the prosecution presented its case that day, which allowed her another opportunity to testify.)

 

3. The third time she had 'an important prior appointment'. That was on 16 July 2009, the second and final day of the trial, when the defence presented its case.

 

I wish she had come to court; but fortunately my friend convincingly won the case without her - thanks to the CCTV.

 

More background on the former guard's security career

 

When the guard wrote her Incident Report on 16 Dec 2008, she recorded some interesting information I had not previously discovered. At that time she had been the security guard at our jobcentre for a year and a half.

 

On the form, in answer to 'Length of time in current Business', she writes '11 years'. And in answer to 'Length of time in current job' she writes '4 years'.

 

I interpret this to mean she had been working in the security industry for 11 years, and for her then employer Sekurityass for 4 years. Alternatively, it could mean she had been working for Sekurityass for 11 years, the last 4 years as a jobcentre guard.

 

As best we can reconstruct it, her security career appears like this:

 

1. She is employed by Sekurityass or another security company, not working in jobcentres (1997/8 - 2004).

 

2. She works for Sekurityass as a relief guard at a variety of jobcentres, including in her home town (2004-07).

 

3. Still working for Sekurityass, she now works as the full-time guard at our jobcentre, about 25 miles from her home (2007-09).

 

He security career ended on 2 October 2009, 12 years after it began and 10 weeks after my friend's acquittal in court.

 

The security guard's version of why she left her job

 

In the fortnight before she left our jobcentre, the guard told some jobseekers that she had been 'promoted' and was 'moving up in the world'.

 

Of course, this is not accurate.

 

She was not promoted. She left a job with one employer (Sekurityass) for job with another employer (DWP). Her new job is at a low grade in the DWP - we are pretty sure it is Administrative Officer (AO) - and she is on a temporary contract for 12 or 18 months.

 

That means that in about October 2010 or April 2011 she will have to look for a new job.

 

If she cannot find new employment she will have to sign on at her local jobcentre. She used to work there as the security guard!

[patrickq1]

My friend gets Legal Aid!

 

In January 2010, my friend's solicitor put in an application for legal aid and it was granted.

 

The legal aid is to get the case against the DWP started, and there is still quite a long way to go. There have been no major developments in the case since then.

 

(Of course, the case is mostly to do with the sanctions wrongly put on my friend's claim, which stopped him starting work. The solicitor is claiming for loss of earnings amounting to several thousand pounds. But the case also involves his general mistreatment by the jobcentre, including by the former guard.)

 

Shortly after seeing the paperwork showing that the legal aid had come through, I was in the jobcentre and took pleasure in telling the jobcentre manager that my friend is now suing the DWP.

 

At the same time, I told her I was about to write to the Work and Pensions Secretary to complain about the scandalous events at the jobcentre.

 

She did not appear happy at hearing either piece of news.

 

We get hundreds of documents from our 'full audit trail' request

 

In February 2010, my friend got the response to his 'full audit trail' request. I could hardly believe it when I saw it. It was a huge pile of documents that came by post in several separate packages.

 

In total, it weighed 18 pounds and was seven inches deep!

 

There was a huge amount of trivial material - boring admin stuff and so on - but also a few little nuggets of gold.

 

I identified one very important file, and the next day my friend took it to his solicitor, and I spent several hours reading through the other files. I photocopied a handful of useful documents and sent them to the solicitor.

 

I am tempted to discuss the materials in that one most important file, but of course the case is now sub judice. Suffice to say it is GOOD STUFF.

 

* * *

 

I will add some more updates later, hopefully during this weekend.

i would advise not to discuss on open forum,the material will be very important..but you need also to check every screen print for any data that shows complicity alongside the manager also look for any codes that are not compliant with the codes list...if you have nt got the codes list i can post this on here,check times also anything that goes past 6.30 eve time is suspicious...i am glad you asked for a full audit trail...i think now you will need to now ask for a full SAR and audit trail for yourself as you might find you are a target for reprisals...

also pleased you have finnally got a prosecution started against the DWP you must look to see if the reports in the audit trail show anyone higher than the manager,then you can also point to conspiracy within the DWP...

good luck...one thing i ask and that is PLEASE DO NOT COME TO A SETTLEMENT these bastards were quite happy to destroy someones life make them pay loss of their jobs wont be enough

patrickq1

[FitzWilliam]

Thanks Patrick,

 

We have a code list that was supplied with the documents.

 

In view of your advice, I will look again at the documents to check for anything suspicious or other anomalies.

 

Fortunately, the Data Request was handled by an office separate from our local jobcentre and by people with no knowledge that my friend was bringing a legal action.

 

I do not suspect foul play in the preparation of the paperwork. Those who prepared it will have no idea how important one file turned out to be.

