A few questions about UJM and 'actions'...

[fkofilee]

Quite Simply ... NO.... Who wasnt to say you were in the High Street handing out CVs?

 

EG London, What happens when Canvassing say in Croydon hmmm?

 

Nonetheless, what can be used are things like not spending enough time looking, that you can usually be shown in your amount of jobs youve applied for etc

[renegadeimp]

They say a certain amount of hours. Who's to say that wasn't your day off when they saw you, or you weren't going to shops speaking with management.

 

Pretty sure they're not allowed to make comments like that too. It's up to you when you look for work, as long as you prove you meet their silly requirements

[Nystagmite]

How do they know what you're doing in the high street? It's recommended that you do things like hand out CVs, look out for adverts (I usually see shops around here advertising) and so on. Not all job searching is going to be done on the computer.

[Mr.P]

my 'Advisor' [...] proceeded to make a snarky remark about seeing me in the High St quite often, and how unfair it was on JC staff that I should be out in the sun while they have to work....

 

It would be perfectly reasonable to respond with "does you manager know that you are skiving off when you should be in here doing what you are paid to do...".

 

If he/she continues making comments such as this, it could amount to harassment and intimidation. Keep a diary and note what was said, by whom, and when. Better still, record the conversations, and when it gets to be excessive, you have the evidence to support an official complaint.

 

DWP staff claim the right to work in an environment free from harassment and intimidation. It is only fair that the claimant should expect the same from JCP staff.

[Jaybee in CF]

It would be perfectly reasonable to respond with "does you manager know that you are skiving off when you should be in here doing what you are paid to do...".

 

If he/she continues making comments such as this, it could amount to harassment and intimidation. Keep a diary and note what was said, by whom, and when. Better still, record the conversations, and when it gets to be excessive, you have the evidence to support an official complaint.

 

DWP staff claim the right to work in an environment free from harassment and intimidation. It is only fair that the claimant should expect the same from JCP staff.

 

 

Well the High St comment was a lone, unrepeated incident, and in this claim I now have a different advisor, who thankfully is much less switched on, I don't expect any trouble from her. However the "35 hours a week" thing is getting very commonplace, I can't shake the feeling this systematic and organised exploitation of people's ignorance about their rights smacks sinisterly of a dictatorship you'd expect in some 1970's Latin American nation.

[antone]

Agree with Fkofilee - they can't mandate extra attendance or whatever just because they think you have too much free time. As long as you're otherwise meeting your ASE ("Actively Seeking Employment") requirements and complying with your Jobseekers Agreement or Claimant Committment then it's none of their business when you take a stroll down the High Street.

 

With regard to the adviser's comments, it's good that you now have a new and somewhat more sympathetic one. That's not really an acceptable thing for a JSA adviser to say to a claimant - they're supposed to be professional and respectful to you. Of course, you could always point out that, if a life on benefits seems so easy and cushy, it's available to all - all she'd need to do is contrive a way to quit her job and she, too, could join the ranks of the lazy unemployed. Lots of people say things like "I wish I could just hang around doing nothing and watching TV all day", but no-one really believes that life on benefits is a walk in the park.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

As a Cagger for almost 8 years and a born again claimant who has had experience of the underhand tactics of Jobcentre staff in a previous claim life it would be insulting to your intelligence to engage in a subjective exchange of views on how obnoxious those people can be.

 

The snarky remark by an adviser when you were in a previous claim will have no relation to what is happening to you now, nor could you rely now on having it listened to or accepted, unless you can show evidence that you made a formal complaint against the adviser in question at the time.

 

The chances that an adviser would have made a note in the records about making such a remark are unlikely. It's the sort of spur of the moment thing advisers say to wrong-foot claimants usually when they want the claimant to accept or agree to something they say or suggest, they know it's in breach of their code of practice to use such tactics so they are hardly going to leave notes that could be used as evidence that could result in being disciplined, sacked even.

