Mandated to use certain websites

I started this new post as I feel it is going off the thread of the topic.

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t3652-linking-periods-for-the-work-health-programme

"I am also being misled by my current roach and she isn't aware of it but I am monitoring her just as much as she is me. And you are correct MightyQunit, the journal is not a mandatory requirement to be used for work search that can be shown in any way the claimant likes as long is readable. I'd also question the frequency as haven't heard or seen anything that. By the way, there is another FOI out there saying its 'not mandatory for any claimants to use ANY social media websites to look for work.'Its just more bullshit ideology being used to bully claimants."


Linked to this@jobberpw I was always wondering this, about the Roach dictating to the claimant to use certain job-websites, such “Find a job” etc. Does anyone know can people be 'mandated' to use certain sites. As I have a discussions with a roach, about the websites I had been using for jobs and that they didn’t like them. And said I should use this and that site instead."    

Pintel, Do you have a link to the FOI you refer to, that you could post here?

FOIs disclosures are rarely straightforward and DWP often use them to reinforce its agenda and policies in ways that mask the actual options open to claimants.

Some thoughts on creating "an online profile" and social media sites https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/creating_and_maintaining_an_onli#comment-88558

Also the word "use", regarding websites is not the same as registering on a website, creating a profile/account or uploading a CV in the case of a jobs site.

For example I can use https://findajob.dwp.gov.uk/ (FAJ) as a search engine for an engineering job in Leeds https://findajob.dwp.gov.uk/search?q=Engineering&loc=84565
Find this vacancy
https://findajob.dwp.gov.uk/details/2863387
Click on above link and get taken to another site
https://sjobs.brassring.com
to apply there, all without a FAJ account/profile or CV uploaded.

FAJ tip: If you have an account (& concerned about privacy/data retention) you could use two differing browsers, one to conduct searches and identify if an FAJ account or not is required to apply for a specific Job. And then use another browser, for any FAJ only applications you wish to make. (assuming the job can't be found on another jobs site)

And an informal talk with a 'coach' about x is not the same as a sanction based requirement being properly notified to a claimant.

Creation of a claimant commitment, being an 'agreement', could inc actions and requirements, like using the Journal for work search records or sharing a CV and many claimants may not know they have the option to provide such "in a particular way" they choose [printed diary or use of own digital device] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/using_the_journal#comment-81230

If a 'coach' wishes to mandate x, they must communicate such in manner that sets out the action clearly, timing, and consequences, like for a Journal


purpose of journal entry (I need xxx from you)
action needed from claimant (you need to do xxx)
timing
consequences of the claimant not taking the action
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uc_journal_guidance_legislation#incoming-1363972

Resources:

Public Law Principles of Fairness
The ‘prior information requirement’

K1155 In the interests of fairness[1], therefore, claimants should be in no doubt of what is expected of them and the consequences of failing to comply with any requirement and be able to make meaningful representations to a decision maker before a decision is made.
[1] R (Reilly) v SSWP [2014] AC 453; R (Reilly 2) v SSWP [2016] ECWA Civ 413
Chapter K1: Sanctions – general principles
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/787445/admk1.pdf
Via www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-making-staff-guide

Primary reference: JB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): [2018] UKUT 360 (AAC)
“Universal credit – imposition of sanctions – notification of requirements”
https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/jb-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-uc-2018-ukut-360-aac view online https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2018/360.html

I don’t think there has been a FOI about this topic yet # MrFrankZola?

However, as you pointed out there is a push to get people to use the Universal Credit Journal, and therefore it seem they also want to direct people to use certain websites? Which I am not sure how legal that is competitions market. As I know someone to whom has recently had on their claimant commitment to use the FaJ site. So it seem like it is going back to the UJM days?

Your first question asks for clarification on whether or not claimants can be mandated to use the UC Journal:

Two FOI responses that state categorically that using the UC Journal, or loading one’s CV onto said Journal, is not mandatory:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/441782/response/1075951/attach/2/4639%20Reply.pdf

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/441724/response/1074650/attach/2/FOI%204637%20reply.pdf

A more recent FOI response describes a way around the legal position that work coaches may try to use to circumvent the legal position as set out above:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/602317/response/1429120/attach/2/FOI2019%2033136%20reply.pdf

Basically, coaches are being trained and encouraged here to circumvent the legal position by manipulating Claimant Commitments.

