We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Was the JC adviser fishing for trouble?
Martynb_
Posts: 302 Forumite
I went to the job centre to ask for some info about whether I am obligated to let staff see my login details. The advisor said that she doesn't know what the stipulations are but would do some research. She then asked me why I wanted to know. I told her that my personal advisor has asked me for my login details and that such a request was not part of the claimant commitment and was illegal anyway because it is personal data.
She then asked more questions. Eventually, I told her that I thought that the advisor was trying to trick me into giving him my personal login details. The response:
"You do understand that we have to take this further? It is my job to investigate such things."
I said:
"I understand but I don't want to press a complaint against my personal advisor. My intention here was to get some info."
She gave me funny looks throughout the ordeal as if I was actually joking.
In the end she said she would "investigate" everything I had told her and that I will be given a call in a few days time.
Really? I only wanted information and now she's investigating a complaint.
I don't want this to go against me but it looks like it may do, as personal advisors can raise doubts based upon their discretion. She tried to tell me at one point that decision makers are independent from JC staff, and that there is no way my advisor can sanction me.
To which I added that nothing is really independent. Everything is more or less connected. The Job Centre is given sanction targets, they raise a doubt if they see that claimants are not abbiding by the rules. The decision maker bases his decision on the same criteria raised by the doubt. Not so independent afterall. How many times have people be sanctioned by a decision maker, appeal against it and won? I have heard a few people have appealed and won. The JC staff and the decision makers are all part of the same team.
But was my advisor fishing for complaints?
She then asked more questions. Eventually, I told her that I thought that the advisor was trying to trick me into giving him my personal login details. The response:
"You do understand that we have to take this further? It is my job to investigate such things."
I said:
"I understand but I don't want to press a complaint against my personal advisor. My intention here was to get some info."
She gave me funny looks throughout the ordeal as if I was actually joking.
In the end she said she would "investigate" everything I had told her and that I will be given a call in a few days time.
Really? I only wanted information and now she's investigating a complaint.
I don't want this to go against me but it looks like it may do, as personal advisors can raise doubts based upon their discretion. She tried to tell me at one point that decision makers are independent from JC staff, and that there is no way my advisor can sanction me.
To which I added that nothing is really independent. Everything is more or less connected. The Job Centre is given sanction targets, they raise a doubt if they see that claimants are not abbiding by the rules. The decision maker bases his decision on the same criteria raised by the doubt. Not so independent afterall. How many times have people be sanctioned by a decision maker, appeal against it and won? I have heard a few people have appealed and won. The JC staff and the decision makers are all part of the same team.
But was my advisor fishing for complaints?
0
Comments
-
No its not legal for them to see your account. Its done by choice hence the tick box or it would say 'by signing up to the UJM you are giving permission for the JC staff to see your account'
You know like on Facebook when you click an app or competition or something it says 'you are giving XXXXX (like say Tesco or ASDA) permission to access your page and your friends list' if you click continue you are giving consent.We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
No its not legal for them to see your account. Its done by choice hence the tick box or it would say 'by signing up to the UJM you are giving permission for the JC staff to see your account'
You know like on Facebook when you click an app or competition or something it says 'you are giving XXXXX (like say Tesco or ASDA) permission to access your page and your friends list' if you click continue you are giving consent.
They said that if it is part of a job seeker directive I will have to give them my login details or face sanctions.0 -
Where does it say that? You have it in writing?They said that if it is part of a job seeker directive I will have to give them my login details or face sanctions.
If it was in anything there would not be a tick box on the UJM to allow access but in stead they would just have access.We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Where does it say that? You have it in writing?
If it was in anything there would not be a tick box on the UJM to allow access but in stead they would just have access.
The CAB also said this: If it is a directive I would have to do it.
I'm trying to find out where on the DWP guidelines does it say that I would have to give JC staff my UJM login details. I cannot find anything, but they are threatning to sanction me if I don't.
Just what are they playing at?? :mad:0 -
And if it was we would all be doing it and we are not at all.The CAB also said this: If it is a directive I would have to do it.
I'm trying to find out where on the DWP guidelines does it say that I would have to give JC staff my UJM login details. I cannot find anything, but they are threatning to sanction me if I don't.
Just what are they playing at?? :mad:
No ask them to show you were it says that and have they informed YOU in writing.We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
You don't have to give them access. Demanding access would breach the Data Protection Act 1998.
From the DWP
"under current DWP policy, DWP advisers cannot require (through the issue of a Jobseeker’s Direction or any other means) claimants to grant access to their Universal Jobmatch account. Access to an account is purely on a consensual basis. "
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/giving_job_centre_acess_to_unive
They obviously have problems training their staff...0 -
orangeslimes wrote: »They obviously have problems training their staff...
Not necessarily, UJM has been clearly created with the intention of being a 'catch-all' system whether you agree to the JC having access or not. OK, you can reverse a sanction on appeal but they will shift the goalposts and use delaying tactics because some UJM activity is time-sensitive. What worries me is that I have encountered three security alerts in the last week connected with my UJM activity.
1. an attempt to access my email account that involved me being issued with a security code and changing my password. (I use a part-redundant email address just for job searching, I have a third for petitions etc that I know will generate spam, my main email address is pretty much private but I would change it without delay if there were problems.)
2. a flagged Trojan on an external link that may have been a residual line of command following a hack although the mystery remains as to why the employer effectively posted an erroneous link in the first place. (The job and employer was genuine and not all virus checkers flagged the Trojan leading me to the above research. It still is clunky of UJM not to guard against this kind of thing.)
3. after posting an application to yet another third party, my browser flagged the site as one connected with scams. (The object job was with Hays so I am guessing it was the third party site that was flagged although it is a bit late when the information has already gone.)
In a past life I worked in IT so I have enough knowledge to layer my home Internet connections so I am probably safe-ish. However, we all have our vulnerabilities and it is only a matter of time before there is a major security problem for somebody.0 -
What I meant is that staff at the job centre are in breach of the law (and their own policy) by asking someone to provide access and threatening a sanction if they do not. I suppose this is either because 1) they are badly trained and ignorant of this or 2) they don't care less about the law (or some combination of these)Nightranger wrote: »Not necessarily, UJM has been clearly created with the intention of being a 'catch-all' system whether you agree to the JC having access or not. OK, you can reverse a sanction on appeal but they will shift the goalposts and use delaying tactics because some UJM activity is time-sensitive. What worries me is that I have encountered three security alerts in the last week connected with my UJM activity.
It sounds as if there are a number of problems with the system. From what you describe I also wonder if the UJM might breach Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (I think this legislation as well as DP is part of the reason you don't have to give access) but the PECR regs cover various things including cookies and security.0 -
Seem to be people who spend half their life just trying to wind up the staff at the JC by asking stupid questions and banging on about what they can and cannot refuse to do.
I would have thought the energy could have been better spent in trying to find a job.0 -
Seem to be people who spend half their life just trying to wind up the staff at the JC by asking stupid questions and banging on about what they can and cannot refuse to do.
I would have thought the energy could have been better spent in trying to find a job.
...or in other words...some people spend far too much of their time spamming forums when we are all only here to try and put a bad system right. In all honesty, do you seriously think the serial dole-bludgers/professional idle spend time on here looking for excuses? Absolute and complete carp! There are loads of JC staff/DWP staff/bored toffs looking for arguments and a chance to create mischief out of frustration after a hard working day/week. Even some of the questions are so obviously traps meant to catch individuals who are already on the slippery chute. 'Which side are you on?'0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards