a4e

highpark1

We can reveal that on the 20th April 2009, Mr Neil Watson the Finance Director for Action 4 Employment resigned from a4e Ltd as a director.

New Deal Scandal can’t be sure whether Neil Watson has resigned from his directorship or whether he has also left his position of Finance Director due to no news on a4e website about it or from other sources. Companies House however reports that a 288b form (director resignation) was accepted and is recorded on the company’s record.

This comes at a time where Action 4 Employment is under investigation for fraud and could lose their Flexible New Deal contracts.

Was Neil Watson Finance Director at a4e sacked?

Did Neil Watson Finance Director at a4e resign?

Was Neil Watson Finance Director at a4e forced to leave the company by the Board of Directors?

There has been a lot of talk of a possible conspiracy at A4e: with employees taking the blame for fraud rather than a larger procedure being something traced back to head office. We are unsure of this.

The timing, however, of this director resignation ties up perfectly with the start of the fiscal year, perhaps fears of losing the Flexible New Deal contracts, and the job title of the individual who resigned their directorship solely a coincidence or is there more to it?

NEIL WATSON IS REPORTED TO BE STILL WORKING FOR A4E





New Deal Scandal network can announce that Action 4 Employment has two main companies which they swapped names of. We do not suggest that this act was an act of fraudulent company trading however we felt the suspicions of which is significant to match the allegations of widespread fraud in the organisation.

On 3rd July 2009, we announced that the A4e finance director has resigned as a company director.

A day previously on the 2nd July 2009, we announced that New Deal fraud was widespread and that fraud has always been widespread in the New Deal scheme.

Company 1
The first company was incorporated at Companies House on the 9th April 1999 as “BESSEMER INVESTMENTS LTD” – Bessemer being the name of the road the premises were on – company number 03749598.

The registered office is:

BESSEMER ROAD
SHEFFIELD
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
S9 3XN

On the 5th May 1999 the company was renamed to “A4E LIMITED”. Since 2001 the company appears to have been DORMANT (not trading). On the 19th October 2005, the company was renamed “ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT LIMITED”.

ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT LIMITED
BESSEMER ROAD
SHEFFIELD
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
S9 3XN
Company No. 03749598

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 09/04/1999

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9999 – Dormant Company
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2008 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2010
Last Return Made Up To: 23/03/2009
Next Return Due: 20/04/2010
Last Members List: 23/03/2009





Company 2
This company was incorporated at Companies House on the 22nd July 1991 as “BROOMCO (490) LIMITED” – we presume that is a shelf name – company number 02631340. It is older than the previous one.

The registered office is:

BESSEMER ROAD
SHEFFIELD
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
S9 3XN

On the 6th August 1991 it was renamed “ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT LIMITED”. On the 19th October 2005 the company was renamed “A4E LTD”.

Name & Registered Office:
A4E LTD
BESSEMER ROAD
SHEFFIELD
S9 3XN
Company No. 02631340

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 22/07/1991

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9305 – Other service activities

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2008 (GROUP)
Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2010
Last Return Made Up To: 11/07/2008
Next Return Due: 08/08/2009
Last Members List: 11/07/2008

288b 20/04/2009 DIRECTOR RESIGNED NEIL WATSON
288a 19/02/2009 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MARK STANLEY
395 21/11/2008 PARTICULARS OF A MORTGAGE OR CHARGE / CHARGE NO: 22




Evidence from 2003 has been uncovered showing information on fraud investigations of New Deal in the first 5 years of New Deal. You may have heard about cases regarding companies such as A4e, Maatwerk and Working Links being investigated for fraud, however, official Parliament documents show that up until winter 2002 there was over 278 in depth fraud investigations against New Deal providers, almost 2000 allegations of fraud committed by New Deal prime contractors and the rate of cases year on year seems to be on the increase. Read on for more!

1. Latest news
So, you may have read the Observer or Guardian, listened to Radio 5 show or watched Channel 4 news – or a combination of them. You would probably know by now about A4e, Maatwerk, Pertemps and Working Links being involved in several fraud investigations. This is only what the press has picked up on.

2. “New Deal Fraud is rare”
There are a lot of people going round (either employees of the fraudsters, DWP, JCP or ministers or some other people who think those who beg to differ are all sad conspiracy theorists or something) saying that these are isolated cases or that such New Deal fraud is rare: I tell you, it is not!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

You dont know what your talking about.

highpark1

I know [one of the organisations in the welfare to work industry] very well.
On these contracts the amounts that can be made from a client commencing a job and then sustaining are staggering we are talking around £4000 for as little as the client remaining in work for 13 weeks including the job start payment. If each consultant hits their annual target and no more you are talking about them generating £144,000 from DWP - Realistic figure. Multiply that by the amount of staff on the contract and you are talking in excess of £2 million. That's just one region too.