It is for claimants, therefore, to ensure that their CCs are scrupulously negotiated and formulated, leaving no opportunity for manipulation or misinterpretation.

Coaches are obliged by the terms of their contracts and the civil service code to behave and act within the law. Coaches cannot legally take it upon themselves to direct or mandate claimants to take a course of action that is in itself illegal. In this instance, the use claimant commitments to direct or mandate claimants to use UJ Journals is illegal unless the claimant agrees, accepts and authorises such a direction being included in his/her CC.

The section of the law that the recent response refers us to take it as read that coaches will only direct claimants to comply with any legal directions. There is no suggestion or implication that they would have carte blanche to direct claimants to undertake illegal ones.


Your second question asks for clarification on whether or not claimants can be mandated to use the Find a Job Service website:

One FOI response that states categorically that using the Find a Job Service, or loading one’s CV onto said Service, is not mandatory:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/484771/response/1169990/attach/2/FoI%202355%20reply.pdf

The same argument can be used to respond to any pressure or coercion to comply with a direction or attempted mandation to use the FaJ Service.

theres a few where the claiment can only show evidence

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/acceptable_uc_evidence#incoming-1256171

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/written_evidence_when_uc_claiman?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow

One point thou, in the DWP reply thou “, it must be one that is deemed to be suitable by the Work Coach”. Does anyone know to which sites the DWP define as suitable, as this could be up for debate or at least a FOI.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/484771/response/1169990/attach/2/FoI%202355%20reply.pdf

"However, UC claimants are asked to create an account and upload a Curriculum Vitae (CV) in Find a job or another jobsite when they make a new claim. If a claimant creates an account using a jobsite other than Find a job, it must be one that is deemed to be suitable by the Work Coach. Where a UC claimant has not created"


And secondly this isn’t this ‘pressure or coercion’ into using the FaJ site, as it seem the WC can define what is a suitable jobsite?  

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/525846/response/1256171/attach/html/3/Find%20a%20Job%20or%20other%20jobsites%20and%20Work%20Services%20Platform.pdf.html


“the WC may  mandate the claimant to create
an account and upload a CV in Find a job or if more appropriate, another jobsite by including it as a requirement on their Claimant Commitment.”

the afford mention is always MAY

One point under the GDPR could you ask for your account/CV to be removed from the FaJ site, the 'right to be forgotten' clause. If you register with another suitable job site?

There is no law or regulation or part of law or regulation that gives DWP or its employees or agents any legal authority to determine which specific site or agency a claimant chooses to use or not use. They have discretion to decide for themselves. The same applies to the choice of how to present evidence of their job-seeking activities. This applies to FaJ, UC Journal, or any other.

It is not for the coach to decide or determine what is suitable or appropriate for the claimant. Such decisions or determinations should be agreed and accepted by mutual consent and set out in a CC.

This does not mean that some claimants may not seek or require help to decide on appropriate or suitable sites for them in their particular circumstances, in which case they are free to ask for and/or be guided by work coaches.

The operative watchword is that compulsion or mandation is illegal.

Pintel wrote:One point under the GDPR could you ask for your account/CV to be removed from the FaJ site, the 'right to be forgotten' clause. If you register with another suitable job site?  

Yes you can ask and yes your request should be granted.

"Specifically, the account activity history records when you have accessed the service and closed the account. We retain end-user account activity history for 14 months, including on deletion of an account, to protect the interests of individual end-users and the service as a whole, rather than viewing the job seeker data for the purpose of benefit claim administration."

"Right to erasure

You can erase your Personal Data at any time. If you receive email alerts, you can delete these within your account or from the link within the emails. If you have an account with a password you can individually delete any CV(s) you may have uploaded by going to the 'Your CV's' section of your account. You can also delete your entire Find a job account from the ‘Manage Account’ section here."
https://findajob.dwp.gov.uk/privacy.html

"Forgot your password?"
https://findajob.dwp.gov.uk/sign-in

"I'm a Jobseeker and I need help with my account"
https://findajob.dwp.gov.uk/contact-us

Some thoughts on creating "an online profile" and social media sites
17 Work search requirement..
(c) creating and maintaining an online profile
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/enacted
>
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/creating_and_maintaining_an_onli#comment-88558