 

DWP Guidance makes it perfectly clear that claimants cannot be referred to or assigned to any activity or scheme as a punishment. They are obliged to give the claimant the reasons for such referrals. Failure to do so can be regarded as maladministration and the claimant could refuse to participate on those grounds.

 

Mr. P's advice to record all interviews is the best advice you will ever get. Many claimants live to regret not doing so until the damage has been done. I've learnt the hard way.

 

Another piece of sound advice would be not to let any instances of what could be regarded as offensive, abusive, intimidating, vindictive, harassing behaviour pass without a response. A formal complaint in writing to the Jobcentre manager insisting on a response would at least ensure that you have something on the record for future reference even if nothing else comes of it. Passing a copy to the adviser would also put him/her on notice that you are not someone to be messed with.

 

Now, as to your present predicament. You say that you 'come in daily to sign' Does this mean that you are on the 'Help to Work Scheme' known as 'Daily Work Search Reviews'? You should have been assigned to this activity at an interview specifically set up for the purpose. This interview is called a 'Work Programme Completer Interview' and the activity or scheme to which you are referred is meant to be determined by reference to your 'Work Programme Exit Report'. Why you were assigned and the benefits that you are expected to gain from it should have been explained to you. Unless the proper procedure was followed you have grounds for a complaint of maladministration and your referral could be regarded as both inappropriate and illegal.

 

The issue of '35 hours per week job seeking' has been a fairly commonplace issue among the unemployed for quite some time now. It has already been found that there is no basis in law for imposing it on claimants. Your Jobseeker's Agreement (JSAg) or Claimant Commitment (CC)should set out what job seeking activities you have agreed to. Examples of what could be regarded as a reasonable 'agreement' have been set out and much discussed in previous threads on this site. You have not said what sort of 'agreement' you have with DWP, is it JSAg, CC, or JSAg/CC . Each one has its own guidelines and a different approach needs to be taken to negotiate each one. You have not mentioned either exactly what you have 'agreed' to or whether 35 hours per week of job searching was 'agreed.'

 

As a long-standing member of CAG you can't claim ignorance of what goes on with advisers in Jobcentres for any feeling you may have of systematic and organised exploitation. Subjective opinions and views do not cut it with those people. In fact they are usually the means by which claimants find themselves at a disadvantage. We all do it, nothing like a good old rant among the likeminded to seek and find solace, sooth anger and disgust and settle the nerves. However, objectivity and facts and evidence, and the correct interpretation of the law, should be the order of the day, every day.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

You say you've been here for 8 years, but your profile says you've been here since last year. Did you have a different ID before?

 

HB

[Chester6]

Anything which can be printed out to prove 35 hours isn't law or legally enforceable?

[JoeyJoeC]

What is it, £54 a week? I wouldn't work a 35 hour week for £54. You can only spend so long looking for jobs before it wears you down.

 

I was on job seekers for about 9 months before, they will do anything to p*ss you off. I was told to go out side for using my phone while waiting to be called up, I was checking the news, on silent, not making any calls or anything.

 

They also sanctioned me for being 5 minutes late, when a building was collapsing up the street and the area was closed.

[Nystagmite]

About £57 for under 25s and £73 for over 25s.

 

I think I've only heard of the 35 hours for UC and not if you're on JSA. (and if it applies, council and housing benefits)

[Chester6]

About £57 for under 25s and £73 for over 25s.

 

I think I've only heard of the 35 hours for UC and not if you're on JSA. (and if it applies, council and housing benefits)

I have only heard of it linked to UC which is why it's so laughable I'm getting told a 2013 idea applies from 2010

[Lapsed Workaholic]

In response to queries about the requirement to spend 35hrs per week job seeking the following Freedom of Information answer to questions on the subject might clarify the position:

 

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

Central Freedom of Information Team

Our reference: VTR 3232

Date: 28 August 2015

 

Dear Mr Martin,

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 02 August 2015.

 

You asked:

 

Where a JSA claimant is seeking full-time work what guidance, in DMG or LMDM procedural guidance or other internal, guidance is available to JCP staff on the minimum/maximum/average number of hours per week that a JSA claimant should be actively seeking work?

