Ingeus

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Hello Whatever2014 and welcome to the site. You will notice if you browse the site that whatever 2014 may throw at us by way of difficulties, 2013, 2012 and many years before were no less difficult. It is regrettable that you did not find the site or use it whenever you were first bitten.

The two posts preceding this one offers sound advice though, perhaps unfortunately, not much use now that it is too late to act on it.

The link below directs you to a DWP Freedom of Information Response where just the sort of issue you raise is addressed:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mandatory_activity_notification

 

Notice in particular the paragraph that says:

I can confirm that the Department requires Work Programme providers to notify participants in writing on a Mandatory Activity Notification (MAN) letter on every occasion a participant is mandated to do something. Providers are also required to record the information in each MAN letter along with all other ongoing mandatory requirements in a single action planning document.

Further links are given that point you to the Guidance that sets out the Work Programme Providers’ obligations under their contract with DWP.

Hopefully you can convince them that you can’t be sanctioned for failure on their part to comply with their own contractual obligations. The previous incident, you could also claim, was taken in contravention of their own contractual obligations, therefore illegal.

[Tj rodgers]

hey guys I have just been told I will be doing a 4 week unpaid work experience

through learn direct waiting on there call at mo anyone else done this

yes i havnt done it myself but i do know about it - read what i put on the last pages of the thread titled "post work Programme support - your experiences"

[Lapsed Workaholic]

I did the 4 week MWA last December. To say it was a horrendous and traumatic experience would be putting a gloss on it. Working outside in force 10 gales with the hail and snow ripping at my very innards. lashed to the railing of an overhead conveyor to stop from being blown away, dodging the corrugated sheets blown off the roof and flying around like lethal scythes, expected to continue working after the allocated finishing time even though it was dark and seeing what one was supposed to be doing was difficult.

 

 

Anyway I thought the member who mentioned MWA on the other thread was considering opening a new thread to discuss the subject separately. This thread already seems to have a confusing array of subjects under discussion even though many of them have nothing to do with Ingeus specifically.

[whatever2014]

Thanks guys, especially 'lapsed alcoholic' for the handy link.

Yeah, I should NEVER had relied on 'anything' from these [edited], let alone in finding me work. problem is, in the (near) 2 years I've been with them I haven't had much a problem with previous advisers, I mean, APART from the 'general' ineptitude people/companies seem to conduct themselves with these days. I just took it for granted that it would be left for me to find myself work and kept my head down, that is, until I was assigned my current 'adviser' who, quite frankly, I'm amazed has made it through life this long.

Anyway, the point is, this 'adviser' has managed (intentionally/unintentionally, intentionally me thinks) to drop me in the proverbial?!

I rang the DWP today to see if Ingeus had 'raised' a sanction against me for the missed appointment last week, and low and behold, they had. The rather helpful lady on the other end of the line added that if it were her, she'd write in a letter in to (what I believe to be) my local regional office in Watford, explaining that Ingeus had never sent me an appoinment.

I'm just curious, although it sounds like a solid idea, should I bother, or just wait for the 'formal reason why you failed to attend a work program' letter', which may, or may not come? I have a feeling that if I indeed DID write the letter, it'd just be ignored/lost, as this is what I've come to expect from the DWP too, sadly? I'm just a little terrified of getting a 13 week sanction, as this would essentially ruin me!

Also, I'm considering filing a 'formal' complaint about my 'advisor', but am not sure the best way to go about it? My stance is, she got me into s**t, now I'll do the same to her, as I won't let her get away with it.

Thanks in advance for ANY further advice.

Edited July 2, 2014 by honeybee13
Pejorative term removed.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

You would do well to take the advice of the helpful lady from the DWP. If the sanction process has already been triggered then the matter is out of the hands of the WP 'adviser' and in the hands of the DWP Decision Makers. A letter to them as quickly as possible explaining what has happened and politely outlining what you have learnt of the correct procedures should be your first move. Might even be in time to stop the sanction.

 

 

You will then have plenty of time to compose a formal letter of complaint to your friends at the WP.

 

 

PS: I send letters that I don't want to be classified as 'lost' recorded delivery, only about a pound more than the price of a stamp. Well worth it if only for peace of mind.

[whatever2014]

You would do well to take the advice of the helpful lady from the DWP. If the sanction process has already been triggered then the matter is out of the hands of the WP 'adviser' and in the hands of the DWP Decision Makers. A letter to them as quickly as possible explaining what has happened and politely outlining what you have learnt of the correct procedures should be your first move. Might even be in time to stop the sanction.

 

 

You will then have plenty of time to compose a formal letter of complaint to your friends at the WP.

 

 

PS: I send letters that I don't want to be classified as 'lost' recorded delivery, only about a pound more than the price of a stamp. Well worth it if only for peace of mind.