 

Yes, I will put in for my own SAR with full audit trail. I want a good look at what they have on me.

 

Thanks for your suggestion, long ago now, to request the full audit trail. It turned up trumps for us.

[FitzWilliam]

My friend’s PV marker removed

 

At long last, my friend’s PV (Potentially Violent) marker has been removed. He was informed by the jobcentre manager in a letter dated 27 April 2010.

 

Here is the text in full:

 

Dear Mr [Name],

 

I wrote to you some time ago to inform you that it had been noted on our records that you posed a potential threat to staff. You will remember that we were originally required to take this course of action under Health and Safety Legislation, which states that we must take action to eliminate or reduce any risks to staff when dealing with customers who pose a potential threat to staff.

 

I am pleased to be able to inform you that your case has been reviewed and it has been decided that the potential threat marking can be removed. This has now been done.

 

It is pleasing to note the improvement in your behaviour, which I trust will continue in the future.

 

We are committed to treating you in a fair and polite manner. In return we expect you to treat us in the same way.

 

Yours [etc, etc]

 

I commented before (posting 27) that the Incident Reports from April 2008, which formed the basis for placing the PV marker on my friend, do not provide evidence that my friend was violent or intended violence in the future.

 

In the magistrates' court in July 2009, the security guard, when asked by the defence barrister if she had ever seen my friend be violent or threatening in the jobcentre, admitted she had not.

 

She did claim, however, that he had threatened her on 16 Dec 2008. The CCTV did not support her testimony, and the case was dismissed by magistrates.

 

It's good that the PV marker has finally been removed. But of course it should never have been given to him in the first place.

 

* * *

 

A couple more updates to follow ...

Edited May 2, 2010 by FitzWilliam

[FitzWilliam]

Excellent new development for my friend

 

Way back in August 2009, when I began this thread, I wrote that the DWP had wrongly sanctioned my friend's claim on two occasions. They had admitted fault in the first case, and I wrote as follows about the second sanction:

 

His second wrongful sanction by the jobcentre

 

In September 2008 my friend found work again. His jobsearch booklet shows that when he signed on on 23 September he had recorded that he was about to start a job:

 

'Asked for work Factory’s plant hire I’ve two start part time on 25,9,08 providing got some money to start. [Company name given.]'

 

So what did the jobcentre do when he told them he was starting a new job? They sanctioned his claim, depriving him of another fortnight’s money and meaning once again he could not travel to the job.

 

In November 2008, the DWP explained the decision in a letter to his MP:

 

'On 29 September [2008] we applied a sanction to Mr [Name]’s claim from 11 to 23 September. We applied this sanction as Mr [Name] had failed to show sufficient evidence that he had been actively seeking work.'

 

What arrant nonsense! Not only had he ‘been actively seeking work’, he had succeeded in finding a job and was about to start it! ...

 

In a recent DWP letter to my friend of June 2009 they say:

 

'We disallowed your claim from 11 September 2008 to 23 September 2008 because you did not provide enough evidence of your job search for that period.'

 

So this matter is still not resolved.

 

And then quite out of the blue, just the other day, he got a letter from our local Benefit Delivery Centre. It reads:

 

We have paid £60.30 into the above account [i.e. my friend's bank account].

 

This is for the period 10 September 2008 to 16 September 2008.

 

This is an excellent development because the payment is an implicit admission of fault in having sanctioned my friend's claim on that second occasion.

 

The DWP had already explicitly admitted fault in the first sanction.

 

Anyway, this recent letter was great news and strengthens my friend's legal action. :grin:

Edited May 20, 2010 by FitzWilliam

[patrickq1]

good news then,i would be after the managers to be sacked as being unfit persons to run this department this department is meant to be helping people not hindering and telling pokies in my book is a sackable offence lets see some of these managers sign on see how they like loss of pensions scraping by on every penny...

[FitzWilliam]

I return to my jobcentre after a 13-week course

 

For the last 3 months I have not been signing on at my jobcentre, because they sent me on a 13-week CDG course in a nearby town.

 

Just before I started the course, back in February, I told the jobcentre manager that I was going to write to the Work and Pensions Secretary to complain about the scandalous goings on at the jobcentre.

 

Supported by my MP, I then wrote to the Rt Hon Yvette Cooper. In April she ordered an investigation, which is still ongoing as I write.

 

And so it was with no small trepidation that I returned to the jobcentre last Monday to sign on again.

 

It is not every day that a man walks into his jobcentre having prompted an investigation of it from a cabinet minister of the British government!

 

Under DWP guidelines, jobseekers who have registered a complaint are to be treated no differently from anyone else. The coming weeks promise to be interesting ...