 

Would the number of hours sought by JCP staff from JSA claimants tend to increase/decrease the longer the claimant was on benefit - or would DWP expect the same level of hours each week irrespective of the length of the JSA claim?

 

Is there any DWP guidance along the lines of:- "...as JSA is a daily benefit, claimants are expected to do some job-seeking activity 7 days per week...", and "...we have an expectation that claimants will be ASW for a minimum of 35 hours per week.."?

 

Can management at District or local level issue written or verbal guidance to local staff to instruct or encourage staff to proceed along the above lines?

 

The above request is in relation to JSA. Is the guidance any different for those offices where Universal Credit is in payment?

 

Is the guidance publically available via web link, and if not can it be provided in response to this FOI request?

 

Have there been any ministerial speeches or statements which relate to the above topic, eg where ministers have indicated that they think guidance/legislation in this area needs to be made more explicit?

 

As there is no legal requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to undertake a specific number of hours of work search activity each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists. However, to be helpful you may find the following explanation useful about the entitlement condition for JSA claimants to actively seek work. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the Freedom of Information regime.

 

In order to qualify for JSA, a person must be actively seeking work in each week of their claim. This means they are generally expected to do all they reasonably can each week to give them the best prospects of securing employment. The actions that it would be reasonable for the claimant to take will be personalised and tailored to the individual and will be specified on their JSA Claimant Commitment.

 

Evidence shows that claimants who engage in active, effective and persistent jobsearch activity are more likely to find work quickly compared to those that don’t. Therefore, the expectation is that for most JSA claimants, looking for work will be a full time job in itself. Claimants are expected to spend several hours each day looking for work, taking into account any restrictions applied to their availability. However, there is no `set’ time that a person must be engaged in looking for work whilst claiming JSA, rather it is a legal requirement for them to do all that is reasonable for them to do each week.

 

In terms of Universal Credit (UC) claimants, I have included Knowledge Management available to Jobcentre Plus staff dealing with Universal Credit claimants in Annex 1 to this letter. Specifically, the highlighted paragraphs may be of particular interest.

 

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

 

The response, including Annex 1, can be viewed at this link:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/283807/response/699882/attach/3/FOI%203232.pdf

 

 

When the DWP itself says; "As there is no legal requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants to undertake 35 hours of Work Search Activity each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists." then I have no hesitation in asserting that the action of an adviser in coercing, with intimidation and the threat of sanction, a claimant into agreeing to the inclusion of such a requirement is illegal.

 

I would strongly advise that any claimant who has had a 35hr per week of job searching included in their 'Agreement' without their full and free consent should ask for an immediate review. Claimants are entitled to ask for this at any time. I would also recommend that claimants so treated should consider lodging a formal complaint of Maladministration and a Breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct against the specific adviser.

The laws, statutory instruments, regulations and guidances under which DWP administrators and advisers function are legally binding. The freedoms and flexibilities that administrators and advisers have to interpret those laws, statutory instruments, regulations and guidances are also framed in law and codes of practice. Acting outside those frameworks are therefore also outside the law, ipso facto, illegal.

[Chester6]

In response to queries about the requirement to spend 35hrs per week job seeking the following Freedom of Information answer to questions on the subject might clarify the position:

 

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

Central Freedom of Information Team

Our reference: VTR 3232

Date: 28 August 2015

 

Dear Mr Martin,

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 02 August 2015.

 

You asked:

 

Where a JSA claimant is seeking full-time work what guidance, in DMG or LMDM procedural guidance or other internal, guidance is available to JCP staff on the minimum/maximum/average number of hours per week that a JSA claimant should be actively seeking work?

 

Would the number of hours sought by JCP staff from JSA claimants tend to increase/decrease the longer the claimant was on benefit - or would DWP expect the same level of hours each week irrespective of the length of the JSA claim?