SSAC Occasional Paper 21: The effectiveness of the Claimant Commitment in Universal Credit
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ssac-occasional-paper-21-the-effectiveness-of-the-claimant-commitment-in-universal-credit

"A tailored commitment is an agreement between you and the work coach that is based on your individual situation...
all reasonable actions to find paid work or increase your earnings from work"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-you/universal-credit-and-you-a
> https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t663-you-must-use-a-universal-credit-journal#11251

All my comments on this assume we are talking about UC

UCRegs2013

Work search requirement - all reasonable action

95.—(1) (a) (ii)
despite the number of hours that the claimant spends taking such action being lower than the expected number of hours

(b) gives the claimant the best prospects of obtaining work
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/made

This thread is meant to be about “Mandated to use certain websites”

Pintel seeks clarification in particular about the right of work coaches to mandate claimants to use the FaJ Service and UC Journal sites to provide evidence of work-related requirements or activities.

In addition to the links I have already posted, I invite members to check out, read, understand and grasp the following link:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/590821/response/1404960/attach/2/FOI2019%2026888%20Reply.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

I have reproduced the contents of the link just in case there should be any confusion or doubt about exactly what I am trying to convey:

DWP Policy Group Freedom of Information Team
e-mail: freedom-of-informationrequest@dwp.gov.uk
Our Ref: FOI2019/26888
  25 July 2019

Dear Frank Zola,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FoI) request received on 19 July. You asked:  
Please provide precise details of the legislation and regulations and sections thereof that explicitly state and mention the Universal Credit Journal and that state use of the Journal by a claimant is an entitlement condition of Universal Credit enshrined in legislation and regulation.

DWP Response:

I confirm that we do not hold the recorded information to respond to your request.
However, to be helpful and to provide context in this situation the following information has been provided outside of our requirements under the FOI Act.  

DWP has been clear that there is no specific information or legal requirements that compels all Universal Credit claimants, in every case, to use the journal. However some claimants can have a requirement set, to provide information and evidence as part of their work-related requirement for claiming Universal Credit. This requirement can be set by a Work coach under Section 23 of the Welfare Reforms Act 2012, Chapter 2 but it does not compel this evidence to be supplied in a particular way, only that it must be supplied if and when requested.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely,  
DWP Policy Group FoI Team


The astute reader will notice that none other than Frank Zola himself sent in this particular FOI request. It is not the only one sent in by himself and others on the subject and on many other subjects over several years. In fact, there are few, if any, who have made more FOI requests to the DWP than Frank.

Over the years I have had cause, on more than one occasion, to rely on FOI responses initiated by Frank to support my arguments or stances with coaches and my case before tribunals. For that reason, I sometimes despair when he, himself, appears to dismiss the responses he receives and attempts to replaces them with interpretations of the legal position that even the DWP itself would baulk at pressing on anyone.

Anyway, let’s try and analyse what this FOI response tells us:

“DWP has been clear that there is no specific information or legal requirements that compels all Universal Credit claimants, in every case, to use the journal“.
Typically for the DWP this statement is sufficiently vague enough so as to suggest that some UC claimants may be legally required to use the journal in some cases.

Who are those UC claimants that may be legally required to use the journal, and in what cases? I have been unable to find examples or instances anywhere.

Frank himself has acknowledged earlier on in this thread that; “FOIs disclosures are rarely straightforward and DWP often use them to reinforce its agenda and policies in ways that mask the actual options open to claimants”. I would submit that this statement is a prime example of such masking, misleading deceptions even.

It might inform the discussion if a response could be had to the question; “Which UC claimants may be legally required or mandated to use the UC journal, and in what cases?

The response goes on:

“However some claimants can have a requirement set, to provide information and evidence as part of their work-related requirement for claiming Universal Credit. This requirement can be set by a Work coach under Section 23 of the Welfare Reforms Act 2012, Chapter 2 but it does not compel this evidence to be supplied in a particular way, only that it must be supplied if and when requested”.
Untypically for the DWP this statement could not be clearer. I would be confident in relying on this statement to support a claim at any hearing or tribunal that using the UJ journal to present evidence is not mandatory, therefore insisting or making it mandatory is illegal.

Now then, let’s look at Chapter 2, Section 23, of the Welfare Reforms Act 2012. We should concentrate on what the law intends in this sub-section and not the interpretation that the DWP is attempting to give it in FOI responses.