 

Hi, thanks lapsed, I'm going to do that. The nice lady gave me the address, but I forgot to ask her who to 'head' it to. I'll give them a quick call in the morn' to clarify that and get it sent recorded asap, although I worry the letter has already been sent as all this was held up by [edited] (conveniently) going on 'annual' leave the VERY day that the 'missed appoinment' letter was sent out. I'll worry about '[edited]' later. These people have no conscience to speak of, whatsoever. They have actually affected my mental health with these 'shenanigans', as I'm now getting quite depressed, again. I only have a couple of months left with these [edited] and am then back to JCP, where I await more 'treats' in them 'referring' me to whomever is, I assume, WORSE than Ingeus?!

I'm just resigned to the fact that I WILL now be sanctioned for this and loose my benefits until I take it to appeal, which only adds to me ordeal. Oh well. What can one do?

The gov' have essentially let these 'racketeering' **** play with our lives, and 'sanity'.

Thanks again for the advice lapsed.

Edited July 2, 2014 by honeybee13
More pejorative words removed.

[kosebamse]

Hi guys,

 

I've been attending appointments with Ingeus and over that time my adviser and myself built a basic CV for me which contained usual stuff - education, employment history, etc. Recently, I have been referred to Remploy. To my amazement, during the second appointment with a Remploy adviser had my CV on hand! I've neither signed anything while at Ingeus nor given my adviser a verbal permission to share my CV with another company. My understanding is that Ingeus has violated Data Protection Act by providing a third party business with my personal information. They have also failed to inform me that the would have provided anyone else with my personal data. Or am I something missing? What should I do about it?

[Lapsed Workaholic]

It might help here if you could explain a bit more the circumstances surrounding your referral from Ingeus to Remploy, what, if any, is the relationship between Ingeus and Remploy and have you totally finished with Ingeus now?

[kosebamse]

Hi Workaholic,

 

Thanks for replying. No idea, guess they referred be because they do it after certain time? Apparently I'm with Remploy for some 14 weeks and if won't get a job by this time, then back to Ingeus. I have no idea what kind of relationship is between Ingeus and Remploy.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

You said in your earlier post that you created your CV with help from an Ingeus adviser. So they had a copy and kept that copy. You did not say that you told them they could not.

 

You must have agreed, either willingly or unwillingly, to go to Remploy in the hope that they could help you find work.

 

It sounds, from what you have said so far, like Remploy is acting like some sort of a sub-contractor to Ingeus with respect to you, like they are helping Ingeus to help you. You also appear to be saying that you are still attached to Ingeus and will be going back there.

 

If that is the case I don’t see how Remploy could be seen as a third party, it’s more or less acting as an extension of whatever number party you put Ingeus in.

[kosebamse]

Quite possibly the relation between Ingeus and Remploy is that of the latter being a sub-contractor. But then, can you explain what does that work like from a legal point a view? Why signing a contract by sub-contractor with a contractor gives the former a legal permission to access all the data that it wants? It doesn't add up (but I'm not a lawyer). For example, if X contracts to Y, (and then Y to Z, etc.), then Z now has access to data? This would be crazy, as any business would gain a permission to access data by virtue of signing a contract!

 

The other thing is I've never been in a position to agree or disagree with what Ingeus just did - moved me to Remploy. You can't agree involuntarily, that's a contradiction in terms, by the way. It's not even the case of involuntariness. I have not been informed about me consenting or not about the decision that has been made.

 

To me it seems that Ingeus is in breach of DPA but I'm not certain about it.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

I asked you if you could explain a bit more about the referral and you chose not to. “No idea” was your response.

 

You are now at Remploy so you must have agreed to go or accepted it at some point. Whether you did it willingly or unwillingly you have done it. I did not use the word “involuntarily” so there is no need for you to define for my benefit a term that you erroneously introduced yourself.

 

The data in question was your CV. This you allowed Ingeus to hold with no strings attached, or if there were strings attached you did not mention them. When you say “all the data that it wants” you have not said what data that is.

 

In order for Remploy to fulfil its contractual obligations to Ingeus it has to be conceded that they have to know something about you in order to be able to help you.

 

Since you appear not to have raised any objection to Ingeus holding a copy of your CV in order to help you, it would not be unreasonable for Ingeus to assume that by passing you over to Remploy to continue the offer of help they should pass your CV over as well as it might be of value, use or help.

 

The Work Programme Provider Guidance spells out in detail what Providers can and can’t do including the rules that govern disclosure and data protection. You can read it at your leisure to look for anything that can support your charge.