 

Is there any DWP guidance along the lines of:- "...as JSA is a daily benefit, claimants are expected to do some job-seeking activity 7 days per week...", and "...we have an expectation that claimants will be ASW for a minimum of 35 hours per week.."?

 

Can management at District or local level issue written or verbal guidance to local staff to instruct or encourage staff to proceed along the above lines?

 

The above request is in relation to JSA. Is the guidance any different for those offices where Universal Credit is in payment?

 

Is the guidance publically available via web link, and if not can it be provided in response to this FOI request?

 

Have there been any ministerial speeches or statements which relate to the above topic, eg where ministers have indicated that they think guidance/legislation in this area needs to be made more explicit?

 

As there is no legal requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to undertake a specific number of hours of work search activity each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists. However, to be helpful you may find the following explanation useful about the entitlement condition for JSA claimants to actively seek work. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the Freedom of Information regime.

 

In order to qualify for JSA, a person must be actively seeking work in each week of their claim. This means they are generally expected to do all they reasonably can each week to give them the best prospects of securing employment. The actions that it would be reasonable for the claimant to take will be personalised and tailored to the individual and will be specified on their JSA Claimant Commitment.

 

Evidence shows that claimants who engage in active, effective and persistent jobsearch activity are more likely to find work quickly compared to those that don’t. Therefore, the expectation is that for most JSA claimants, looking for work will be a full time job in itself. Claimants are expected to spend several hours each day looking for work, taking into account any restrictions applied to their availability. However, there is no `set’ time that a person must be engaged in looking for work whilst claiming JSA, rather it is a legal requirement for them to do all that is reasonable for them to do each week.

 

In terms of Universal Credit (UC) claimants, I have included Knowledge Management available to Jobcentre Plus staff dealing with Universal Credit claimants in Annex 1 to this letter. Specifically, the highlighted paragraphs may be of particular interest.

 

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

 

The response, including Annex 1, can be viewed at this link:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/283807/response/699882/attach/3/FOI%203232.pdf

 

 

When the DWP itself says; "As there is no legal requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants to undertake 35 hours of Work Search Activity each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists." then I have no hesitation in asserting that the action of an adviser in coercing, with intimidation and the threat of sanction, a claimant into agreeing to the inclusion of such a requirement is illegal.

 

I would strongly advise that any claimant who has had a 35hr per week of job searching included in their 'Agreement' without their full and free consent should ask for an immediate review. Claimants are entitled to ask for this at any time. I would also recommend that claimants so treated should consider lodging a formal complaint of Maladministration and a Breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct against the specific adviser.

The laws, statutory instruments, regulations and guidances under which DWP administrators and advisers function are legally binding. The freedoms and flexibilities that administrators and advisers have to interpret those laws, statutory instruments, regulations and guidances are also framed in law and codes of practice. Acting outside those frameworks are therefore also outside the law, ipso facto, illegal.

 

Thank you and this was exactly what I was asking about

It's appreciated loads

Thanks

[Nystagmite]

I seem to remember that when I was on JSA, I just had a certain amount of activities to do. Sometimes, these could take a few hours and sometimes, these could take far longer. You (and they) can't prove either way how long you're taking to job search.

[jason2723637]

In response to queries about the requirement to spend 35hrs per week job seeking the following Freedom of Information answer to questions on the subject might clarify the position:

 

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

Central Freedom of Information Team

Our reference: VTR 3232

Date: 28 August 2015

 

Dear Mr Martin,

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 02 August 2015.

 

You asked:

 

Where a JSA claimant is seeking full-time work what guidance, in DMG or LMDM procedural guidance or other internal, guidance is available to JCP staff on the minimum/maximum/average number of hours per week that a JSA claimant should be actively seeking work?

 

Would the number of hours sought by JCP staff from JSA claimants tend to increase/decrease the longer the claimant was on benefit - or would DWP expect the same level of hours each week irrespective of the length of the JSA claim?

 

Is there any DWP guidance along the lines of:- "...as JSA is a daily benefit, claimants are expected to do some job-seeking activity 7 days per week...", and "...we have an expectation that claimants will be ASW for a minimum of 35 hours per week.."?

