UC claim 'closed' because refused claimant committment - register with UJ

posted by noconsentme

This is an update to my earlier topic - UC claim 'closed' because refused claimant committment - register with UJ

I have sent the pre-action protocol letter to the solicitors of the DWP. I can't describe the satisfaction it gave me to tell the DWP that if they do not respond within 14 days they may face a court imposed sanction.

So the process has began.

The Information Commissioners Office have been predictable no help at all, completely ignoring the issues complained of and finally suggesting that I register with UJM. They seem to be biased with little or no understanding of the implications of allowing the public authority to monitor jobseekers activities and correspondence, and they clearly did not want to give consideration to the issued raised in the complaint, whilst they were more then happy to emphasis the rights the DWP has in requiring evidence of jobseeking. Their response was not balanced or impartial.

The ICO suggested that I complain to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. This tribunal is for complaints against agencies that are registered under RIPA to use surveillance methods. Well, guess what, the DWP are NOT registered to undertake the surveillance that is facilitated through Universal Jobmatch.

Where is the statutory authority to operate UJM or to overide my rights to privacy? It does not exist.

Thanks to all who have pointed me in the direction of further information, please keep posting info you think will help

*

Sorry I'm not sure how to transfer links to other pages on the internet,, but if you can check The Guardian newspaper 5 March 2014 or BBC News 6 March 2014 you'll see reports of allegations of fraud on Universal Jobmatch made by Frank Field MP (the current chair of The Work and Pensions Select Committee).

' Government jobs website bedevilled with fraud, says MP '

Mr Field said that fraudsters were allowed to advertise non existent vacancies on Universal Jobmatch and even allowed to conduct bogus interviews in a Job Centre. He said that jobseekers were robbed of £65 each for criminal background checks that were never carried out.

In October I sent a Freedom of Information request on these reports but when it comes to their own cherished website the DWP apparently see and hear no evil because they said 'There is no recorded information held in relation to the newspaper article.'

quote="KatiHWB" post=12918]these??
Government's Universal Jobmatch website 'bedevilled with fraud'

Guardian report

BBC report[/quote]

*

[quote="NoConsentUJ" post=13392]Here's the latest update regarding the court case:
DWP Senior Lawyer says there IS a right of appeal
I eagerly awaited the response to my pre-action letter from the DWP, which arrived a few days ago.
The Senior Lawyer admitted that they had made an error by not sending me a letter explaining why the claim had been closed and dispute procedures, and also that the Work Coach should have given me the Cookie Factsheet at the time. The lawyer states that there is a right to appeal after I follow the mandatory reconsideration process. Apparently I now have one month to follow this process, according to the letter included which explains reasons for closing claim. The letter I should have received 8 weeks ago.
Is there a right to appeal? Have we all got it wrong? Why was I told by the DWP Customer Disservice that there was NO right of appeal?
I made a Freedom of Information request through the site Whatdotheyknow.FOI request In response I received extracts from the Knowledge Management Guidance. It appears that this is guidance given to Work Coaches as it sets out how to update the computer accounts system, and the procedure to follow if a claimant does not sign the CC.
Page 6 of the 1st attachment clearly states that there is no right of appeal. Other earlier FOI's have also confirmed this.

Looking at the legislation surround appeal rights it is really not clear. The regs below seem to indicate that there is no right of appeal because closing my claim was seen as a 'determination necessary to a decision'. The Welfare Reform Act 2012, clearly states that the CC must be accepted in order for there to be a valid claim. The WC has 'determined' that I have not complied with the conditions of making a valid claim, and the 'decision' was to close the claim.

The Universal Credit (Decisions & Appeals) Regulations 2013,
Part 7 - Decisions which may or may not be appealed
50 (2) No appeal lies against decision set out in schedule 3.
(3) In paragraph (2) and schedule 3, "decision" includes a determination embodied in or necessary to a decision.

Schedule 3 regulation 50(2)
(e) Payment of Universal Credit.

The problem is if I follow the mandatory reconsideration route and then find out there is no right of appeal, I would have missed the strict time limit to apply for judicial review. However, I will attempt to follow this route and I'll keep you updated.
Either way whether the Senior Lawyer is correct or the guidence given to the WC is correct, one of them is certain seriously incorrect. One of them has given me the wrong information with serious consequences for me. I have had to go into debt to be able to survive these past 13 weeks, and my rent is in arrears.
It is worth noting that if I had not started court action (by sending the pre-action protocol letter), I would have believed that there is no right of appeal as that was what I was told by the DWP and through the FOI. This is beyond a mere administrative error. This is contrived deception of the public.[/quote]

