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

[Mr.P]

I'd have started playing hardball a while ago, but to be fair, I've signed a while now without showing a jobsearch.

 

Tread carefully. At some point you may get asked to evidence your job search activities, and it is up to you how you present the information. If you can get away with delivering a jobsearch verbally, all well and good. Just be aware that some advisers might ask for a written copy and raise a benefit doubt if you do not comply.

[flumps1976]

If you remove your email address they will ask you why and you can be mandated to open a new email address anyway so it's up to you. If you remove your mobile phone number again that't up to you but just be prepared for a work coach to ask how an employer will get in contact with you as it could raise a doubt on your availability.

A Work Coach can ask you at any time during your attendance to demonstrate how you completed your job search activities and to forward proof of applications if you were matched to a vacancy for example.

If you don't agree with an activity on your claimant commitment have you tried suggesting an alternative action instead? If it is noted on your claimant commitment and you don't do it then you could face potential DMA action and sanctions on your claim so it may just be easier to try and sort something else now.

[Jaybee in CF]

Tread carefully. At some point you may get asked to evidence your job search activities, and it is up to you how you present the information. If you can get away with delivering a jobsearch verbally, all well and good. Just be aware that some advisers might ask for a written copy and raise a benefit doubt if you do not comply.

 

 

 

As you say, it's up to me how to present it. I went in last week for a work-search review, and threw about a hundred applications acknowledgements, printed across 6 pages from my 'Previous Applications' folder on the job website, in his face. Not much he can say to that except that henceforth, he wants the similar evidence - fine.

 

 

What I'll do is what I did during the Great Recession, when I had this absolute harpy for an 'advisor' (about the only joy I got from being on the dole was being able to antagonise that witch). Just note down a couple of the job serial ID's in the signing book. Let them 'raise doubts'. We'll see who wins.

[Jaybee in CF]

If you remove your email address they will ask you why and you can be mandated to open a new email address anyway so it's up to you.

 

 

Is it now mandatory for each JSA recipient to have a live email address/mobile number on file?

[Mr.P]

Is it now mandatory for each JSA recipient to have a live email address/mobile number on file?

 

Not everyone has an email address or a mobile phone. I suppose there is an expectation that if you have access to a computer, you will have an email address.

 

the usual one for mobile phones (and fixed landlines) is "Need to save money and cut costs - Had to cancel phone contract".

[Lapsed Workaholic]

To avoid yesterday's outpouring of wrath and courteous reminders to know my place in the pecking order and the worth of my contributions I need to begin this post with a disclaimer.

 

THIS POST IS A SUMMARY OF LEGAL OPINION REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL DATA - YOU ARE REMINDED THAT IT IS UP YOU TO ASSESS THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTING ON IT OR NOT.

 

The following notes are a broad outline of how to avoid registration with UJ. Claimants who have already registered may use the same arguments to avoid using or providing DWP/Jobcentre staff with access to their UJ Gateway/Jobmatch Accounts.

 

You can't be mandated to use it. You can't be sanctioned for not using it. You can't be mandated to provide email addresses or phone numbers. You can't be sanctioned for not providing personal data. If you contact an employer for a job you may of course provide them with your contact details for them to get back to you. None of that affect your right to withhold them from DWP.

You may put the points set out in this outline to the adviser at your initial interview, or subsequent interviews to discuss your CC or your UJM registration/access if you are pressed to have it reconsidered/reassessed. Should your adviser disregard the points you raise then obviously a consensually agreed CC could be difficult, in which case you have the option of forwarding your case to a Decision Maker (DM).

If you feel that the stage where your adviser is going to point blank ignore your point of view and a DM is going to have to become involved it would be prudent to have a formal letter ready to send to your Jobcente manager and/or the Decision Maker again outlining the points in dispute. It would also be invaluable to you at this stage to have recorded the interview with the adviser. His/her initial responses to the points you raised could be very telling and could provide evidence of how far they are prepared to go to break their Code of Conduct and the law. Also, identify the advisers you dealt with by name making it perfectly clear that you hold them responsible for their incompetence and ignorance, and that you expect appropriate action to follow.

I am unable to register on the Universal Jobmatch (UJM) website, or to allow access to any account I may have already created on it, for the following reasons:

1. Under Data Protection, Privacy and Human Rights legislation I have the right to have my personal/private details protected and secured. Since registering with UJ requires that I accept a DWP/Jobcentre liability disclaimer that cannot guarantee those rights, I would, in effect, be waiving those rights and exposing myself to identity/property fraud and/or theft with no avenue for redress. Any insurance policies I might have to recoup resultant losses may be nullified if I agreed to expose myself to, and be the victim of, such losses.

