Work and Health Program

by Ginger Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:33 pm

Hi, would greatly appreciate if someone will give me an advice.
During last signing my work coach told me that she is referring me to the WHP. I've been claiming JSA for more than 2 years. I know that after 2 years you can be mandated to take part in the program, but she didn't give me any letters that say it is mandatory. Few days later I received a letter from the provider for the initial appointment. Nothing was mentioned about this being mandatory. Although it did say that if I don't attend JC will be informed. It also states that I have to bring proof of identity so that they can confirm I am eligible to work and live in the uk.
I am wondering, do I have to attend this initial appointment or not. And if I need to bring my passport which I guess they would want to photocopy. If I don't attend on the basis of not having mandatory letter I suspect they might say that it was sent to me
Thank you for the help.

by Absolut Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:54 am

You should have received a notification stating that you are now mandated to attend under penalty of a sanction if you do not comply. I recommend that you contact your work coach and ask for that paperwork to be issued to you immediately.

by Pintel Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:16 am

Hi @Ginger, and welcome to the forum. It seems you are not the only one to who is not being officially mandated to the WHP. pale

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t4213-has-anybody-been-on-the-work-and-health-programme

by Caker Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:39 pm

Hi Ginger, I would strongly recommend that you do not provide details of identity other than the letter that you were sent. The WHP provider has no business to verify your rights to work or live in the UK. You have no obligation to verify yourself with the provider as they are not your employer.

Further, the WHP provider will be paid for your referral to them, so they will not send you away if refuse to provide ID.

by Committed Claimant Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:49 pm

Hello Ginger and welcome to the Respectful Benefit Forum.

The way the Jobcentre coach has referred you, as you describe it, is in breach of their own referral procedures.

If you decide to dispute the coach’s decision the first move should be to write to the manager of your Jobcentre asking for a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) of the decision to refer you.

Read the posts in the link that Pintel has posted above and also check out the links in those posts. It should give you a pretty good idea of what’s involved.

You have not said when the interview you are being invited to is to take place. Do you have time to work out a strategy? It would help if you could say whether you are on Universal Credit or still on the old Jobseekers Allowance.

If you would like help compiling you MR letter you might give the date that the coach first mentioned the referral to you and the date on the letter from the provider.

As many details of the conversation that passed between the coach and yourself would also be helpful. Did the coach give any details of the programme and how it would be appropriate in your circumstances? Did you give reasons, if any, that you think the programme is not appropriate for you? Did you agree or accept the referral there and then?

In the meantime, under no circumstances should you make any contact with the provider. Ignore the letter totally as if you haven’t received it. Your coach has also broken the law by passing your personal details to that provider without your consent.

Don’t hesitate to ask for clarification or help on any point. Time will be of the essence.

by Gallazz Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:09 pm

Ginger,

It sounds like your referral to the WHP is voluntary, as the vast majority seem to be. You should always receive official notification of mandatory activities, as Absolut says. If you haven't received this notificaiton, my understanding is that any sanctions for noncompliance would be unlawful. DWP have two different referral letters for WHP referrals. Your not getting one suggests that your referral was voluntary, but your work coach hoped that you'd assume otherwise.

NonDeficere2's post at the end of this thread is particularly useful:

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t4213-has-anybody-been-on-the-work-and-health-programme

ND seems to be saying that if your referral was voluntary, you can't be sanctioned for missing the initial provider appointment or deciding you don't want to join the WHP.

I would do as Absolut suggests, although I highly doubt the referral was mandatory.

by Guest Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:05 pm

Work Coach operational policy guidance for the Work and Health Programme (WHP)

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/work_coach_operational_policy_gu#incoming-1328776

DWP has already checked that you're entitled to work in the UK when you made your claim.

Please let us know how you get on Ginger.

by Ginger Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:52 am

I am on JSA, have been claiming it for more than 2 years. Had my usual 10 minutes signing appointment on Monday. Was told straight away by work coach that have to go to a new program in partnership with reed that will help me get back to work and provide intensive individual support. No information leaflets were provided. Work coach didn't give any paperwork but said that she will send me a letter today(Monday). Nothing was mentioned about the program being mandatory. Tried to argue that I've already been on a similar Work program before and it wasn't of any help. She also suggested ( not for the first time ) that I should move on to UC so she can help me by sending latest job vacancies. On Wednesday received a letter from the provider to attend initial appointment next week on Friday. I guess it is best as Absolut said to call work coach on Monday and ask for a mandatory notification. Suppose the letter could've got lost but knowing her suspect it was never sent out and could be backdated if I don't attend. Don't want to get sanctioned for not attending and at the same time don't need a two year torture. Probably will be mandated on a program sooner or later anyway as a long term unemployed claimant.