 

Can management at District or local level issue written or verbal guidance to local staff to instruct or encourage staff to proceed along the above lines?

 

The above request is in relation to JSA. Is the guidance any different for those offices where Universal Credit is in payment?

 

Is the guidance publically available via web link, and if not can it be provided in response to this FOI request?

 

Have there been any ministerial speeches or statements which relate to the above topic, eg where ministers have indicated that they think guidance/legislation in this area needs to be made more explicit?

 

As there is no legal requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to undertake a specific number of hours of work search activity each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists. However, to be helpful you may find the following explanation useful about the entitlement condition for JSA claimants to actively seek work. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the Freedom of Information regime.

 

In order to qualify for JSA, a person must be actively seeking work in each week of their claim. This means they are generally expected to do all they reasonably can each week to give them the best prospects of securing employment. The actions that it would be reasonable for the claimant to take will be personalised and tailored to the individual and will be specified on their JSA Claimant Commitment.

 

Evidence shows that claimants who engage in active, effective and persistent jobsearch activity are more likely to find work quickly compared to those that don’t. Therefore, the expectation is that for most JSA claimants, looking for work will be a full time job in itself. Claimants are expected to spend several hours each day looking for work, taking into account any restrictions applied to their availability. However, there is no `set’ time that a person must be engaged in looking for work whilst claiming JSA, rather it is a legal requirement for them to do all that is reasonable for them to do each week.

 

In terms of Universal Credit (UC) claimants, I have included Knowledge Management available to Jobcentre Plus staff dealing with Universal Credit claimants in Annex 1 to this letter. Specifically, the highlighted paragraphs may be of particular interest.

 

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

 

The response, including Annex 1, can be viewed at this link:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/283807/response/699882/attach/3/FOI%203232.pdf

 

 

When the DWP itself says; "As there is no legal requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants to undertake 35 hours of Work Search Activity each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists." then I have no hesitation in asserting that the action of an adviser in coercing, with intimidation and the threat of sanction, a claimant into agreeing to the inclusion of such a requirement is illegal.

 

I would strongly advise that any claimant who has had a 35hr per week of job searching included in their 'Agreement' without their full and free consent should ask for an immediate review. Claimants are entitled to ask for this at any time. I would also recommend that claimants so treated should consider lodging a formal complaint of Maladministration and a Breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct against the specific adviser.

 

The laws, statutory instruments, regulations and guidances under which DWP administrators and advisers function are legally binding. The freedoms and flexibilities that administrators and advisers have to interpret those laws, statutory instruments, regulations and guidances are also framed in law and codes of practice. Acting outside those frameworks are therefore also outside the law, ipso facto, illegal.

 

 

yup that's right! (oh wait but for UC 35 hr/week job search is lawful?)

[Mr.P]

yup that's right! (oh wait but for UC 35 hr/week job search is lawful?)

 

from: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/283807/response/699882/attach/3/FOI%203232.pdf

 

Typically, claimants in All Work Related Requirements (AWRR) conditionality will be required to look for and be available for any work:

• regardless of type and salary (as long as it pays at least the National Minimum Wage
  
• on a full time basis (generally a minimum of 35 hours that takes them above the conditionality earnings threshold (CET) and up to 48 hours a week for over 18s and 40 hours a week for 16/17 year olds
  
• that is within 90 minutes of their home
  

 

 

Claimants in the AWRR Intensive regime are expected to spend a minimum of 35 hours a week engaged in work-search activities, unless significant restrictions have already been agreed to reduce availability for work below this figure.

Note the use of the word expected as opposed to required or mandatory. In effect, this means that, like JSA claimants, there is no legal requirement to spend 35 hours per week looking for work. It is just an expectation enshrined in political rhetoric and dogma. However, if it forms part of your Universal Credit Claimant Commitment, don't expect any sympathy from a Decision Maker if a work coach raises a benefit doubt.

