From 3/12/12, ESA WRAG claimants can be mandated to the Work Programme...

[down'n'out]

They'd be able to apply for JSA while waiting - but then this means jumping through JSA hoops or risk getting sanctioned.

 

To claim JSA you would need to have your claim for ESA closed. You would also need to sign a JSAG that makes you agree to abide by conditions of entitlement and you are fit for work and actually able to start work.

 

I do not see how you could agree to JSAG / being fit for work, and also appeal against a WCA declaring you fit for work.

[antone]

I do not see how you could agree to JSAG / being fit for work, and also appeal against a WCA declaring you fit for work.

 

Under current rules you can do this, although most people would choose to claim ESA at the assessment rate. But it can be done - any JSA paid would be offset against ESA arrears if the appeal is successful.

[down'n'out]

Under current rules you can do this, although most people would choose to claim ESA at the assessment rate. But it can be done - any JSA paid would be offset against ESA arrears if the appeal is successful.

 

How could someone declare they are unfit for work(for ESA) and then at the same time declare/agree they are fully fit for work(for JSA)?

[estellyn]

Under current rules you can do this, although most people would choose to claim ESA at the assessment rate. But it can be done - any JSA paid would be offset against ESA arrears if the appeal is successful.

 

Yes, under incap rules this has been done for a long time, people on low incomes who were appealling had the choice of either claiming full rate JSA while appealling or reduced rate income support.

 

Though yes, down'n'out, I feel that there are bigger problems now with claiming JSA while appealling than there used to be. In the past, although people signed a Jsag and were theorectically expected to be looking for work, little to no pressure was put on the them - as long as they signed when they were supposed to, and wrote in their books that they looked for work, then no one bothered them. This wouldn't happen now - they would be expected to FULLY comply, and many won't be able to manage this. So I agree, the concept is very disturbing. If the condems have any sense, they will realise the costs and resources required are prohibitive and will pay the basic rate eSA during the recon period. Hopefully, that would encourage speedier recons, whereas JSA during recons will encourage longer recons (I predict).

 

To me this all seems like a deliberate way to remove rights from the sick and disabled. First move the goalposts defining what it means to be unfit for work, then force unpaid work on people you've already said can't work right now, remove legal aid for appeals from those found fit for work, remove the income from those who are appealling the fit for work decision (unless they agree to look for work and apply for jobs), and bind it all together with a company that doesn't even carry out the WCA assessments in compliance with the law. It's hard not to feel this is a concerted campaign with the intent of forcing extreme poverty and death on a group who are least able to help themselves, while removing funding from organisations that provide help to this group. Or is it just me feeling this way?

 

No one feels safe, not even those of us in the support group - we know we're one thick brown envelope away from the likelihood of being moved to WRAG or JSA.

[estellyn]

How could someone declare they are unfit for work(for ESA) and then at the same time declare/agree they are fully fit for work(for JSA)?

 

They get round it because 'fit notes' no longer mean that you are too sick for work, - it is only an advisory, an opinion of your GP, if a WCA has found you fit, that takes precedence.

[antone]

How could someone declare they are unfit for work(for ESA) and then at the same time declare/agree they are fully fit for work(for JSA)?

 

I'm not really saying it makes sense in the real world, but in theory if you're found fit for work by a WCA, JSA can't then tell you you are not fit because, as Estellyn says, the WCA takes precedence. You can then argue that the WCA decision is wrong while temporarily accepting it "under protest", I suppose.

 

Not a good idea, normally, but allowed by the rules.

[down'n'out]

I'm not really saying it makes sense in the real world, but in theory if you're found fit for work by a WCA, JSA can't then tell you you are not fit because, as Estellyn says, the WCA takes precedence.

But I have seen reports where others have been found "Fit for work" by ATOS, then not allowed JSA due to not being fit for work(unable to fulfill JSAG). Those reports must of been incorrect then?

 

You can then argue that the WCA decision is wrong while temporarily accepting it "under protest", I suppose.

Well m`lud, I was not really fit for work when I signed the JSAG stating I was. I just needed the money.

[antone]

But I have seen reports where others have been found "Fit for work" by ATOS' date=' then not allowed JSA due to not being fit for work(unable to fulfill JSAG). Those reports must of been incorrect then?[/quote']

 

No, I'm sure the reports are correct. If you turn up to claim JSA and tell them that you're not fit for work, they may deny you JSA regardless of your WCA result. My point is that if you tell them you're fit, they can't challenge that based on the fact that you've been claiming ESA, and that this applies whether or not you're appealing the WCA decision.

 

Well m`lud, I was not really fit for work when I signed the JSAG stating I was. I just needed the money.