by Guest Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:09 am

A W&HP mandatory notice can only be issued if you are you eligible and the WC has completed the random assessment selection tool. Your interview only lasted 10 mins !!! Rolling Eyes

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/461555/response/1118126/attach/2/FoI%20439%20Reply.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Further…

Selection for and participation in a relevant scheme Selection for participation

34865 The Secretary of State may select a claimant for participation in a scheme described in relevant legislation1.
Note 1: The meaning of claimant means a person who claims a JSA2.
Note 2: The work coach will select claimants for a SAPOE scheme following the eligibility criteria detailed in the policy and operational instructions for the individual scheme (also see DMG 34869).
Note 3: The ‘prior information requirement’3 (see DMG 34033) may be relevant to whether a claimant has been validly selected and referred to a relevant scheme. The Secretary of State has to be able to show that relevant DWP operational guidance has been considered before a claimant is referred to a scheme in the interests of fairness to allow the claimant to make representations regarding their suitability for the scheme (also see guidance at DMG 34871). The onus is then on the claimant to establish that any representations would have changed the decision to refer the claimant to the relevant scheme.
Note 4: Even though the ‘prior information requirement’ means claimants should have the relevant information about a scheme prior to referral to a scheme, there is no obligation to allow claimants to negotiate and decide which scheme they participate in.
1 JSA (SAPOE) Regs, reg 4(1) & reg 3(1); 2 reg 2(1); 3 SSWP v Reilly and Hewstone and SSWP v Jeffrey and Bevan [2016] EWCA Civ 41

Requirement to participate and notification

34866 Claimants who are selected to participate in a relevant scheme have to be notified of this in a written notice1 which specifies
1. that the claimant is required to participate in the scheme2
2.the day on which the claimant’s participation will start3
3. the details of what the claimant is required to do by way of participation4
4.that the claimant is required to participate until
4.1 notice is given by the Secretary of State that participation is no longer required or
4.2 the award of JSA ends whichever is earlier5
5.information about the consequences of failing to participate in the relevant scheme6 .

Note 1: Any changes to the details at 3. (ie: details of what the claimant is required to do by way of participation) after the date the claimant starts participating in a relevant scheme must be notified to the claimant in writing7. Note 2: Where the written notice is given by post it is taken to have been received on the second working day after posting8.
Note 3: Also see guidance on the ‘prior information requirement’ at DMG 34033. The claimant has to fully understand what is required of them, by when and the consequences (i.e. sanctions) of failing to participate.

1 JSA (SAPOE) Regs, reg 5(1); 2 reg 5(2)(a); 3 reg 5(2)(b); 4 reg 5(2)(c); 5 reg 5(2)(d); 6 reg 5(2)(e); 7 reg 5(3); 8 reg 2(2)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/847952/dmgch34.pdf

by Committed Claimant Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:51 pm

Thanks for the additional info Ginger.

The situation so far;

You have not had any further letter or communication from the Jobcentre. To all intents and purposes, you are still awaiting such.

You did get a letter from Reed, unsolicited, and instigated as a result of a breach of privacy laws by JCP.

I would suggest that you ignore the letter from Reed as if you hadn’t received it, as far as anyone but you are aware, you haven’t. I would also not make any contact at all with them and give the appointment they have fixed for you a miss.

As far as JCP is concerned they will be informed by Reed when you don’t show up at their appointment. That will be the first indication that they will have of what’s occurring, or not occurring. JCP will then contact you seeking an explanation and invite you to come and see them. If they attempt to coerce you during the call insist on coming in to see them face to face. Inform them that you have a formal letter ready explaining all to the manager. No need for you to call JCP for now, it will merely complicate the issue. When they hear from Reed they won’t know why you didn’t attend, no point making them aware in advance.

I have attached here a draft copy of a formal letter that will serve as your request for MR as well as a formal complaint of maladministration:

The Manager [Name if Known]
Your Local Jobcentre
Date

Subject: Selection and procedural inconsistencies in WHP referral process – Maladministration.

Be so good as to accept this letter as a formal request for a review and/or mandatory reconsideration of the decision to refer/enlist me onto the Work & Health Programme. This matter was raised with me at a routine signing on appointment on [Date] by one of your subordinates, [Coach Name], who has been passing herself off to me as my personal adviser and work coach.