Section 23 comes under the headings; Work-related requirements:   supplementary   Connected requirements

(1)The Secretary of State may require a claimant to participate in an interview for any purpose relating to—
(a)the imposition of a work-related requirement on the claimant;
(b)verifying the claimant’s compliance with a work-related requirement;
(c)assisting the claimant to comply with a work-related requirement.
Self-explanatory really, just to emphasise the terms ‘participate in an interview’ and ‘work-related require-ment’ and ask that the reader bear them in mind as s/he reads on.

(2)The Secretary of State may specify how, when and where such an interview is to take place.
Again self-explanatory, just to point out the mention of ‘interview’ here again.

(3)The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of verifying the claimant’s compliance with a work-related requirement, require a claimant to—
(a)provide to the Secretary of State information and evidence specified by the Secretary of State in a manner so specified;
(b)confirm compliance in a manner so specified.
I think this sub-section is the spanner in the works as far as the topic under discussion is concerned. We were doing well up to this. It’s easy to see how a cursory glance at this sub-section in isolation, without due regard to its implications and significance in the context of the rest of the Section, could lead the reader to the con-clusion that claimants may be mandated by a coach to use the UJ Journal, or FaJ, for that matter.

(4)The Secretary of State may require a claimant to report to the Secretary of State any specified changes in their circumstances which are relevant to—
(a)the imposition of work-related requirements on the claimant;
(b)the claimant’s compliance with a work-related requirement.
That the Secretary of State may require a claimant to report to the Secretary of State any specified changes in their circumstances is understood, accepted and requires no further scrutiny.

I hope the reader will recall that I emphasised the term ‘participate in an interview’ and ‘work-related re-quirement’ and asked the reader to bear them in mind.

The imposition of work-related requirements on the claimant, and the claimant’s compliance with a work-related requirement are put to the claimant in the course of an interview. An interview by definition is where the claimant participates, interaction and discussion takes place. That is what Section 23 says. If they are put to the claimant in any other form then the whole of Section 23 is inapplicable and even the semblance of a reliance on it by the DWP would be nullified.

The claimant, if s/he has agreed a Claimant Commitment that exempts him/her from using the UJ Journal, which is a legitimate right, is well placed in an interview scenario to inform a coach to his face that what s/he is being mandated to do is illegal because s/he does not, by agreement and legitimately, us the UC Journal. The claimant who declines this opportunity deserves everything s/he gets.

A practical example of all this would be where a coach, in the course of an interview, might try to mandate a claimant whose CC exempts him/her from using the UC Journal to post his/her CV on it. What claimant would remain silent in such a scenario?

Pintel wrote:I started this new post as I feel it is going off the thread of the topic.

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t3652-linking-periods-for-the-work-health-programme

"I am also being misled by my current roach and she isn't aware of it but I am monitoring her just as much as she is me. And you are correct MightyQunit, the journal is not a mandatory requirement to be used for work search that can be shown in any way the claimant likes as long is readable. I'd also question the frequency as haven't heard or seen anything that. By the way, there is another FOI out there saying its 'not mandatory for any claimants to use ANY social media websites to look for work.'Its just more bullshit ideology being used to bully claimants."


Linked to this@jobberpw I was always wondering this, about the Roach dictating to the claimant to use certain job-websites, such “Find a job” etc. Does anyone know can people be 'mandated' to use certain sites. As I have a discussions with a roach, about the websites I had been using for jobs and that they didn’t like them. And said I should use this and that site instead."    

"As I have a discussions with a roach, about the websites I had been using for jobs and that they didn’t like them. And said I should use this and that site instead."

Are any websites mentioned on the CC?

What sites does the 'coach' suggest?

The 'coach' " said I should use this and that site instead." - is this a verbal request only?

Are we talking about JSA or UC?

If poss can you quote from your CC, the bit that relates to websites (whilst not disclosing info that cold identify you)

The only online ref in legislation is:

RE: "17 Work search requirement..
(c) creating and maintaining an online profile;"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012...

Word "an" to mean singular "profile"?

Above legislation does not specify location of profile or mention any specific website and
if "an" only concerns 'a profile' (singular), then if a claimant already has an (a)
online profile for work search purposes then is Section 17(c) condition met?