The Liability Disclaimer:

"5. Disclaimer

 

5.1 While we make every effort to keep the Universal Jobmatch website up to date, we don’t

provide any guarantees, conditions or warranties as to the accuracy of the information on the site.

 

5.2 We don’t accept liability for loss or damage incurred by users of the website, whether direct, indirect or consequential, whether caused by tort, breach of contract or otherwise. This includes loss of:

 

- income or revenue

- business

- profits or contracts

- anticipated savings

- data

- goodwill

- tangible property

 

or wasted management or office time in connection with our site or in connection with the use, inability to use, or results of the use of our site, any websites linked to it and any materials posted on it. This condition shall not prevent claims for loss of or damage to your tangible property or any other claims for direct financial loss that are not excluded by any of the categories set out above."

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/Account/InfoTermsConditions.aspx

In response to a Freedom of Information request the DWP stated the following:

 

“…The disclaimer on the Universal Jobmatch (UJ) service forms part of the Standards of Behaviour which are for jobseekers’ information. A jobseeker is not required to accept the Standards of Behaviour when they receive a Jobseeker’s Direction to create a UJ profile…”

The DWP response can be seen in full here:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/155118/re...se%20v1%200.pdf.html

 

And again:

“The disclaimer forms part of the Jobseeker Standards of Behaviour which jobseekers are not required to ‘accept’.”

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/152647/re...%20Response.pdf.html

 

As stated in the response, the Standards of Behaviour are for information only and thus cannot be made mandatory. However, there is a tick box for the Standards of Behaviour on the UJ registration page that must be ticked to enable registration. I do not (as allowed) accept the Standards of Behaviour, cannot therefore tick the box, and consequently am unable to register with UJ.

2. There is a tick box for a “mandatory” equality questionnaire.

This is the DWP’s own message (from the UJ FAQ) regarding this:

“DWP requests equality information to help it monitor and continually improve the services it provides to the public. To help us to do this, we would like you to complete this questionnaire. Providing equality information is strictly voluntary. If provided, this information may be used only in accordance with applicable law and will not be shared with employers. If you do not want to answer any of the questions, please select Prefer not to say."

It is not possible to register with UJ without ticking the “mandatory” equality questionnaire box but, as clearly evinced in the DWP’s own statement, the equality questionnaire is “strictly voluntary”.

To be clear, being given the option to select “Prefer not to say” once in the questionnaire is not acceptable as, from a legal perspective, this constitutes a response to the questionnaire, i.e. taking part in it, and is in direct contravention to the “strictly voluntary” nature of the questionnaire. Clearly registering for UJ cannot be made conditional on taking part in a “strictly voluntary” activity.

I do not wish to take part in the equality questionnaire and so, until I can register without having to tick this box I am unable to register with UJ.

 

3. The Welfare Reform Act 2012, chapter 2, section 17(3)© states:

(3) Action which may be specified under subsection (1)(b) includes in particular—

-------creating and maintaining an online profile

This is the only legislation relating to online job-searching and it is clearly very generic. There is no mention of UJ, nor can there be as it would be anti-competitive and therefore illegal. Therefore, to demand that a jobseeker registers with UJ, particularly under threat of a possible sanction if not complied with, is not reasonable and would fail the Wednesbury principles’ test of reasonableness.

Several online profiles may be maintained through the many other job-search websites that are available. Similarly, email addresses may easily be created without having to involve or inform UJ. This is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Act and obviates the need to register with UJ which, as a job-finding service, adds nothing which would enhance the job-finding processes and activities undertaken).

It is also recognised by the DWP that other job search engines are a sufficient substitute for UJ:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/167039/re.../FOI%203016.pdf.html

"Whilst those claimants for whom it is reasonable will be required to register with Universal Jobmatch, the Department also recognises that there are other job sites on which profiles can be created and maintained for the purposes of work search activity. Work search expectations will differ for each claimant depending on their individual circumstances and job goals and advisers will tailor requirements for each claimant."

As a consequence, any adviser or work coach issuing a Jobseeker's Direction mandating a jobseeker to register with UJ would have to demonstrate why it is reasonable (Wednesbury principles) to single out UJ amongst the many other equally good, and usually better, job search websites.

4. The protocol for obtaining consent from the jobseeker has not been followed because it enforces consent through threats of penalties, i.e. sanctions.