During the ten minute appointment exchanges were necessarily brief. No serious attempt at an explanation of what the Programme involved was given nor was any indication of how it would benefit me. No serious attempt was made either to address some of the issues I raised. I was further pressured, not for the first time, to move my claim from Jobseekers Allowance to Universal Credit. Not only was this likewise an inappropriate venue but I regard such continuous pressure as unnecessary harassment.

I would ordinarily be thankful for any constructive assistance in finding satisfactory and gainful employment and constructive suggestions to advance the prospect would be gratefully received and acted upon. Neither the coach, nor your office, gave me any indication of dissatisfaction with my efforts to obtain secure and legitimate employment prior to the notification of the decision unilaterally taken by the coach and conveyed to me during a routine signing on appointment on the date mentioned.

I appreciate the many challenges faced by unemployed claimants when trying to secure gainful employment and the difficulties this presents for coaches ostensibly trained and obliged to help them. However, I find it difficult to accept that coaches who, according to their job description, obliges them to help claimants, should throw in the towel, accept and admit failure, and fob me, and their obligations, off on some private sector provider seeking to profit from my predicament with little or no interest in my personal circumstances. Furthermore, it should be a cause of concern that coaches are apparently at liberty to flout the law and their contractual obligations in this way with the full support, encouragement, instruction even, of their superiors.

I left this meeting having been given the impression that I would be formally invited to attend a WHP referral interview with the coach. It came as something of a surprise therefore that instead of receiving a formal invitation to attend a referral appointment with the coach I received, two days later, what can only be regarded as a summons from Reed, the programme provider, to attend an initial interview at their premises.

So, I ask again that the Jobcentre coach, and you as the responsible manager, honour the procedural obligations placed on JCP by the WHP referral documentation, which states categorically that the first stage of the referral process is a formal written invitation to an initial referral interview where the Programme is explained to me and how, in the opinion of the coach, it would benefit me in my individual circumstances. Only then, and having considered it and given my consent, would my personal and private details be passed on to external Providers.

Be so good also as to regard this letter as formal notification of a complaint of maladministration by said coach, and your office, as you appear to condone those activities by your subordinates that are blatantly and unashamedly in contravention of stated DWP Policy, the Civil Service Code of Conduct, their, and your, contractual and accepted job description, privacy and information disclosure legislation and human rights. I expect you to act on this complaint as your contractual obligations require of you, fully and promptly, and that you keep me apprised of any corrective action undertaken.

Applying pressure, including the threats further actions, punitive actions or sanctions, is out of order, illegal even. It amounts to harassment, which as you ought to know, is a criminal offence, actionable at law, as is disclosure of personal information to third parties without consent.

Be assured that I will take the matter as far as the complaints process and the law permits until I get a satisfactory outcome.

Yours sincerely,

Feel free to add or subtract from it as you see fit.

by Guest Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:30 pm

This case brings to mind a member of another forum who was told s/he had to attend a mandatory group information session, which was not true.

The person made a complaint and escalated it to ICE and the Ombudsman.

PHSO determined that is was ok providing there was no harm and the purpose of the referral was to help the claimant.

In Ginger's case a voluntary referral has been made and the WC said she would send the notification in the post.

Procedure has not been followed correctly, so an error has occurred and an apology is in order.

A complaint to I.C.O. may be appropriate if no consent was provided.

by Committed Claimant Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:31 am

Non-Deficere2

If a claimant disputes or seeks to challenge a work coach decision s/he should in the first instance ask for a mandatory reconsideration of the decision.

This from a link that you provided yourself on another member’s thread:

If you don't agree with the outcome of a decision made by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about your claim, you can challenge it.

To do this, you need to ask the DWP or HMRC to look at their decision again - this is called asking for a 'mandatory reconsideration'.

If you think the decision is wrong, you can ask for a mandatory reconsideration for any reason.

And:

Challenging the decision is a separate process to complaining, but you can do both at the same time.

Here I am trying to do both.

And:

Mandatory reconsiderations and appeals are different

We can’t treat a complaint as a challenge to a benefit decision (a request for ‘mandatory reconsideration’) or an appeal against a benefit decision, overpayment decision, child maintenance assessment or sanction.

Read about how to request a mandatory reconsideration of a benefits decision.

You can’t appeal to the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal about a benefits decision until you get a response to your mandatory reconsideration request. This is called a ‘mandatory reconsideration notice’. You can appeal to the tribunal if you think the decision in the mandatory reconsideration notice is wrong.

Basically, what all this means is that before you seek to involve any other body or organisation you need to have worked through the mandatory reconsideration processes of JCP/DWP. Once this has been done, or if you are being hampered in the processes, and if you still disagree then by all means take your dispute further and involve all the avenues at your disposal.