[quote="Mary" post=13399][quote="NoConsentUJ" post=13392]Here's the latest update regarding the court case:
DWP Senior Lawyer says there IS a right of appeal
I eagerly awaited the response to my pre-action letter from the DWP, which arrived a few days ago.
The Senior Lawyer admitted that they had made an error by not sending me a letter explaining why the claim had been closed and dispute procedures, and also that the Work Coach should have given me the Cookie Factsheet at the time. The lawyer states that there is a right to appeal after I follow the mandatory reconsideration process. Apparently I now have one month to follow this process, according to the letter included which explains reasons for closing claim. The letter I should have received 8 weeks ago.
Is there a right to appeal? Have we all got it wrong? Why was I told by the DWP Customer Disservice that there was NO right of appeal?
I made a Freedom of Information request through the site Whatdotheyknow.FOI request In response I received extracts from the Knowledge Management Guidance. It appears that this is guidance given to Work Coaches as it sets out how to update the computer accounts system, and the procedure to follow if a claimant does not sign the CC.
Page 6 of the 1st attachment clearly states that there is no right of appeal. Other earlier FOI's have also confirmed this.

Looking at the legislation surround appeal rights it is really not clear. The regs below seem to indicate that there is no right of appeal because closing my claim was seen as a 'determination necessary to a decision'. The Welfare Reform Act 2012, clearly states that the CC must be accepted in order for there to be a valid claim. The WC has 'determined' that I have not complied with the conditions of making a valid claim, and the 'decision' was to close the claim.

The Universal Credit (Decisions & Appeals) Regulations 2013,
Part 7 - Decisions which may or may not be appealed
50 (2) No appeal lies against decision set out in schedule 3.
(3) In paragraph (2) and schedule 3, "decision" includes a determination embodied in or necessary to a decision.

Schedule 3 regulation 50(2)
(e) Payment of Universal Credit.

The problem is if I follow the mandatory reconsideration route and then find out there is no right of appeal, I would have missed the strict time limit to apply for judicial review. However, I will attempt to follow this route and I'll keep you updated.
Either way whether the Senior Lawyer is correct or the guidence given to the WC is correct, one of them is certain seriously incorrect. One of them has given me the wrong information with serious consequences for me. I have had to go into debt to be able to survive these past 13 weeks, and my rent is in arrears.
It is worth noting that if I had not started court action (by sending the pre-action protocol letter), I would have believed that there is no right of appeal as that was what I was told by the DWP and through the FOI. This is beyond a mere administrative error. This is contrived deception of the public.[/quote]

Thanks for the update NCU

In the current 'old style' JSA regs, if you do not agree a JSAg/JSACC at the new claim JSA is suspended indefinitely, but the claim is not closed.

Under UC regulations whatever the SoS determines in his opinion as reasonable, is law! Therefore, if you disagree with him, you have no entitlement to benefit and your claim is closed.

However, if a claimant fails to carry out a work search or work preparation requirement they can provide good reason and follow the usual appeal route.

I believe you do have the right of appeal now that your claim is closed!

CIS/540/2002 (now reported as R(IS) 6/04) looked at non-appealable decisions in IS and ruled that a decision that affected entitlement should be appealable as per Art 6 of the HRA.[/quote]

[quote="Mary" post=13419]Hi gadily

Hope you are ok.

The FOI posted on the rn site is to do with people being required to sign up for UJ before they have agreed a CC.

JSA claimants are winning their ASE cases based on the irrationality of using UJ as the best job site to look for work.

I believe this is a stronger argument to the privacy one, which could take years to settle but is still worth pursuing.

The policy intent for all claimants to use UJ is, to capture work search activity; most people give DWP access. This policy also supports the government's obsession with conditionality as well as creating a virtual/digital benefit claim, which will save the public purse a great deal of money!

Relevant tribunal case:

The groundbreaking judgment that meant three taxpayers did not have to follow the requirement to file VAT returns online

The judge, Barbara Mosedale, found that HMRC’s decision was a breach of the appellants’ human rights and unlawful under EU law:

“I have found that because of its disproportionate application to persons who are computer illiterate because of their age, or who have a disability which makes using a computer accurately very difficult or painful, or those who live too remotely for a reliable internet connection, that the regulations were an interference with convention rights under A1P1 and A8 [of the Human Rights Convention] combined with A14 [of that convention] which was not justified … So far as EU law was concerned I found the obligations to be disproportionate because they failed to make exemptions for the elderly, disabled persons or persons living too remotely for reliable internet access.”

The judge also reviewed the authorities on whether taxpayers can appeal against HMRC’s refusal to apply extra-statutory concessions, and concluded that they can. This interesting issue is, however, outside the scope of this article.

http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2013/10/23/315371/digital-mayhem

The good reasons are the same as DWP's.[/quote]