DWP definition of consent:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copy_of_d...docu#incoming-225710

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on cookie consent:

www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/privacy...mmunications/consent

 

5. The enforced acceptance of cookies is illegal.

The DWP has attempted to subvert the Data Protection Act by accepting cookies on Internet access devices (IADs) in Jobcentres. This is illegal. The requirements Under EU Data Protection Regulations (Directive 95/46/EC) are unequivocal. Consent must be informed, explicit, specific and freely given (for both the subscriber and the user). By accepting cookies on a jobseeker’s behalf on Jobcentre IADs the ability for the jobseeker (the user) to consent freely to their use is removed. I would point out that this is a matter of common sense if nothing else. It is the individual user of the UJ website (the jobseeker) who is affected by the use of cookies and not the DWP. Which particular machine or device they are accepted on is immaterial. It is the act of accepting the cookies that is salient and to which the user’s consent, freely given, must be explicitly obtained. Pre-accepted cookies clearly subvert that right.

Specifically, DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 July 2002 in point (17) states:

“For the purposes of this Directive, consent of a user or subscriber, regardless of whether the latter is a natural or a legal person, should have the same meaning as the data subject’s consent as defined and further specified in Directive 95/46/EC. Consent may be given by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the user’s wishes, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website."

You will see that whereas the “subscriber or user” phrase can be misinterpreted, as the DWP have chosen to do because it benefits them, the above makes it clear it is the “user’s wishes” that are paramount.

The DWP are of the mistaken belief that the subscriber (the DWP) can accept cookies on a user’s behalf on the IADs. It is in your interest to know that because the IADs are reset after each user a new set of “clean” cookies is used for each new user. These cookies monitor a uniquely identifiable jobseeker using UJ (as evidenced, for example, by an adviser’s ability to monitor the log in times of a user even if that user has not given full access to his account). The cookies are therefore user based and not subscriber or, more generically, terminal based. For this reason the DWP must explicitly obtain the freely given consent of each user to accept cookies as per Directive 95/46/EC.

I do not consent to the use of any cookies and consequently will not be able to use UJ.

6. Use of Internet Access Devices (IAD) not mandatory:

“A3. Claimants will not be mandated to use IADs available in Jobcentre Plus offices and will, therefore, not be sanctioned if they refuse to use them. Use of IADs by claimants is voluntary.”

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wireless_technology_safety

7. It is not mandatory for a jobseeker to reveal his email address to the DWP. This is confirmed in this DWP FOI response:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/169236/re...%20response.pdf.html

“Providing a CV, email address or telephone number is not mandatory, therefore is not sanctionable.”

Creating a Government Gateway account and registering with UJ both require an email address to be provided and that email address is made available to the Jobcentre even if the jobseeker does not give permission to access his UJ account (as evidenced by the default method of locating a new UJ registrant’s account by their unique email account per the UJ Toolkit). Therefore a jobseeker who does not wish to reveal his email address cannot be mandated to register with UJ.

8. I have not signed a data protection waiver (for which the Jobcentre has a form) and therefore retain my DPA rights to my personal information.

 

 

There's plenty there to inform your advisers and persuade them. If you get nowhere with your adviser you could make a written formal appeal for reconsideration to a JCP manager listing those points and ending your submission/request for reconsideration as follows:

"On the basis of the DWP’s enforcing of consent through misrepresentation, intimidation and threats of penalties contrary to the principles of the Data Protection Act and disregard for privacy of home life and correspondence in accordance with the Human Rights Act, not to mention their own Codes of Conduct, please be advised that this is an official notification requesting that the contents and/or changes to my Claimant Commitment, to which I have not given consent, be referred to a Decision Maker and comprehensive details of the adviser's opinions as to their appropriateness be attached. I also insist on being given the opportunity of forwarding to the Decision Maker my objections and why I regard them as inappropriate.

Due to the matters in dispute and the reconsideration sought, officers, agents, servants or others of the Secretary of State may not issue a direction, amend my Jobseekers Agreement or make demands or impose penalties in regard to changes or allowing access to my Universal Jobmatch Account.

Further, I wish to notify you that I do not consent to my personal data being shared or disclosed without my prior explicit and written consent. Consent may not be deemed by digital submission. Personal data is any data that can be used to identify an individual. Consent may be obtained on application."

I hope this helps you, or at least give you some ideas as to how to proceed.

[Jaybee in CF]

Hi all,

 

 

I recently disclosed to my 'Advisor' that I was interviewed at a company, and refused to name the company without a written mandate to that effect.

 

While he didn't sanction me on that occasion he stated he may do so if I continue to refuse. AFAIK nothing in my JSA Claimant Commitment EXPLICITLY stipulates this, however the following statement exists:

 

"I will keep evidence of what I have done and take this with me every time I go to the Jobcentre".

 

Is there any precedent that I need to disclose the names of those companies with whom I've interviewed?