[jason2723637]

Mr P - "Note the use of the word expected as opposed to required or mandatory. In effect, this means that, like JSA claimants, there is no legal requirement to spend 35 hours per week looking for work. It is just an expectation enshrined in political rhetoric and dogma. However, if it forms part of your Universal Credit Claimant Commitment, don't expect any sympathy from a Decision Maker if a work coach raises a benefit doubt."

 

yes I see well said! ie NOT law

[Lapsed Workaholic]

This is the statement from the FOI Response in the link;

 

Typically, claimants in All Work Related Requirements (AWRR) conditionality will be required to look for and be available for any work:

 

• regardless of type and salary (as long as it pays at least the National Minimum Wage
  
• on a full time basis (generally a minimum of 35 hours that takes them above the conditionality earnings threshold (CET) and up to 48 hours a week for over 18s and 40 hours a week for 16/17 year olds
  
• that is within 90 minutes of their home
  

On closer scrutiny it should be obvious that it has nothing to do with the time a claimant should spend on job search activities.

 

First of all, it comes under the heading of 'Availability for work'. The proper interpretation of this statement would be that the claimant should be searching and available for work of 35 hrs or more. To interpret it as actually requiring the claimant to spend 35 hrs or more searching for work or jobs would be a wrong interpretation and an adviser would be wrong in law to interpret it as such.

 

Any insistence on having 35 hrs of job search activity per week included in a Claimant Commitment based on a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the rules and regulations has to be wrong and the claimant would be justified in having such a condition removed.

 

The only reference to 35 hrs that I can find in any law or statutory regulation is in 'The Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2013' where they say:

 

Expected hours

9. (1) The expected number of hours per week in relation to a claimant for the purposes of determining any limitations on work search or work availability requirements is 35 unless some lesser number of hours applies in the claimant’s case under paragraph (2).

 

(2) The lesser number of hours referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(a) where— (i) the claimant is a relevant carer, a responsible carer or a responsible foster parent; and (ii) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claimant has reasonable prospects of obtaining paid work, the number of hours, being less than 35, that the Secretary of State considers is compatible with those caring responsibilities;

(b) where the claimant is a responsible carer or a responsible foster carer for a child under the age of 13, the number of hours that the Secretary of State considers is compatible with their caring responsibilities for the child during the child’s normal school hours (including the normal time it takes the child to travel to and from school); or

© where the claimant has a physical or mental impairment, the number of hours that the Secretary of State considers is reasonable in light of the impairment

This clause can also have no other interpretation except that it refers to work of a particular number of hrs per week (35 hrs) that claimants may or may not limit themselves to looking for and be available for, not the time that should be spent actually searching for work.

[Jaybee in CF]

Mr. P's advice to record all interviews is the best advice you will ever get. Many claimants live to regret not doing so until the damage has been done. I've learnt the hard way.

 

First, apologies for the late reply. I'd imagine there's some regulation protecting Government staff from being recorded while on the job. Or did you mean take written notes?

 

Another piece of sound advice would be not to let any instances of what could be regarded as offensive, abusive, intimidating, vindictive, harassing behaviour pass without a response. A formal complaint in writing to the Jobcentre manager insisting on a response would at least ensure that you have something on the record for future reference even if nothing else comes of it. Passing a copy to the adviser would also put him/her on notice that you are not someone to be messed with.

 

 

I've always wondered which model is best, the softly softly wherein I'm actually an easy fellow to get on with, and as such am treated with some sympathy if I'm a couple of minutes late or call in sick, or the legal-eagle with a couple of complaints on the live file at any given time. Pros and cons of both, I'd say. I went for the former as I'm generally a nice fellow, even when others aren't, which is ironic when you consider I'm probably better equipped than most to reciprocate with my enemies, the DWP being no exception

 

 

Now, as to your present predicament. You say that you 'come in daily to sign'

 

Actually, I did not; I still come in fortnightly, with the exception of a worksearch assessment this week.