By the way, Ginger has not made any reference to being told that the referral was ‘voluntary’, nor that it was ‘mandatory’ for that matter. All the emphasis on those terms have been introduced by others. In fact, he states categorically that no mention was made of the referral being mandatory at all. This failure on the part of JCP to clarify and ensure that the circumstances and consequences of the referral are understood is the whole basis of the justifiable charge of maladministration.

Let the opposition haggle over and define those terms. It is not for our side to interpret them and their consequences for the referral process to JCP. At this stage they cloud the issue and concentrating on them unduly could do more to prejudice our case than help it. Time enough to concentrate on them when JCP decide which one applies and what its implications, both positive and negative, are.

In the recent thread referred to above, if you recall, the claimant wrote a formal letter of complaint to a DWP District Manager about 3 weeks after his coach wrongfully referred him. Loads of warnings of legal actions and threats of dire consequences unless his complaints were acknowledged and sorted out.

Response from District Manager there was none.

Instead he received a message 3 days later via his online journal from his local jobcentre telling him that they were trying to contact him. This won’t look good at any subsequent hearing.

When he finally spoke to a manager, presumably from his Jobcentre, most of what was claimed to have been said before was contradicted or denied by said manager. He was swiftly and, it would appear, effortlessly persuaded to agree/accept the referral onto the programme.

What of the formal complaint letter to the District Manager, the charges of maladministration, fraud, breach of the Civil Service Code of Conduct, immense stress and mistrust of the JC official?

What of the suggested resolution, an apology, a change in process/procedure, financial redress and a change of work coach?

What of the formal FOI request for all relevant internal policy and legislation used and applied in the case?

What about a written reply within 15 days?

Not a peep. All apparently totally disregarded and ignored by JCP/DWP and all forgiven and forgotten by the claimant who accepts his fate without a whimper. The other sad consequence is that JCP and Reed can now feel confident in imposing whatever conditions they like on him and call his bluff at the least sign of dissent or even if he looks them in the eye in any way challenging or questioningly.

An important point to remember when mounting a challenge is that the proper procedures be followed and the laws that one builds one’s case on are clearly and indisputably iterated and seen to be on one’s side. One should also be prepared to go through with it, if one’s heart isn’t in it from the outset one shouldn’t bother.

We have the weapons, we have the ammunition, but the most crucial and daunting role in this drama is the steadfastness of the challenger, who is in the actual position to aim true and fire.

by Ginger Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:40 am

Huge thank you everyone for your advice.
I am planning not to attend the initial assessment meeting and preparing a letter drafted by Committed Claimant(thank you).
Yesterday I've met an acquaintance who happens to be in almost identical situation. Last week during her normal signing was told by her WC that she has to attend WHP, given a very brief description of it involves. She tried to argue that it wouldn't be of use to her but the WC told he can't do anything because she was randomly selected and she has no choice. No documents were signed or given but was told a letter would be sent to her. It was last week on Friday, no letter from the JC received so far. On Monday received two voice messages from the provider asking to call back for a five minute chat. Phone number of the provider was visible. She ignored and didn't call back. Next day received a letter from the provider for initial assessment next week on Wednesday. Not a word about the assessment being mandatory only that JC will be informed if she fails to attend. She is a long term unemployed single parent receiving JSA, very scared of being sanctioned, loosing her money. She is especially concerned about housing benefit. Will it be stopped if sanctioned? She is absolutely unsure what to do. Do you think she should pretend she didn't receive a letter from the provider at all or ignore it saying it wasn't formal mandatory invitation. And prepare similar letter as above to the JC manager. Unfortunately there are two voice messages and provider could've made a note of them.
Sadly it looks like there is a pattern of JC staff abusing their powers trying to lure clients into a trap knowing that many are completely unaware of their rights.

by Guest Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:56 am

CC,

A claimant can only ask for a mandatory reconsideration if an adverse benefit decision has been made, for example, a sanction or benefit is stopped.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/help-if-on-a-low-income/jobseekers-allowance-jsa/jsa-appeals/challenging-a-jsa-decision-mandatory-reconsideration/

DWP will not continue to process a complaint if the claimant concedes with the advice they have been given.

The majority of people I have assisted on-line pursue their grievance robustly and succeed.

I remember a member here waited 3 years to win all of his/her complaints via appeals (benefit was stopped for 3 years).

/hidden
https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t372-another-tribunal-success

by Guest Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:21 am

Ginger,

Once you have affirmed your referral to the W&HP is voluntary (sigh of relief) you can make a complaint about the mistakes and omission made by DWP.