[Mr.P]

Whilst I would support your refusal to name names if this were a Work Programme provider, you will the DWP will be a tougher nut to crack. You could throw data protection, human rights, privacy, and business confidentiality at the adviser, but he/she could simply raise a benefit doubt and leave it to a Decision Maker to pass judgment. I'm sure the DM manual will have a section on what is regarded as suitable evidence, but I have little desire to wade through thousands of pages at the moment.

 

In the past, I have used abbreviations and acronyms without trouble. In the long term, it is in your best (financial) interest to provide some information so that the adviser can fill in the boxes on your claim. You can refuse to give permission for the DWP to contact the companies in question. It is unlikely that they would in any case.

[neword]

I don't get it.

 

Why would you deliberately antagonise your adviser when you know what problems your refusal to name names could bring.

 

Surely it would have been better to have just missed this interview off your this is what I did this week to get a job disclosure

 

I just don't get it why someone would want to do this.

[Jaybee in CF]

Whilst I would support your refusal to name names if this were a Work Programme provider, you will the DWP will be a tougher nut to crack. You could throw data protection, human rights, privacy, and business confidentiality at the adviser, but he/she could simply raise a benefit doubt and leave it to a Decision Maker to pass judgment. I'm sure the DM manual will have a section on what is regarded as suitable evidence, but I have little desire to wade through thousands of pages at the moment.

 

In the past, I have used abbreviations and acronyms without trouble. In the long term, it is in your best (financial) interest to provide some information so that the adviser can fill in the boxes on your claim. You can refuse to give permission for the DWP to contact the companies in question. It is unlikely that they would in any case.

 

 

H

 

 

 

I'll simply give him the name/email of the recruiter handling the process, who can confirm I went to the interview, was made the offer etc. However I'll have the recruiter keep schtum about the name.

 

Creepily a work programme company I was with back in 2011/2 cottoned on I was with a particular company, I'm absolutely stymied how they found out, but late Spring 2012 about 4 months into the job I got a call from them asking, "Are you working at XYZ?", I just ended the damn call there and then. To this day I have no idea how they found out. Eerie...

[renegadeimp]

If you start being secretive, theyll call into question whether you did apply or not. they hear thousands of excuses multiple times. Theres absolutely no reason not to tell the DWP. Unless theres something else going on that youre not telling us.

 

If you gave the advisor the recruiters details then dwp would ask who the company is anyway, casting more concern on your actions.

[Shoelover]

My Mum always taught me to chose my battles well..

I don't see why it matters so much. Save yourself a load of aggro & just tell them. The companies you are interviewing at must know you are currently out of work anyway- assuming it's on your application form?

Out of interest, why don't you want to disclose?

[Jaybee in CF]

My Mum always taught me to chose my battles well..

I don't see why it matters so much. Save yourself a load of aggro & just tell them. The companies you are interviewing at must know you are currently out of work anyway- assuming it's on your application form?

Out of interest, why don't you want to disclose?

 

 

 

Your mother advised you better than most, including mine. In honour of both, I will tell you. Honour yours and mine by understanding my words.

 

 

Until 10 years back the DWP didn't ask about your jobsearch. It was THEIR job to get you one. Really. Most recruitment agents in my sector don't know my sector well. The DWP is always going to comprise those with no entrepreneurial drive. It is just there to tick boxes.

 

 

I don't want them ticking boxes they know nothing about. I operate on very high rates. They have no idea how to help me wiith my jobsearch...they can go screw themselves.

 

 

I hope that helped. God bless your Mum, she seems like she was a great woman.

[honeybee13]

Jaybee, it's up to you if you want to hark back to 10 years ago and take a stand on principle, but you could find yourself sanctioned for doing so.

 

HB

[Shoelover]

I take your point but just humour them.. they operate on a one size fits all policy.

Hopefully you won't need to worry about them for long.

[Jaybee in CF]

I take your point but just humour them.. they operate on a one size fits all policy.

Hopefully you won't need to worry about them for long.

 

 

 

I most probably won't, the last interview was successful, I bagged the job. I just find process of collaborating with their pretence of 'coaching' us on how to find work distasteful in the extreme.

[Shoelover]

Congratulations!!! Hope the new job works out well.

[theronstar]

The only time where non-disclosure was a problem for me was when I had a job interview that clashed with my sign in time/date.

 

In that instance they would want to know your whereabouts so that they can justify your non-attendance to the decision maker.

[citizenB]

The only time where non-disclosure was a problem for me was when I had a job interview that clashed with my sign in time/date.

 

In that instance they would want to know your whereabouts so that they can justify your non-attendance to the decision maker.

 

 

So, if you name the company with whom the interview is.. what happens next ? Do the DWP make contact with them asking if you had the interview, surely that would be a data protection issue if the company were to give any information ?