[RebeccaPidgeon]

Quite possibly the relation between Ingeus and Remploy is that of the latter being a sub-contractor. But then, can you explain what does that work like from a legal point a view? Why signing a contract by sub-contractor with a contractor gives the former a legal permission to access all the data that it wants? It doesn't add up (but I'm not a lawyer). For example, if X contracts to Y, (and then Y to Z, etc.), then Z now has access to data? This would be crazy, as any business would gain a permission to access data by virtue of signing a contract!

 

The other thing is I've never been in a position to agree or disagree with what Ingeus just did - moved me to Remploy. You can't agree involuntarily, that's a contradiction in terms, by the way. It's not even the case of involuntariness. I have not been informed about me consenting or not about the decision that has been made.

 

To me it seems that Ingeus is in breach of DPA but I'm not certain about it.

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.

 

I asked you if you could explain a bit more about the referral and you chose not to. “No idea” was your response.

 

You are now at Remploy so you must have agreed to go or accepted it at some point. Whether you did it willingly or unwillingly you have done it. I did not use the word “involuntarily” so there is no need for you to define for my benefit a term that you erroneously introduced yourself.

 

The data in question was your CV. This you allowed Ingeus to hold with no strings attached, or if there were strings attached you did not mention them. When you say “all the data that it wants” you have not said what data that is.

 

In order for Remploy to fulfil its contractual obligations to Ingeus it has to be conceded that they have to know something about you in order to be able to help you.

 

Since you appear not to have raised any objection to Ingeus holding a copy of your CV in order to help you, it would not be unreasonable for Ingeus to assume that by passing you over to Remploy to continue the offer of help they should pass your CV over as well as it might be of value, use or help.

 

The Work Programme Provider Guidance spells out in detail what Providers can and can’t do including the rules that govern disclosure and data protection. You can read it at your leisure to look for anything that can support your charge.

 

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".

Edited July 3, 2014 by RebeccaPidgeon
Additional information

[jasta11]

..plus you're also at Remploy for the simple reason that Ingeus get payment from placing you with a sub-contractor. All part of looking like they're 'helping you' - or at least being seen to be helping.

 

I had the same thing when I was with them; had to go to a sub-contractor for 14 weeks but was actually glad I did as they were very decent people and it got me away from Ingeus for a while.

[essexmat]

"Afternoon XXXX

Many apologies but due to circumstances beyond my control I have had to postpone the afternoon workshop (Monday 7th July) that you were booked onto.

 

This will be rebooked as soon as possible and a letter will be sent out to you to inform you of the new date and time."

 

BONUS!

[Lapsed Workaholic]

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".

 

 

A claimant on Jobseeker’s Allowance does not have a choice in the matter if a Jobcentre adviser decides that he/she has to go on the Work Programme. Nor is there much choice about taking part in the activities that the Work Programme Providers prescribe once on the Programme without good cause.

On the subject of voluntary participants in the Work Programme Chapter 2, Section 6 of the Work Programme Provider Guidance reads as follows:

Claimant Participation Requirements

The participation requirements of claimants are dependent on whether they are:

Voluntary participants - Voluntary participants are not required to take part and their participation remains on an entirely voluntary basis. You may not mandate voluntary participants to undertake activity.

 

This would suggest that the opposite of your summation may be the case.

 

Either way, whether Kosebamse volunteered, was coerced or was shanghaied onto the Work Programme it is immaterial to the question of data protection that he raises.

He does not dispute the fact that he was helped with his CV.

 

He does not dispute that the copy Ingeus had of his CV was obtained and kept on their record with his participation and consent. At least he did not object at the time.

 

He does not specify any other personal information that was shared or how Ingeus might have got it.

He does not dispute that there is a link between Ingeus and Remploy and that they are both cooperating with a view to help him. The sharing of some personal details or information, specifically his CV, could be said to be necessary in furtherance of that aim to help. In fact, it could be argued that without some knowledge of some of a claimant’s details any form of help at all would be difficult to provide.

The value, quality or effectiveness of that help is another matter and not the issue here.

[Dark 1]

I did the 4 week MWA last December. To say it was a horrendous and traumatic experience would be putting a gloss on it. Working outside in force 10 gales with the hail and snow ripping at my very innards. lashed to the railing of an overhead conveyor to stop from being blown away, dodging the corrugated sheets blown off the roof and flying around like lethal scythes, expected to continue working after the allocated finishing time even though it was dark and seeing what one was supposed to be doing was difficult.

 

 

Anyway I thought the member who mentioned MWA on the other thread was considering opening a new thread to discuss the subject separately. This thread already seems to have a confusing array of subjects under discussion even though many of them have nothing to do with Ingeus specifically.