However, you told us earlier that you might be eligible to be referred on a mandatory basis. If this is the case the process is as follows for you and your friend.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/556344/response/1328776/attach/29/Allocated%20to%20WHP.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t4243-work-and-health-program#11824

Under the Freedom of Information Act you are entitled to request the information typed into the assessment tool to identify any inaccuracies. DWP may have already completed the AT and you may not have been randomly allocated, hence the voluntary? referral.

I have known many cases where DWP has claimed they posted a letter, but it has never been received. To prevent a potential sanction is would be best for your friend to inform DWP that they have not received any notification to attend the W&HP and confirm the request in writing..

by Committed Claimant Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:18 pm

Ginger

By all means help and share your ideas and conclusions with your acquaintance who appears to be in the same boat.

If you are content with the course of action that we’ve discussed so far then you can advise her to do the same as you have decided to do.

Ignore all attempts by the providers to contact you both and obviously don’t attempt to contact them.

If they contact you in writing, save all letters, forms, whatever, for future reference but don’t reply.

The first priority is to await the opportunity of delivering a formal request for MR to JCP.

The same will obviously apply to your acquaintance.

by Committed Claimant Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:21 pm

N-D
I’m sorry you still seem to be concentrating your efforts on whether this referral was voluntary or mandatory.

A case can’t be made to counter either one until we know which it is.

Ginger has not been told which one it is and until such time as he is told it is pointless speculating.

None of the steps in the procedure that you have posted the link to were followed either. Maladministration from start to finish.

I have drafted a MR letter ready to go for Ginger to deliver to JCP. That letter to be delivered at a face to face meeting at the Jobcentre.

When that meeting takes place, the coach will doubtless try to assert her original decision on Ginger and if her reaction runs true to form, he will be threatened with a sanction.

At that stage do you not accept that his benefits will be affected. Then at that stage the procedure is to ask for MR?

One is not obliged to wait until the sanction is imposed before starting the process of fighting it. If they don't like it let them say so and explain why.

If Ginger sees fit, he can ask for time to reconsider and/or seek advice. If that is refused then that’s another instance of maladministration.

It’s as simple as that. I do not anticipate it taking years, not least because I do not make allowance for any diversions to be entertained.

by Guest Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:37 pm

Committed Claimant wrote:N-D
I’m sorry you still seem to be concentrating your efforts on whether this referral was voluntary or mandatory.

A case can’t be made to counter either one until we know which it is.

Ginger has not been told which one it is and until such time as he is told it is pointless speculating.

ND Agreed, the voluntary process is simply issuing the correct letter and explaining why the referral (based on individual circumstances) has been made as well as the activity being voluntary.

None of the steps in the procedure that you have posted the link to were followed either. Maladministration from start to finish.

ND The mandatory procedure is more complex and can lead to a sanction

I have drafted a MR letter ready to go for Ginger to deliver to JCP. That letter to be delivered at a face to face meeting at the Jobcentre.

ND An MR is pointless until a Decision Maker issues an adverse benefit decision. The claimant then has 1-month to reply. A maladministration letter can be issued at the same time if necessary.

When that meeting takes place, the coach will doubtless try to assert her original decision on Ginger and if her reaction runs true to form, he will be threatened with a sanction.

ND We need to know if the process has been followed to the letter including the completion of the WHP assessment tool if a mandatory referral was the intention.

At that stage do you not accept that his benefits will be affected. Then at that stage the procedure is to ask for MR?

ND A MR can only requested when a sanction has been applied.

One is not obliged to wait until the sanction is imposed before starting the process of fighting it. If they don't like it let them say so and explain why.

ND A complaint does this job.

If Ginger sees fit, he can ask for time to reconsider and/or seek advice. If that is refused then that’s another instance of maladministration.

ND Correct.

It’s as simple as that. I do not anticipate it taking years, not least because I do not make allowance for any diversions to be entertained.

ND It shouldn’t take years but it can happen occasionally.

by Committed Claimant Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:19 pm

When and if the coach informs Ginger whether the referral was voluntary or mandatory the fact still remains that the correct referral procedures as set down in the links you posted were not followed. You have already acknowledged that the ‘procedure has not been followed correctly, so an error has occurred’ That is maladministration in my view, do you agree?

If you do agree then no amount of naval gazing around the point is going to alter that.

In the letter I drafted I asked that it should be regarded as a ‘formal notification of a complaint of maladministration’ That addresses your repeated insistence that ‘a complaint does this’. Do you agree?

If you don’t agree on that point perhaps you could suggest what constitutes a complaint in your book.

Again, in my draft letter I asked that it be accepted ‘as a formal request for a review and /or mandatory reconsideration of the decision to refer/enlist me onto the Work and Health Programme’.