 

As a long-standing member of CAG you can't claim ignorance of what goes on with advisers in Jobcentres for any feeling you may have of systematic and organised exploitation. Subjective opinions and views do not cut it with those people. In fact they are usually the means by which claimants find themselves at a disadvantage. We all do it, nothing like a good old rant among the likeminded to seek and find solace, sooth anger and disgust and settle the nerves. However, objectivity and facts and evidence, and the correct interpretation of the law, should be the order of the day, every day.

 

 

Pretty much since the Conservatives returned to power in 2010 the DWP have been encouraged to engage in a war of nerves with claimants.

[antone]

First, apologies for the late reply. I'd imagine there's some regulation protecting Government staff from being recorded while on the job. Or did you mean take written notes?

 

 

There's no law or regulation that says you can't record DWP staff as long as you don't post it on the internet or otherwise publish it - that would lead to problems with the Data Protection Act. However, if the staff member becomes aware that you're recording them then they're within their rights if they ask you to stop.

[Jaybee in CF]

Hi all,

 

 

Advisor told me he'd need to see evidence of job search (fair enough) and also asked for a screen-shot of my UJM account, and offered to send my payment if I emailed him the same, or to come in and deliver them.

 

 

Am I right in thinking that;

 

 

1) He has no right to a screen-shot of my UJM :

 

 

2) The less I get into the habit of emailing them, the better, because this would create a precedent whereby, as I've emailed them, they are within their rights to not only reply to that, but to use that email address to send me demands for evidence between signing days, and sanction me if I don't respond promptly?

 

 

Thanks all

[Haven]

From what im led to believe you dont have to give them any access to your UJM account.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Hi all,

 

 

Advisor told me he'd need to see evidence of job search (fair enough) and also asked for a screen-shot of my UJM account, and offered to send my payment if I emailed him the same, or to come in and deliver them.

 

 

Am I right in thinking that;

 

 

1) He has no right to a screen-shot of my UJM :

 

 

2) The less I get into the habit of emailing them, the better, because this would create a precedent whereby, as I've emailed them, they are within their rights to not only reply to that, but to use that email address to send me demands for evidence between signing days, and sanction me if I don't respond promptly?

 

 

Thanks all

You are right in believing that.

Furthermore, you are not required to give them your email address or phone number at all. By emailing or phoning them you are giving them those access channels and obviously they are going to use them.

Even furthermore, you are not obliged to use UJM at all, far less give them access to it or show them extracts from it.

Make this clear to the adviser politely and let him know that if he persists with being in breach of the Data Protection Act, and attempting to deny you your rights under it, you will lodge a formal complaint of harassment with his manager.

[Jaybee in CF]

You are right in believing that.

Furthermore, you are not required to give them your email address or phone number at all. By emailing or phoning them you are giving them those access channels and obviously they are going to use them.

Even furthermore, you are not obliged to use UJM at all, far less give them access to it or show them extracts from it.

Make this clear to the adviser politely and let him know that if he persists with being in breach of the Data Protection Act, and attempting to deny you your rights under it, you will lodge a formal complaint of harassment with his manager.

 

 

Shame I only read this just after the meeting, I made up some twaddle about the prnt-screen button not working, he dropped the matter. If I'd have known the above I'd have told him to shove it.

 

 

Seems to me that they are becoming ever more inventive with ways to apply pressure without actually breaking regulation, ie last time he had requested I go into my UJM whilst there. I remembered some advice here and simply said the password is embedded in my pc. Which it is - not to say I don't remember it

 

 

My guess is that they've got some kind of roving team that goes from JC to JC and coaches staff on how to apply pressure without doing so in writing. No printout left behind. I'd even hazard there's an unspoken and undocumented culture that stresses that the number of jobseekers per 'advisor' who give access to UJM is going to be raised during their Annual Evaluations.

 

 

I'd have started playing hardball a while ago, but to be fair, I've signed a while now without showing a jobsearch. That, and he genuinely seems like a nice fellow. But...I'll have my phone/email removed from their records, and he'll be on notice that, if there's any further mention of accessing my UJM, he'll be had up.