Unfortunately I had been involved in meetings and the emphasis was always on targets first, second and third, then down the agenda data quality would slightly register on the spectrum - Unfortunately clients were just animate objects who were regarded as a mere obstacle in order to get to the pot of gold.

Bonuses were paid and we are talking around £1000 per quarter for a good consultant based on enforcing individuals into jobs. Did not matter if your data compliance was substandard. You can see a pattern emerging - No tight compliance = loose paperwork of any kind.

DWP would give these providors 5 days notice befor coming in to audit the files with a list of all the names required - Be serious it's like Health and Hygiene giving notice to inspect your restaurant. Off course everything will be of an auditable standard the providor has had enough time to deploy a team of staff in to organise files, capture any additional signatures required and ensure job evidence paperwork is correct - I've seen things happen within this period that well lets just say I would care not to say.

The problem is that these companies are willing to do whatever it takes to make target and if you look at the the statistics it is always the same companies that seem to do the best even on an even playing field, even when client choice comes into play. How can that be? To be honest - It really has nothing to do with the consultants expertise in dealing with the clients or provision available it's the lengths that they are willing to go to to ensure management stay off their back in order to ensure that their job is there the following morning.

The bottom line is - Don't ask your employees to hit under the belt then p!ss them off by firing them/making them redundant when issues to save skin comes to light. Bad management breeds irate employees and that is exactly what happened.

highpark1

It has been a rumour been going around for several months now, it deserves a post!

A4e founder Emma Harrison is said to have an ambition to start a bank!

That’s right, she wants to start a bank aimed at poor and disadvantaged communities (or Jobseekers)!

Atomic Unemployment Bomb
If true, this is worrying news. We don’t know when the bomb is timed to go off – it wont be soon but in 5 years…

Flexible New Deal
A4e taking over some Jobcentre Plus offices
Jobseekers don’t get paid by Giro, they pay directly into the a4e bank
…

A4e bank manages the unemployed’s finance, disallows Jobseekers to withdraw money
Post Office/Peoples Bank
She’s looking to start a bank aimed at poor and disadvantaged communities. The founder of A4E, formerly Action For Employment, plans three trial branches in the next 18 months. The venture could cost up to £100m, and Harrison hopes for as many as a million customers in six years.

Let me guess the next contract a4e will win is to run the proposed bank at the Post Office?



With A4e’s fraud now exposed by Radio 5 Live, Channel 4 and the Observer, surely this must question the company’s fitness to run a bank of all things!

I wonder how many of us would find it easy to find work in a bank if previously found guilty of fraud on numerous occasions?

People should refuse to deal with A4e’s bank if your Atomic Unemployment Bomb theory comes to pass – and I would not put it past this lousy govt, it’s something I’ve been suggesting could happen myself.



Typically, the problem with such processes of contracting out is not being able to use the past to see whether they would do a good job of it – they can only do by value etc.

I fully agree with all your points, however, judging by the banks who created the recession… a4e would be qualified enough.

All banks do credit checks on all staff who apply to work there that they consider to employ. Having a poor credit rating score is enough reason not to get a face-2-face customer service role (i.e. dont even handle money), so with fraud under your belt you wouldn’t stand a chance lol

I think the theory is possible. They plan to privatise the Jobcentre so if a4e had a bank you would have to comply or not receive any benefit.

I don’t actually think it will be setup as a bank – more of a credit union… if that is the case it would have to be corrupt as you wont have shareholders, the members of the credit union, in this scenario would be the unemployed, would be the ones who benefit from any profits, which get reinvested back in.

We can expect pricey services outsourced to a4e and huge salaries. This is probably why the plans haven’t come to anything – as there is no financial gain from credit unions (not that they are designed to be).

I named it that as it isn’t just the destruction caused by the main explosion but the radiation expanding much further and lasting beyond.



Hmmmm….what you says makes perfect sense, esp A4e being set up as a credit union. With no shareholders to answer to, they can be as corrupt as they can be – which in A4e’s case is a lot of corruption!

I have often thought that A4e would love to run large chunks of the current welfare system. It would be a licence to print AND control money – to the unemployed that it!