Note well: ‘review and /or mandatory reconsideration’ Call it what they like, I am indicating my clear objection to the decision and my insistence on having it changed.

I thought that I had already made it clear Ginger would only hand the letter over at a face to face interview when the coach has confirmed to him his intention to raise a doubt thereby instigating sanction proceedings.

The council for the prosecution may argue that asking for a review and/or mandatory reconsideration is inappropriate at this stage. I beg to differ. I can see no good reason for hanging about until the sanction is actually applied before setting the wheels in motion to resist it. That would be a self-defeating course of action. Better to try and nip it in the butt before it passes further up the chain of command.

Obviously if the coach makes it clear, to Ginger’s satisfaction, in the course of their face to face interview, that the appropriate selection processes were followed, that the correct referral procedure will be followed, that referral is voluntary and that there is no prospect of a sanction should he choose not to take up a place on the Programme then it will not be necessary to pass the letter over at all.

Its not for me to pronounce before the event on what the coach will or will not decide to say or do, or what her reaction will be to any comments or action by Ginger. My objective here and now is to prepare for the worst-case scenario.

With all due respect, you are not the coach so you can’t pronounce so assuredly in advance on what her reaction is going to be either.

The result of the course of action you advised in a resent similar case did not exactly inspire confidence despite your assurances. So far you have not seen fit to vouchsafe why you should be insisting on repeating similar advice and expecting a different outcome.

by Guest Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:37 pm

When and if the coach informs Ginger whether the referral was voluntary or mandatory the fact still remains that the correct referral procedures as set down in the links you posted were not followed. You have already acknowledged that the ‘procedure has not been followed correctly, so an error has occurred’ That is maladministration in my view, do you agree?

ND We don't know for certain the correct letter has not been issued at this stage.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/461555/response/1118128/attach/2/WHPL005.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

If it hasn’t it is maladmisntration.

In the letter I drafted I asked that it should be regarded as a ‘formal notification of a complaint of maladministration’ That addresses your repeated insistence that ‘a complaint does this’. Do you agree?

ND Yes

If you don’t agree on that point perhaps you could suggest what constitutes a complaint in your book.

Again, in my draft letter I asked that it be accepted ‘as a formal request for a review and /or mandatory reconsideration of the decision to refer/enlist me onto the Work and Health Programme’.

Note well: ‘review and /or mandatory reconsideration’ Call it what they like, I am indicating my clear objection to the decision and my insistence on having it changed.

I thought that I had already made it clear Ginger would only hand the letter over at a face to face interview when the coach has confirmed to him his intention to raise a doubt thereby instigating sanction proceedings.

ND The issue of a review/MR is not the correct procedure at this stage. It would be appropriate if the requirement to attend the WHP is within the claimant commitment and the claimant wishes to ask for a review/variation.

The council for the prosecution may argue that asking for a review and/or mandatory reconsideration is inappropriate at this stage. I beg to differ. I can see no good reason for hanging about until the sanction is actually applied before setting the wheels in motion to resist it. That would be a self-defeating course of action. Better to try and nip it in the butt before it passes further up the chain of command.

ND A formal complaint should resolve the matter if necessary.

Obviously if the coach makes it clear, to Ginger’s satisfaction, in the course of their face to face interview, that the appropriate selection processes were followed, that the correct referral procedure will be followed, that referral is voluntary and that there is no prospect of a sanction should he choose not to take up a place on the Programme then it will not be necessary to pass the letter over at all.

ND Sometimes the informal approach is effective, particularly for people who are confident dealing with DWP staff.

Its not for me to pronounce before the event on what the coach will or will not decide to say or do, or what her reaction will be to any comments or action by Ginger. My objective here and now is to prepare for the worst-case scenario.

With all due respect, you are not the coach so you can’t pronounce so assuredly in advance on what her reaction is going to be either.

ND I would never pronounced what the WC might say.

The result of the course of action you advised in a resent similar case did not exactly inspire confidence despite your assurances. So far you have not seen fit to vouchsafe why you should be insisting on repeating similar advice and expecting a different outcome.

ND The complaint was not pursued. I cannot trace any statement stating that London123's complaint would succeed. I haven’t suggested a DWP complaint to Ginger thus far.

by Absolut Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:55 pm

Ginger wrote:Was told straight away by work coach that have to go to a new program in partnership with reed that will help me get back to work and provide intensive individual support.

Did she actually say that? "have to go"?

Ginger wrote:Work coach didn't give any paperwork but said that she will send me a letter today(Monday). Nothing was mentioned about the program being mandatory.