I wasn't talking about "arguing" literally, not in front of a tribunal. I'm just trying to explain the weird logic of it all. In front of a tribunal you simply argue that the decision is wrong, and anything that happened after the decision date (including a claim to JSA) is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is "was the decision correct on the date it was made?"

[antone]

Oh, meant to add, there was specific guidance given to cover this situation (no immediate access as I'm no longer an employee) that supported the idea that a customer cannot be denied ESA simply because they claimed JSA following an appeal against a failed WCA.

[estellyn]

But I have seen reports where others have been found "Fit for work" by ATOS, then not allowed JSA due to not being fit for work(unable to fulfill JSAG). Those reports must of been incorrect then?

 

Well m`lud, I was not really fit for work when I signed the JSAG stating I was. I just needed the money.

 

The difficulty is that those people refused both ESA and JSA were found officially 'fit for work' by their WCA, in some cases also by Tribunal, but this doesn't mean that they agree with the decision, or do not still have disabilities or chronic illness/mental health issues. They don't get adequate advice and information in their first JSA interview and are often treated like any other claimant. The adviser either takes no account of the fact of the health issue and the claimant is unable to agree to the JSAG, or more often, the adviser hears about the claimant's health issues and tells them they should be claiming ESA and won't qualify for JSA. It's a training issue, and a lack of understanding by both advisers and claimants that it is not that this person has become any fitter than they were before, but that the definitions of how unfit you need to be, to be considered unfit enough not to work have been changed, and not in the claimant's favour. There is also a perception that people found 'fit for work' were trying to defraud the system, somehow - which is of course, rubbish, but doesn't stop this perception being prevalent in the media and in some DWP staff.

[antone]

The difficulty is that those people refused both ESA and JSA were found officially 'fit for work' by their WCA, in some cases also by Tribunal, but this doesn't mean that they agree with the decision, or do not still have disabilities or chronic illness/mental health issues. They don't get adequate advice and information in their first JSA interview and are often treated like any other claimant. The adviser either takes no account of the fact of the health issue and the claimant is unable to agree to the JSAG, or more often, the adviser hears about the claimant's health issues and tells them they should be claiming ESA and won't qualify for JSA. It's a training issue, and a lack of understanding by both advisers and claimants that it is not that this person has become any fitter than they were before, but that the definitions of how unfit you need to be, to be considered unfit enough not to work have been changed, and not in the claimant's favour. There is also a perception that people found 'fit for work' were trying to defraud the system, somehow - which is of course, rubbish, but doesn't stop this perception being prevalent in the media and in some DWP staff.

 

Unfortunately I can't send you rep points for this post, because you were the last person I sent rep points to and the system won't let me. But still, excellently put.

[estellyn]

Unfortunately I can't send you rep points for this post, because you were the last person I sent rep points to and the system won't let me. But still, excellently put.

 

Thanks antone.

[Dilizjo]

One thing I have come across is if we have to sign for Work programs etc especially when on ESA WRAG maybe we should use this:

 

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after- always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally "under constraint". This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that upon review of your signature it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

 

What do you think?

[antone]

One thing I have come across is if we have to sign for Work programs etc especially when on ESA WRAG maybe we should use this:

 

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after- always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally "under constraint". This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that upon review of your signature it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

 

What do you think?

 

I'm not impressed. Do you have a reputable source for this information and how it may help WP claimants?

[Dilizjo]

This is why I asked. I wanted opinions...........

 

If we have to sign to say that we will have to participate in the work program or lose some of our benefit is this not signing under duress?

 

I saw a post yesterday I think it was on ATOS Miracles have looked for it again today but can't locate it, most probably because brain gone awol:( so I googled it and came up with this:

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=vc%20signed%20under%20duress%20definition&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fexfacie.com%2F%3Fq%3Dvi_coactus&ei=ijW9UL63G46X0QWf04GoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHWAJg1RSt4v3ba_-AyTuNCKmNfzA

[antone]

This is why I asked. I wanted opinions...........

 

If we have to sign to say that we will have to participate in the work program or lose some of our benefit is this not signing under duress?

 

I saw a post yesterday I think it was on ATOS Miracles have looked for it again today but can't locate it, most probably because brain gone awol:( so I googled it and came up with this:

 

 

Nah, not buying it. You're always free to refrain from claiming benefits, so I don't see how being forced to meet the conditions of doing so could be regarded as "duress" in a legal sense. This should not be taken to mean that I agree with the WP, I most certainly do not. I'd be more focused on cases where people are led to believe they must do something as a condition of receiving benefits when actually they are not so obliged. If you see what I mean.

Edited December 4, 2012 by antone
added the word "not"

[count orlok]

I'm in the support group at the moment and manage my pain by medication and not doing certain things.