Would understand any other sites on a CC would have to be mutually 'agreed' between a 'coach' and claimant and for such to be reasonable. There is scope to have a CC reviewed https://universalcreditinfo.net/

Does anyone have a CC that does not mention the Journal? Or had a CC reviewed/altered which resulted in all references to a Journal being removed? Noting:

"Every claimant’s claimant commitment says “I’ll sign in to my online account often to complete
activities in my to-do list and report changes of circumstances promptly.”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/590965/response/1408247/attach/html/2/FOI2019%2026979%20reply.pdf.html

Would suggest a new thread focus on the Journal,as likely to get lost under this thread topic 'Mandated to use certain websites'. That said, worth remembering the UC Journal contains the UC account history and is not only used to send and receive messages.

With regards " social media websites", twitter, facebook, linkedin are based in the USA and as such doubt the DWP can use a CC to mandate such via inclusion in a CC, when a claimant does not 'agree', as would engage the GDPR/Data Protection Act, as personal data would be processed in the USA. Any formal DWP complaint could be followed up with a complaint to the Information Commissioner (ICO). ICO data protection complaint follow ups are often far more powerful than FOI replies, like this https://mrfrankzola.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/ico-forces-dwp-to-require-claimant-consent-opt-in-before-esa65b-fit-note-letters-can-be-sent-to-gps/ and https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewreply/70328/

On

"Anyway, let’s try and analyse what this FOI response tells us:

“DWP has been clear that there is no specific information or legal requirements that compels all Universal Credit claimants, in every case, to use the journal“.
Typically for the DWP this statement is sufficiently vague enough so as to suggest that some UC claimants may be legally required to use the journal in some cases.

Who are those UC claimants that may be legally required to use the journal, and in what cases? I have been unable to find examples or instances anywhere."

Simplest example would be when a claimant has agreed to such on their UC CC, just like many have 'agreed' on their CC to provide their work search evidence and their CV via the UC Journal.

Many FOIs stress on what is 'agreed' on 'case by case' basis in a CC.

Linchpin is the CC and what options and info a claimant has to influence its creation or review.

I do not have simple answers to these issues. (journal use and websites in a CC)  When in my mind I can be clear, I put such thoughts on mrfrankzola.wordpress.com A forum by definition is for discussion and disagreement and if anything puts claimants at risk of sanctions or increased conditionality my interpretations will be cautious when posted on forums which often contain competing opinions and often flowing from claimant circumstances that are unclear. Often unclear as a more personal and confidential discussion and disclosure is needed and sometimes independent advice agency support.

As said elsewhere on the forum, many claimants find FOI and associated comments on legislation or lack of legislation too complex to make use of, so I do try to secure info that says what options exist in as plain/er English as possible. I like DWP FOI replies as they can be good at getting the DWP to live up to its own rules, but it is an art to get the DWP to give the info one is seeking. There are also resources like https://universalcreditinfo.net/ but my FOI focus is on areas of DWP policy that more traditional advice agencies and welfare rights workers do not cover.

MrFrankZola wrote:
Does anyone have a CC that does not mention the Journal? Or had a CC reviewed/altered which resulted in all references to a Journal being removed? Noting:

"Every claimant’s claimant commitment says “I’ll sign in to my online account often to complete
activities in my to-do list and report changes of circumstances promptly.”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/590965/response/1408247/attach/html/2/FOI2019%2026979%20reply.pdf.html

Would suggest a new thread focus on the Journal,as likely to get lost under this thread topic 'Mandated to use certain websites'. That said, worth remembering the UC Journal contains the UC account history and is not only used to send and receive messages.

To avoid risk of going off-topic here I have responded to this point at:

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t663-you-must-use-a-universal-credit-journal

I did find this FOI (30/07/18), courtesy of Mr Zola   . As Mr Zola is not a machine one couldn't possible expect him to remember all of the FOI he has posted.
 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jobsites_deemed_inapropriate_by

Pintel wrote:I did find this FOI (30/07/18), courtesy of Mr Zola   . As Mr Zola is not a machine one couldn't possible expect him to remember all of the FOI he has posted.
 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jobsites_deemed_inapropriate_by

Would you say that the gist of that response is that DWP says they can't mandate claimants to sign up to any particular website?

Do you think that this is a satisfactory answer to your original post