What sort of letter did she promise to send? She may not have used the word "mandatory" but I can see that she presumed the phrase "have to go" covered her back (it doesn't).

Ginger wrote:Tried to argue that I've already been on a similar Work program before and it wasn't of any help.

It doesn't matter if you've already been on the WP. After 2 years on JSA they can force you to go on the WHP unless you have restrictions that would breach other laws (i.e Equality Act) if they threatened a sanction for non-compliance.

Ginger wrote:She also suggested ( not for the first time ) that I should move on to UC so she can help me by sending latest job vacancies.

LMAO. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. If she has access to job vacancies that are suitable for you what is preventing her from notifying you of them at your face to face meeting? Clearly she wants open access to you via UC, thinly disguised as "her helping you" when in actual fact it's the other way around (you making her job easier). There is no legal requirement for you to shift from JSA to UC at this time just because she wants you to.

Ginger wrote:On Wednesday received a letter from the provider to attend initial appointment next week on Friday.

From Chapter 5a Mandation v1.8

"ensure that the participant understands the activity and is aware of the sanctions consequences of failing to carry out a mandated activity".

You must ensure there is a clear link between cause and consequence to demonstrate that failing to comply with a mandated activity will result in a sanction being imposed if there is no good reason for it.

If the initial meeting is a mandated activity then a notification MUST appear on the letter from the provider making the link clear between failure to attend and a sanction. It has to be more than "we'll tell the DWP if you don't attend". There must be a reference to the consequences of non-compliance.

Ginger wrote:I guess it is best as Absolut said to call work coach on Monday and ask for a mandatory notification. Suppose the letter could've got lost but knowing her suspect it was never sent out and could be backdated if I don't attend. Don't want to get sanctioned for not attending and at the same time don't need a two year torture. Probably will be mandated on a program sooner or later anyway as a long term unemployed claimant.

Assume that you will be sanctioned if you do not attend despite the correct notification not appearing on the provider letter and you not receiving a proper letter from the DWP. As you are over the 2 year mark I do not think for 1 minute that the referral is on a voluntary basis. If you don't know which it is the only person you can ask is your work coach.

by Committed Claimant Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:01 pm

N-D
You are still determined to take a term I used in the draft letter and use it to void the whole thing as a inappropriate.

I used the term ‘mandatory reconsideration’ and you suggest that is your bugbear and it would be procedurally wrong, perhaps inadmissible, to call for MR as this stage. I accept that the prosecution might grasp at this straw as well although it would take some brass neck for them to accuse anyone else of procedural indiscretions.

You’ll correct me if I’m wrong but I think that the MR you have issue with is the MR that a claimant is entitled to request when a work coach decides to raise a doubt leading to a sanction and a Decision Maker confirms it. i.e. mandatory reconsideration of the doubt and sanction decision.

Official documents give chapter and verse on when a coach can raise a doubt leading to sanctions. It might be appropriate here to remind ourselves of what’s involved in such a scenario.

Here’s a brief summary:

Doubt is usually raised at the signing on interview where the acts or omissions of the claimant in the preceding 2 weeks are discussed and the work coach determines that there is sufficient doubt about the claimant’s compliance with Jobseeker’s Agreement (JSAg) or Claimant Commitment (CC). (Doubts about ‘availability’ and ‘actively seeking work’ and/or ‘a failure to undertake some other proposed activity’).

Doubt can also be raised at an interview where the work coach has proposed that the claimant should undertake some other proposed activity that is not contained in the JSAg or CC and the claimant resists or refuses to undertake or take part in it. A difference of opinion over participating in a mandatory activity would be an example of such an activity.

Either way, where the work coach raises the Doubt, and despite the claimants’ arguments or objections, decides to take the Doubt to the next level, s/he must issue the claimant with Form ES48 which will outline the reason for the Doubt and the claimant’s rights at this stage.

The claimant has the right, at this stage, to make a formal statement of his/her reasons for disagreeing with the adviser. The claimant is not obliged to, nor can he/she be forced to, make a formal statement at this stage.

What the claimant chooses to do, therefore, is up to the claimant but it may be worth remembering that in, or along with, the aforesaid Form ES48 the adviser will send the DM his/her version of what transpired at the interview and his/her interpretation of anything the claimant may have said.

The Doubt, as contained in Form ES48, the claimant statement where made, and remarks that the adviser makes on other forms on his/her computer, is then passed on to a Decision Maker (DM). The DM then has to decide whether or not the adviser’s Doubt justifies the issuing of a sanction and he/she is supposed to base that Decision on the information before him sent by the adviser as well as paying particular attention to the law as it relates to the issue in question.