 

When I have been in pain in the past the only way i can handle it is to kick off big time and hit out/smash things up (everything but turn green).

 

I put this in my ESA50 and If I was ever put in the WRAG and mandated to do work I would have to let the provider know about this. I guess I would have to give them a letter absolving me of responsibility for any ensuing damage. I'm sure other people "go off on one" as part of their illnesses, and I wonder how the likes of Poundland and Tescos would react to having a few displays smashed up?

[Zonker]

I wonder how the likes of Poundland and Tescos would react to having a few displays smashed up?

 

Done that, destroyed shelfs getting myself of the floor I went to an 'assistant' and apologised i had fallen over and wrecked their shelf. I keep well away from special displays just in case

[livvyp]

Hi. Can anyone point me to a post on here from someone who has been forced from WRAG to one of these placements? I'd be interested to know how it went/goes. How often do people get called in for interview on WRAG? Thanks.

[worried33]

I'm always warey when they say 'forced to work for nothing' people aren't forced to work for nothing, they're forced to work for Job seekers allowance. As long as people aren't made to work for more hours than their JSA pays, I don't understand the problem. Putting people in places that aren't suited to their disability is wrong yes. But if people were working before?....

 

what comes after your ...'s.

 

I was working before, but before I got ill, different circumstances.

 

40 hours a week for £71 tho is still wrong, its far below the min wage. Its also wrong in that the government are paying the wage instead of the for profit company.

 

We now have made clear 2 classes of people, there has always been different classes in some respect but people generally accepted on social security they would only be given the min needed to live as to the nature of how its paid, the issue now is people have to work for this small amount of money whilst others get paid a living wage for the same thing.

[worried33]

Yes, under incap rules this has been done for a long time, people on low incomes who were appealling had the choice of either claiming full rate JSA while appealling or reduced rate income support.

 

Though yes, down'n'out, I feel that there are bigger problems now with claiming JSA while appealling than there used to be. In the past, although people signed a Jsag and were theorectically expected to be looking for work, little to no pressure was put on the them - as long as they signed when they were supposed to, and wrote in their books that they looked for work, then no one bothered them. This wouldn't happen now - they would be expected to FULLY comply, and many won't be able to manage this. So I agree, the concept is very disturbing. If the condems have any sense, they will realise the costs and resources required are prohibitive and will pay the basic rate eSA during the recon period. Hopefully, that would encourage speedier recons, whereas JSA during recons will encourage longer recons (I predict).

 

To me this all seems like a deliberate way to remove rights from the sick and disabled. First move the goalposts defining what it means to be unfit for work, then force unpaid work on people you've already said can't work right now, remove legal aid for appeals from those found fit for work, remove the income from those who are appealling the fit for work decision (unless they agree to look for work and apply for jobs), and bind it all together with a company that doesn't even carry out the WCA assessments in compliance with the law. It's hard not to feel this is a concerted campaign with the intent of forcing extreme poverty and death on a group who are least able to help themselves, while removing funding from organisations that provide help to this group. Or is it just me feeling this way?

 

No one feels safe, not even those of us in the support group - we know we're one thick brown envelope away from the likelihood of being moved to WRAG or JSA.

 

no you not the only one who has realised this.

 

it all looks quite deliberate to me, whilst labour started ESA I am not convinced it was labour's original intention and indeed labour have spoken out against work programme for WRAG but it looks clear to me these con dems what they doing is quite deliberate.

 

Removal of payment during recon - since a recon already happens, and ministers will be aware of this, this the only logical reason is they want to make life hard for those appealing.

 

Work activity required for aseesment rate - again the only logical reason is to make life hard for people, legally I think this is illegal as to be in the assessment rate one requires ongoing medical evidence from a GP, so the government is going against medical professional diagnosis.

 

Work activity required for WRAG, this is illegal again in my view breaching of course working for nothing laws as well as the situation where a WCA has deemed limited capability for work yet work placements are just as demanding as work in the amount of hours. Given that on fit and health people in JSA the work programme is a complete failure, there is no reason to assume it will work on WRAG and as such the only reason it is happening again is to make life hard for those claiming.

 

Changes to legal aid, according to reports I have seen the house of lords got a change where legal aid will still exist for ESA appeals but there is still the uncertianty of impact of budget cuts. But the government did attempt to remove legal aid for sickness benefits and one has to wonder why, the only explanation again is to make life hard and try and force people into slave labour.

 

Ministers lieing to press. This is a big one. When Hoban was asked about his misleading comments to the press he clearly had no guilt or sign of concern, his answer was the press misquoted him and he cant control that, if a press misquoted me I would be unhappy and complaining, he seemed not bothered yet this guy didnt care which suggests to me either he deliberatly misquoted but blamed the press or he made a comment to the press making it easy to be interpreted in that way, he is not the only one, many press reports where a minister is a source are misleading and wrong, this started when ESA was launching when frued made a comment to the press claiming IB had no assessments and people were on long term just on GP evidence. Also with the channel4 documentary about ATOS targets Hoban casually said it was inaccurate but when asked if an investigation he said no, again if a tv company lied about your business, you wouldnt take it lieing down so why has Hoban seemingly just let channel4 off the hook if they wrong? the only logical answer is channel4 are right and he lied to the committee. Why would ATOS staff say there is targets when there is none?

 

ATOS treatment by government, not only are ATOS been protected by the government in that basically the government refuse to condemn them for any faults picked up but now the government are actively speaking out to discredit those putting down ATOS eg. we have had frued and Hoban state they are unhappy with how ATOS are been treated yet no unhappiness with how claimants are been treated but also ATOs now have new contracts for PIP and their financial penalties for missing targets are not been applied. I think this all suggests to me that ATOS are doing what they are told which is to misapply the descriptors. ATOS are the punching bag for the DWP. Its a simple but effective trick, bad cop and good cop, ATOS playing the bad COP they do the scoring so DWP not responsible, but they are absolved by claims that DWP make the decisions so as such ATOS are not responsible for inaccurate results. Then the DWP lie claiming the reason they get decisions wrong is because the tribunals get new evidence.

 

All this means one thing really. The ultimate goal is to get round the min wage and try to compete with eastern countries. The government is serving shareholders now they a government for business not citizens. The welfare state is a large hinderence to min wage because it shows min wage is set at a too low level and this government actually think the min wage is too high as it damages profiteability for precious shareholders. Yet they cant remove the min wage or lower it as its a political suicide so instead they pick on a certian set of the population to get round it and rely on the "im alright jack" attitude of people to accept it because it doesnt affect them. So effectively they deliberatly making life hard and lowering living standards for anyone on social security to the point min wage then seems like a huge amount of money and people will be desperate to work for 'anything'. this si why I always say they dont care about the direct cost of welfare, thats just used to the media to justify it, its all ideology to bring wages down and to help the richest.

 

I also believe the government and certian companies are probably in cohort to maintain the recession as well since the key to this strategy is to keep availability of paid jobs low and a justification for making cuts.

[osdset]

I'm always warey when they say 'forced to work for nothing' people aren't forced to work for nothing, they're forced to work for Job seekers allowance. As long as people aren't made to work for more hours than their JSA pays, I don't understand the problem. Putting people in places that aren't suited to their disability is wrong yes. But if people were working before?....

 

So that's a maximum of 11.4 hours per week for a claimant over the age of 21, a bit different from the 30 hours per week the government are insisting on.

I agree to the logic of making someone who has paid little or nothing into the system 'working' for benefits, but this idea is totally unfair on those who have paid NI all their working lives, why not extend your thinking to pensioners? These feckless layabouts are copping a tidy sum weekly for doing nothing, get 'em out sweeping the streets so they can 'earn' their way instead of poncing off the state, why should retirement be an easy ride?

[worried33]

oxdset even then working for benefits has to be done in the right way.

 

things like mandatory training courses (for JSA not ESA), college, charity work (but only 8 hours a week).

 

then if the person finds something but needs help in achieving it for example need help to relocate to new place of work the DWP should assist so the employment is achieved. eg. if they need £1000 to move house but secures a job the DWP should cough up the £1000, even if its a loan.

 

They will never do this tho because this doesnt give tesco etc. cheap labour they want.

[osdset]

oxdset even then working for benefits has to be done in the right way.

 

things like mandatory training courses (for JSA not ESA), college, charity work (but only 8 hours a week).

 

then if the person finds something but needs help in achieving it for example need help to relocate to new place of work the DWP should assist so the employment is achieved. eg. if they need £1000 to move house but secures a job the DWP should cough up the £1000, even if its a loan.

 

They will never do this tho because this doesnt give tesco etc. cheap labour they want.

 

It's not cheap labour is it? It's free labour, the likes of Poundland get a handy shelf stacker for 30 hours per week gratis which means especially at this time of year, they don't have to employ extra staff to cover the seasonal rush for cheapo decorations.

 

The whole thing is the governments way of circumventing the NMW "so you don't want to work for £6.19? Ok work for nothing".

It started when they changed the title from Unemployment Benefit which was an entitlement, to Jobseekers Allowance which is discretionary, the same applies to sickness, Incapacity Benefit became Employment Support Allowance. Benefit has been replaced with allowance across the board.

[LaughingGirl]

Are there any figures for how many claimants are actually offered a full time, permanent position following one of these placements? Preferably figures stating how many are still in said employment after 6 months?