 

 

the subjects are kind of related im on post work program support. I just received my letter saying I have to travel a fair distance to a place in wyhthenshaw Manchester for my first appointment relating to my mwa

the travel time alone is prolly way over an hour and the traffic getting there is really bad

its like there intentionally trying to make this hard for me

I think im going to my doctor again as all this stress really isn't worth the £60 a week

I can just imagine the embarrassment and shame I will feel while slaving for my £60

my program is being run by learn direct

all im really bothered about is my housing benefit, can I still claim hb if I stop jsa or am sanctioned

[Mr.P]

I just received my letter saying I have to travel a fair distance to a place in wyhthenshaw Manchester for my first appointment relating to my mwa

the travel time alone is prolly way over an hour and the traffic getting there is really bad

 

You let on that you have a car ????

 

How long would it take to get there on public transport ?

If using the bus/train would take over 90 minutes (including any waiting time for connections), instruct the JCP that you require a provider that is closer to your home.

 

Should your JSA be stopped for any reason, you would need to visit your local council and file a "nil income" claim - This should entitle you to CTR/HB without a break. You will probably still have to find a small amount of money for council tax unless you are fortunate to live in an area that gives 100% CT relief.

[whoflungpoo]

I thought this article (Published: Sat, July 5, 2014) may help those people who are forced into Working for their benefits by they work providers http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/486818/Back-to-work-scheme-breaches-human-rights

[Mr.P]

The original high court ruling found the scheme "unlawful" on the grounds the DWP failed to provide sufficient information to the claimant. The retrospective Statutory Instrument that was rushed through retrospectively corrected the original technicalities and thus saving the DWP a few thousands in repaying benefits stopped because of "unlawful" sanctions.

 

It is the retrospective aspect of this S.I. that has been found in breach of the Human Rights Act - It does not make the current schemes unlawful.

 

What this current ruling also does is send IDS in to another temper tantrum and wasted yet more tax payer's money on further appeals. It may also raise awareness within the general public about the abilities of the minister responsible for this mess.

[Charlotte_Henderson]

 

Is this real life? Why am I being treated like this?

 

Because they get enjoyment out of it.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

I thought this article (Published: Sat, July 5, 2014) may help those people who are forced into Working for their benefits by they work providers http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/486818/Back-to-work-scheme-breaches-human-rights

 

 

Who flung poo? Who's landed in it?

[Lapsed Workaholic]

On 12 February 2013 the Court of Appeal ruled the 2011 schemes introduced under the Work Programme unlawful.

 

On the same day the 2011 Regulations were repealed and The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013 came into force.

 

On 26 March 2013, the same day as the Secretary of State sought permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 came into force after having been fast-tracked through Parliament.

 

Those two pieces of legislation were introduced primarily to address the findings of the Court of Appeal that the description of the schemes and their implementation in the previous legislation did not comply with the legal requirements set out in the laws that they were said to be reliant on to give them validity and force.

 

Those two pieces of legislation also retrospectively validates the regulations that the Court of Appeal ruling declared unlawful. The reason for applying the new legislation retrospectively was to avoid a rush of claims for reimbursement of benefits, not to weaken or replace the previous regulations but to strengthen them.

 

Any issues to do with Human Right were not addressed because the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court had already ruled that the regulations and Act did not contravene European Human Rights law.

 

The article that Whoflungpoo provided the link to above refers to Friday’s High Court ruling and it says;

 

“.... a judge ruled that Government rules designed to force benefits claimants into work placements breached European human rights laws”

 

This would suggest that the Court found the schemes themselves to be illegal, not just the retrospective aspect of the new regulations and law. If that is what it means then where does that leave us all and how can IDS possibly survive in his present position?

[Dark 1]

You let on that you have a car ????

 

How long would it take to get there on public transport ?

If using the bus/train would take over 90 minutes (including any waiting time for connections), instruct the JCP that you require a provider that is closer to your home.

 

Should your JSA be stopped for any reason, you would need to visit your local council and file a "nil income" claim - This should entitle you to CTR/HB without a break. You will probably still have to find a small amount of money for council tax unless you are fortunate to live in an area that gives 100% CT relief.

 

 

 

Hi no I don't have a car I will have to use public transport, im not even sure what im supposed to be going to on Thursday I presume its some kind of induction to allocate me a work placement.

the travel distance is 9 miles to this venue with very unpredictable traffic so 18 mile round trip for me

do you have to be scanctioned from jsa to claim nill income as it would be a better option to just end the claim rather than build up sanctions

[Mr.P]

If you can get to and from this office in Wythenshawe within 90 minutes each way and you have been mandated to attend, I don't there is any real way out of it. Keep your bus tickets and demand a refund, in full, and without any strings attached when you get there - Look upon it as a day out at their expense.

 

You don't have to be sanctioned in order to make a nil income declaration. But if you close your claim for JSA and then make a declaration to the council to get HB/CTR, they may wonder how you intend to survive. You'd still need to pay for food, energy, and water - Savings won't last long, so be ready for some awkward questions about personal finances.