The claimant is invariably informed by letter of the DM’s Decision in about a week from the day on which the Doubt was raised by the adviser.

Obviously, it would be premature to ask for a mandatory reconsideration of that decision or complain of the way it was implemented before it actually took place and before we know exactly what it is.

My letter addresses the decision to unilaterally refer the sender to the WHP and the way that was handled. I make no reference to doubts leading to sanctions apart from warning that should JCP/DWP go down that route they should expect repercussions.

Just to remind you of what I wrote:

“Be so good as to accept this letter as a formal request for a review and/or mandatory reconsideration of the decision to refer/enlist me onto the Work & Health Programme”.

This makes it perfectly clear what decision by the work coach I am seeking to have reviewed and/or reconsidered. I have suggested that it would be more appropriate to ask for this letter to be attached to the ES48 form once a doubt is raised as the ‘formal statement of his reasons for disagreeing with the adviser’. That is why I proposed it be handed over to the coach once a doubt leading to a sanction was raised, and not before.

I repeat, any alternative suggestions you may wish to propose for the wording of that statement, or any other tweaks, would be gladly considered, so long as they don’t detract from or diminish the intended aim.

by Gallazz Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:01 pm

Ginger wrote:She also suggested ( not for the first time ) that I should move on to UC so she can help me by sending latest job vacancies.

LMAO. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. If she has access to job vacancies that are suitable for you what is preventing her from notifying you of them at your face to face meeting? Clearly she wants open access to you via UC, thinly disguised as "her helping you" when in actual fact it's the other way around (you making her job easier). There is no legal requirement for you to shift from JSA to UC at this time just because she wants you to.

That stuck in my mind. How duplicitous and utterly despicable!

Ginger wrote:I guess it is best as Absolut said to call work coach on Monday and ask for a mandatory notification. Suppose the letter could've got lost but knowing her suspect it was never sent out and could be backdated if I don't attend. Don't want to get sanctioned for not attending and at the same time don't need a two year torture. Probably will be mandated on a program sooner or later anyway as a long term unemployed claimant.

As you are over the 2 year mark I do not think for 1 minute that the referral is on a voluntary basis. If you don't know which it is the only person you can ask is your work coach.[/quote]

I think it more likely is voluntary, because a number of people on this forum, myself included, have had voluntary referrals to the WHP despite meeting the two-years+ criteria for mandatory referral. Not getting written notification is also consistent with (an incorrectly administered) voluntary referral - the roach would have to be totally incompetent not to know that you're supposed to issue written notification of mandatory referrals. I don't think it makes much sense for them not to make it clear where activities/programmes are mandatory, because any sanctions imposed in that event would be unlawful and overturned, in all likelihood, by the DM.

That being said, Absolut's suggestion of seeking clarification is a good one - I definitely would. In fact, I tried to contact mine between the referral and the provider appointment, but they weren't available Rolling Eyes

. Trouble is, if the roach says it's mandatory, she could well be lying, and say she'll send the letter but not send it. Perhaps check with the provider too.

by jobberpw Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:49 pm

Committed Claimant just had to tell you, your letter template is OUTSTANDING! Work and Health Program 1310887813

"Subject: Selection and procedural inconsistencies in WHP referral process – Maladministration."

I was also wondering Gallazz, if a claimant hasn't been correctly notified first time round to the WHP on a voluntary referral,can JC make a mandatory referral stick- if the correct procedure has not been followed from the start? I also got the 10-minute chat and 2 days later, the scumbag provider company had a nice glossy brochure on my doormat full of smiley people working for minimum wage. All work is good for you, we can show you how if you let us

. I nearly puked there and then pale

.

by Gallazz Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:58 pm

@jobber If you're talking about a scenario where a claimant joined the WHP on a voluntary basis, then disengaged and was mandated as would happen if they were past the two-year mark, I think it would definitely be an argument as there is a document which details the correct referral process (can't think of one instance in which it has been followed).

In a scenario where the claimant had declined a voluntary referral and was later mandated, I doubt the original referral would have any impact on the second - I would think they'd be treated as separate referrals. They might be less likely to mandate someone who doesn't want to do it, but that's speculation.

And LOL the WHP welcome pack is positively nauseating, especially the stock phrases like "I look forward to meeting you!" The advisors have obviously been trained to say that at the end of every phone call Work and Health Program 1392310362

though it's clear they'd throw you under a bus as soon as look at you. I felt genuinely disconcerted by my interactions with them.

by Sponsored content

Work and Health Program

Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program

Re: Work and Health Program