Found job on work programme - Can they take credit?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Any incentive scheme will be fiddled especially with such weak checks and balances and bucket loads of cash being handed out.

slenderkitten

i had a similar situation nearly a year ago. I had only ONE telephone appointment which was to answer a question nothing to do about the work programme. A long story i wont go into.. They kept writing to me to book telephone appointment after i started the job, i later called them back to say that i do not wish any communication and i refused to sign any further letters other than the one i initially signed when i was referred. Whether they got the bonus for it i dont know but i did not tell them where i worked.

It was really annoying that they kept calling me, after all i'm at work i do not need any support, just wanted to be left alone.

MissMoneypenny

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Any incentive scheme will be fiddled especially with such weak checks and balances and bucket loads of cash being handed out.

Because the poor taxpayers are fed up with having to keep funding the government created, non-jobs.

MissMoneypenny

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Any incentive scheme will be fiddled especially with such weak checks and balances and bucket loads of cash being handed out.

Especially as they expected the DWP to handle the work programmes! You would think that successive governments' would have realised by now that the DWP is not well organised and couldn't even organise a pi$$ up in a brewery.

http://www.channel4.com/news/dwp-rapped-for-its-handling-of-work-programme-fraud

"The public spending watchdog criticises a government department for its handling of private companies whose fraudulent practices cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, writes Jackie Long.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been criticised for not doing enough to stop fraud by private companies running welfare to work programmes for the government.

In a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) it was revealed that more than £770,000 worth of fraud had been identified in a variety of welfare to work programmes going back to 2006."

"The report said: "The Department (the DWP) did not do enough to quantify and address the fraud risks in the design of New Deal and other legacy programmes."

"The NAO said it was impossible for people going through the programme to know whether they are getting the sort of service they should because there are no clear standards set out.

And in perhaps one of its most damaging sections, the NAO said the department could not even assess the quality of service these crucial providers are delivering. It raises important questions about how the work programme is operating.

The government's plan was always to give providers the right to approach getting people back to work in their own way. Payment by results would mean if they fail they simply did not get paid."

My bold and underlining.

It seems it is meant to be a 'No win, no fee' but then they expected a government department that already has a bad reputation for running it's own department, to oversee the programmes.

A better system would be to reduce benefits and lower taxes.

Morlock

mro wrote: »

Did you give consent, sign a consent form when you started WP, for them to contact you & employers if you get a job ?

If you did, you can withdraw this.

It is no longer necessary for Work Programme providers to obtain employees' consent to contact employers since the DWP obtained a Designation Order:

"Claimant Consent

Written and Informed Consent via Designation Order

14.Providers will need to present all new participants and those participants who have previously not provided/withdrawn consent (prior to or at the point of a claim being made) with a Fair Processing Notice explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. See Annex 3.

15.The designation order in place allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the employee without requiring the consent from customers.

16.There is no longer a requirement for you to have customer consent to contact a customer’s employer in connection with you gathering evidence to support Job or Sustained Job Outcomes.

17.You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/302633/pg-chapter-5.pdf

If a WP participant has previously withheld or withdrawn consent before the Designation Order was enforced, the WP provider will be acting unlawfully if they contact the participants employer without first issuing a Fair Processing Notice.

Not providing employer details may prevent any contact, but if they find out those details using other means, they can contact the employer without the participant's consent.

sja75

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Why care if they do or don't.

Are you saying that you don't care about a WP provider fraudulently claiming bonus they aren't entitled?

If so I find that odd considering your occupation, you pursue HB fraud...

Elvisia

I had horrendous problems with the WP when I signed off. I was with SEETEC (I have posted up in here in the past for advice on how to get them off my back) and after 2 weeks of being on the WP I decided to sign off. I hadn't given them written consent because as far as I was aware I hadn't signed anything, I simply sent my booklet back to the JCP without giving a reason to sign off. I was hassled for 1.5 years by the WP, they constantly rang me up (including their someone from their head office several times who said I was 'in trouble' for not telling them who my employer was), then they started to ring up my mother - I can only assume they got her number from the 'emergency contact' section I filled in on my first day as I didn't give them her home number. They rang her very early in the morning on several occasions and she was convinced the government were going to arrest me as they were suggesting to her what I was doing was illegal. They told her it was in my best interests to tell them I had a job. They told her all the details of my claim, when I complained to the woman who had rung her she just said "what did I say? what did I say?" but my mother told me exactly what they'd said, which was to tell her everything about my JSA and my situation with the WP. She had information only the WP would have known.

After getting nowhere with getting them to stop harrassing me I got my MP to write to them - after he sent them a letter telling them to stop harrassing me their head office rang to say they would do if I told them I was in work; they accused me of lying as they said I couldn't be supporting myself without having a job, it went on and on. When I asked them when they'd stop calling they said it would be 2 years.

I ended up getting a new mobile phone, but when they call your parents at home when they're still in bed it's very hard to ignore them. I just couldn't believe how vile they were being, blatantly lying and telling me it was ME who was committing fraud by not giving them this information.

So if you do sign off without telling them you got a job be prepared for the hassle! And don't tell them you have a job as I read somewhere they get about 13k. I am my Dad's carer now and I get Carer's Allowance for him, so there's not even any work for me to declare.

mro

Morlock wrote: »

It is no longer necessary for Work Programme providers to obtain employees' consent to contact employers since the DWP obtained a Designation Order:

"Claimant Consent

Written and Informed Consent via Designation Order

14.Providers will need to present all new participants and those participants who have previously not provided/withdrawn consent (prior to or at the point of a claim being made) with a Fair Processing Notice explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. See Annex 3.

15.The designation order in place allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the employee without requiring the consent from customers.

16.There is no longer a requirement for you to have customer consent to contact a customer’s employer in connection with you gathering evidence to support Job or Sustained Job Outcomes.

17.You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/302633/pg-chapter-5.pdf

If a WP participant has previously withheld or withdrawn consent before the Designation Order was enforced, the WP provider will be acting unlawfully if they contact the participants employer without first issuing a Fair Processing Notice.

Not providing employer details may prevent any contact, but if they find out those details using other means, they can contact the employer without the participant's consent.

That's interesting, they've obviously revised to get round the Consent issue.

Is that a recent change ?

So what's this all about, Designation Order & Fair Processing Notice, what legally is a designation order, haven't heard of those before ?

Even more reason, not to to tell both WP providers & Jobcentre/DWP where you are working, or do they have way around that ?
.

osdset

Seetec are scum, no two ways about it. I have a recording of one of their managers screaming at an ESA claimant accusing him of being a workshy lazy !!!!!!, who is full of bovine exrement, because the claimant refused (legitimately) to apply for work.