European Social Fund

[Skinnered]

When the current Work Programme (WP) was rolled out in 2011 it was said to cost £5 Billion, since when it is estimated to have risen to £7 Billion.

 

It was not widely reported however that the European Social Fund (ESF) contributed £2.5 Billion, half of the original sum.

 

One of the stipulations in the regulations of the ESF is that all recipients of ESF funding show the ESF logo and a statement to the effect that - 'This programme is part-financed by the European Union' - on all documents, letters, advisory leaflets etc.

 

The DWP is a recipient of ESF funding, quite a significant recipient. Therefore it should include the logo and the statement recited above on all documents etc especially those related to the WP or other similar schemes.

 

It follows that the WP providers are all also recipients of ESF funding.

 

Failure to comply with any ESF regulation, including this one, is a breach of the regulations and may result in the repayment of funds and/or the levying of fines.

 

The letter I got yesterday notifying me of changes to WP regulations had no ESF logo and no mention of ESF at all. I have other letters from them with like omissions.

 

Other readers may wish to check their mail to see if the same breach is repeated in their case. Googling the ESF website will get the address of the nearest ESF Marketing and Publicity Office to you should you, wish to notify them of this breach. A letter to your local Jobcentre manager would not go amiss either.

[joeblogs]

When the current Work Programme (WP) was rolled out in 2011 it was said to cost £5 Billion, since when it is estimated to have risen to £7 Billion.

 

It was not widely reported however that the European Social Fund (ESF) contributed £2.5 Billion, half of the original sum.

 

One of the stipulations in the regulations of the ESF is that all recipients of ESF funding show the ESF logo and a statement to the effect that - 'This programme is part-financed by the European Union' - on all documents, letters, advisory leaflets etc.

 

The DWP is a recipient of ESF funding, quite a significant recipient. Therefore it should include the logo and the statement recited above on all documents etc especially those related to the WP or other similar schemes.

 

It follows that the WP providers are all also recipients of ESF funding.

 

Failure to comply with any ESF regulation, including this one, is a breach of the regulations and may result in the repayment of funds and/or the levying of fines.

 

The letter I got yesterday notifying me of changes to WP regulations had no ESF logo and no mention of ESF at all. I have other letters from them with like omissions.

 

Other readers may wish to check their mail to see if the same breach is repeated in their case. Googling the ESF website will get the address of the nearest ESF Marketing and Publicity Office to you should you, wish to notify them of this breach. A letter to your local Jobcentre manager would not go amiss either.

 

I'm sure genuine people on this site have better things to do than to be writing about any alleged missing logo on a letter

[Guest]

[aw248]

[san_d]

I'm sure genuine people on this site have better things to do than to be writing about any alleged missing logo on a letter

What a silly comment. Can you go back to the Daily Mail online now?

[Consumer dude]

I'm glad we've all got a sense of humour. lol..

[antone]

What a silly comment. Can you go back to the Daily Mail online now?

 

What's wrong with the Mail Online? It has lots of pictures of pretty ladies in it.

[IdaInFife]

What's wrong with the Mail Online? It has lots of pictures of pretty ladies in it.

 

 

 

[Skinnered]

I am sorry that the point I was trying to get across was not grasped in some quarters. It may not be such a waste of time.

 

By failing to give any prominence to ESF participation in the work programme in its documentation the DWP is in breach of its own and ESF regulations. In other words it may be acting illegally.

 

The ESF can sanction the DWP, withhold funding and impose fines for failing to comply with the regulations. Considering it contributes £2.5 Billion to DWP schemes, it would be difficult for the DWP to deliver what it is committed to delivering without such funding, even the loss of part of it would be felt.

 

Some may think its a waste of time but the ESF take it seriously.

 

If a letter is required by law to have a logo. and/or the signature of a recognisable person to whom one can respond, and it does not, is it a legal document?

 

If I receive a letter containing changes to an existing contract that I have with the DWP and the letter is not properly recognisable as being from the party with whom I have the contract, should I just accept the changes? (I certainly would not under contract law).

 

If the letter says that it is for information only and I need not take any action, does this mean that I need not acknowledge it?

 

If I had not received the letter, and they are not to know that if I took no further action on it, am I still under the terms agreed to in the original agreement, or am I now under the terms of a letter I did not get?

 

In which case, what's to stop anyone at the DWP saying that I was sent a letter, even if I was not, notifying me of changes to regulations that I am required to adhere to any time it suits them? They could just as easily say they sent a letter arranging an appointment which they had not, and sanction me on the strength of it.

 

Last week the DWP lost its case because of a failure to explain follow procedures concisely and clearly. It nearlybrought the whole show to an ignominious end, nearly but not quite.

 

The next clash might.

 

I am not for a moment suggesting that this will do it but only by chipping away will the crack ultimately appear that will bring the whole edifice crashing down. Someone, somewhere has seen this as a waste of time, someone else might see in it a spark to be developed.

[san_d]

Thanks for the clarification. I was among the ones that got your message. To be fair my WP displays the EU logo.

[joeblogs]

I am sorry that the point I was trying to get across was not grasped in some quarters. It may not be such a waste of time.

 

By failing to give any prominence to ESF participation in the work programme in its documentation the DWP is in breach of its own and ESF regulations. In other words it may be acting illegally.

 

The ESF can sanction the DWP, withhold funding and impose fines for failing to comply with the regulations. Considering it contributes £2.5 Billion to DWP schemes, it would be difficult for the DWP to deliver what it is committed to delivering without such funding, even the loss of part of it would be felt.

 

Some may think its a waste of time but the ESF take it seriously.

 

If a letter is required by law to have a logo. and/or the signature of a recognisable person to whom one can respond, and it does not, is it a legal document?

 

If I receive a letter containing changes to an existing contract that I have with the DWP and the letter is not properly recognisable as being from the party with whom I have the contract, should I just accept the changes? (I certainly would not under contract law).

 

If the letter says that it is for information only and I need not take any action, does this mean that I need not acknowledge it?

 

If I had not received the letter, and they are not to know that if I took no further action on it, am I still under the terms agreed to in the original agreement, or am I now under the terms of a letter I did not get?

 

In which case, what's to stop anyone at the DWP saying that I was sent a letter, even if I was not, notifying me of changes to regulations that I am required to adhere to any time it suits them? They could just as easily say they sent a letter arranging an appointment which they had not, and sanction me on the strength of it.

 

Last week the DWP lost its case because of a failure to explain follow procedures concisely and clearly. It nearlybrought the whole show to an ignominious end, nearly but not quite.

 

The next clash might.

 

I am not for a moment suggesting that this will do it but only by chipping away will the crack ultimately appear that will bring the whole edifice crashing down. Someone, somewhere has seen this as a waste of time, someone else might see in it a spark to be developed.

 

One down, in my estimation around another 10-12 incarnations to go, it doesn't taken an Ingeus to work it out. December 2012 to February 2013 has been a very strange time for some newbies