And of course, the added benefit is that those on the recieving end who dared to complain or speak out will as per usual be labeled as workshy idlers who deserve whatever poor services A4e hands out to them!!!



How “credible” does that sound?

Instead of either having to cash a Giro or wait a few days for money to transfer into a bank account, jobseekers can now have money paid in to their a4e account the same day!

All “members” of a credit union get a “dividend” (the alternative to interest; paid annually) so it would be a4e’s way of giving back to the unemployed (even though the dividend is unlikely to be much more than bank interest).

In addition, jobseekers can borrow money at low interest rates (or should I say lower than the banks).

I am sure they will find a way of terminating your benefit claim should you miss a repayment or a way of sticking heavy charges on top i.e. £50 for missing a payment, quite a big chunk of the weekly amount.

You can only borrow from a credit union in proportion therefore its unlikely to be beneficial anyway.

I couldn’t agree with your last paragraph more: that is how a4e are getting away with it, well.. unless I and all the others out there, have anything to say about it!

dmg24

highpark1,

Please look at what you are posting. Whilst you may have a valid point, your ranting/ witch hunt posting style are only damaging the reputation of one party, and that is yourself.

colino

Firstly funding of these programmes is on the cheap -fact. It is cheaper to put these programmes out to the private sector to deliver them than pay civil servants to operate them (badly).

But where do you get off extrapolating the theoretical unit payments and coming up with £144k per consultant?

The reason that these programmes are out to tender are because they are dealing with tough target groups and there isn't a serious national programme that gets above 70% "success" rate and the follow up generous payments are in a small minority. Even the government paymasters don't expect the results they ask for. How can a private contractor for example replace low or no education, no work experience or qualifications, and special needs and generate a fully employable client with 13 weeks payment?

If you have a genuine grievance/accusation follow it through. Don't sling mud by generalisation at every dedicated, hard working support worker.

highpark1

The bottom line is the figure for job outcomes, the whole point of the programmes, and the average for all providers is 25%. This is way below target. Looking just at A4e, we find that while the results are no worse than most other providers', they are far lower than was promised in the bids.



FTET (13 weeks for under-25s) - range from 22% in Nottinghamshire to 43% in Berkshire, with an average of 33% - all below target.
BET - range from 6% in Nottinghamshire to 39% in Buckinghamshire, with an average of 21%. 11 of the 16 contracts are below target.
ETF (Environmental Task Force) - 0% outcomes for 5 of the 14 contracts (including Nottinghamshire) but up to 60% for Edinburgh. Average 22%, with only two contracts above target.
FTET Basic Skills - much better, ranging from 0% in North & Mid Wales to 45% in Edinburgh. 13 of the 17 contracts above target.
Gateway (2 weeks for under 25s) - all below target, ranging from 15% in North & Mid Wales to 32% in London, with an average of 29%.
IAP (13 weeks for over-25s) - all below target, ranging from 14% in Cheshire and South east Wales to 31% in Berkshire and Edinburgh.

Even these poor figures exaggerate the "success" of New Deal, including as they do the jobs which owe nothing at all to the providers; and thise which, although intended to be permanent, last only a very short time before the client signs back on. But A4e continues to pump out the propaganda. Various local newspapers carry their PR pieces uncritically as news, and now I find that a site called HubPages has become a vehicle for their advertising.

dmg24

I'm still not seeing your point, other than that you have some sort of vendetta against A4E.

-BA-

colino wrote: »

Firstly funding of these programmes is on the cheap -fact. It is cheaper to put these programmes out to the private sector to deliver them than pay civil servants to operate them (badly).

But where do you get off extrapolating the theoretical unit payments and coming up with £144k per consultant?

The reason that these programmes are out to tender are because they are dealing with tough target groups and there isn't a serious national programme that gets above 70% "success" rate and the follow up generous payments are in a small minority. Even the government paymasters don't expect the results they ask for. How can a private contractor for example replace low or no education, no work experience or qualifications, and special needs and generate a fully employable client with 13 weeks payment?

If you have a genuine grievance/accusation follow it through. Don't sling mud by generalisation at every dedicated, hard working support worker.

These kind of targets are entirely realistic for a consultant to bring in. But I have to agree with dmg24 here, highpark1, whilst some of your information does indeed carry weight and I even share your views over the quality/quantity issue and audits, the incoherrent nature of your posts present themselves as the ramblings of a malcontent with a score to settle.

If you want your posts to be taken more seriously post less and put more order to it.

red_devil

benefit busters channel 4 this Thursday.