Has anybody been on the Work and Health Programme?

london123 wrote:but she wants me to go on the course. and see how it goes

The fact is this - the WHP is voluntary prior to the 24 month mandation point no matter what this particular manager or your work coach "wants". If it's not fully voluntary before 24 months into a claim then they would simply forward you a mandatory notification to attend.

If a claimant does not attend the WHP on a voluntarily basis it does not mean they aren't doing all they can to find work.

If the JCP manager and your work coach believe that the WHP is your best chance of getting back into work what evidence is that belief based on? Is there any evidence at all that claimants of your age have been helped back into work by your local WHP scheme? I suspect not.

"see how it goes" is code for using you as a guinea pig in another of their schemes which has not yet proved that it works, that it isn't yet another huge waste of tax payer money being handed over to corporate businesses who create absolutely nothing of value.

The current situation, as far as London123 is concerned, is;

“I’ll go on the course”

That is what he’s decided to do. He has agreed to do as his coach has decided for him. We have still to hear anything to the contrary.

It has not been explained to him at a referral interview with his coach what referral to WHP involves.  His coach has not worked through any kind of action plan with him that could help the provider to design a programme of activities suitable or helpful in his particular circumstances.

He has obviously not read any of the numerous guidance documents or posts that spells out what is involved. Still doesn’t seem to appreciate that once on the course he will not have the choices that he supposes on what activities he will be expected to undertake or participate in. Like the old Work Programme the provider can raise a doubt of non-compliance at any time and this could lead to a sanction.

The next myth is that the programme might be ‘voluntary’ in his circumstances.

If he were in rude good health then accepting referral would indeed have had to have been voluntary unless he had been claiming Jobseekers Allowance for more than 2 years. It is not clear that this was the case. Indeed, he said that he has already been on various courses lots of times in the past, as well as on the work programme. This would suggest a lengthy spell claiming JSA.

He has also said that he has health problems, presumably in the hope of excusing participation in the programme, or efforts in getting a job. If this is so, then, far from supporting his case, it defeats it.

WHP is specifically geared to ‘help’ those with health issues and work coaches are given additional latitude to concentrate their efforts on what they regard as those ‘disadvantaged groups’.

This is what the guidance says about those groups:

Early Access Disadvantaged Groups  

9. Early Access to the WHP will also be available to a number of disadvantaged groups (see paragraph 11 below). These are groups who may need additional support to move into employment and supporting these groups is a policy priority for DWP. Allowing early access to WHP will help provide support at the right time for these groups.

10. Referrals for these groups will be at the discretion of DWP acting through the Work Coach, at the most appropriate time on a targeted voluntary basis, when the judgement of the Work Coach is that the Participant would benefit from early access to the programme and the following criteria are met.

11. The following criteria will be used as a guide for the Jobcentre Plus Work Coach. The Participant:
• can be helped, in the opinion of DWP, by the offer
• if relevant, has already been helped by Jobcentre Plus with their core jobsearch activity (if appropriate)
• needs more support than can be provided within the standard Jobcentre Plus offer (or through other available services and provision); and,
• has committed to the goal of finding employment within one year.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834502/work-and-health-programme-provider-guidance-chapter-2.pdf

Note the use of the terms:
“at the discretion of DWP acting through the Work Coach”
“the judgement of the Work Coach is that the Participant would benefit”
“in the opinion of DWP”

Note also that there is no allowance, mention even, of the claimant’s discretion, judgement or opinion. Any suggestion of his having a choice in the matter also appears to be omitted. The health issues that he prays in aid have the opposite effect to the one he seemed to anticipate. If they place him in the “Early Access Disadvantaged Group” he is slap bang in the very situation that WHP was designed for and the ‘voluntary’ option is thereby significantly reduced. On his own admission, as it were, he has accepted his eligibility, or need, for special attention and/or ‘help’.

His health issues, it could, and most likely will, be argued by his coach, make him eligible for referral at his coaches discretion.

The correct referral procedure has not been followed in this case but London123 did not put this to his coach right away as grounds for reversing the referral decision. There does not appear to be any written evidence of what his objections were, whether or not a constructive argument was put to the her what her response was.

Up to now I thought that the standard procedure where there was a difference of opinion between claimant and coach was to ask for the decision in dispute to be referred for reconsideration, it is the claimant’s mandatory right.

When the claimant makes such a request for reconsideration s/he can include all the points required to support their case, including any procedural/administrative issues arising. A response will necessarily be forthcoming in writing and, based on that response, further action considered. The correct procedure has been set out in an earlier post.

Lies and deceit is par for the course for JCP coaches and providers. Trying to best them at that game is a non-starter.

In his letter to the District Manager London123 says:

“My Jobcentre work coach told me she was not happy that I did not attend the voluntary meeting and said that I’d face sanctions, or punitive daily attendance as result of my decision. She also said she would be submitting my case to a Decision Maker if I didn’t attend the course. She has given me two weeks to think about it.”

She is right, he could face sanctions or some other punitive action.

She is right again when she said his case would be submitted to a DM. She is legally obliged to do that.

She gave him two weeks to reconsider. He was very lucky, most coaches sanction claimants on the spot and the first they’ll know of it is when their account isn’t credited with their benefit.

So, what did he go and do with that two weeks’ reprieve? He wrote off to a DWP District Manager, a DWP man, a senior official in that dept. I find it incredulous that anyone could take or advise such a course of action in the hope of sympathy or support from that quarter or the expectation that they are going to disagree or discredit their own colleagues.

I hope readers will take the way this case was handled as an example of how not to proceed.

Committed Claimant wrote:

In his letter to the District Manager London123 says:

“My Jobcentre work coach told me she was not happy that I did not attend the voluntary meeting and said that I’d face sanctions, or punitive daily attendance as result of my decision. She also said she would be submitting my case to a Decision Maker if I didn’t attend the course. She has given me two weeks to think about it.”

She is right, he could face sanctions or some other punitive action.

She is right again when she said his case would be submitted to a DM. She is legally obliged to do that.

She gave him two weeks to reconsider. He was very lucky, most coaches sanction claimants on the spot and the first they’ll know of it is when their account isn’t credited with their benefit.

I don't think she could have sanctioned him for not going to the initial interview, or not taking up a place on the WHP - he wasn't mandated, and it's clear from the DWP voluntary referral letter that claimants won't be sanctioned if they choose not to start the programme after being referred. I think his work coach threatened sanctions to force him onto the WHP, and didn't impose one because there were no legal grounds to. I could name at least three members of RB who have been referred to the WHP but haven't started, who haven't been sanctioned.

I don’t know why you feel so confident about whether or not what you think the jobcentre coach could or could not do carries any weight.

London123 did not attend an initial referral interview because he was not invited to one, something she should have done but didn’t. She could hardly penalise him for that.

What she did threaten was that he could face a sanction for not attending a provider interview or not taking up a place on the programme as he initially said he would. She gave him 2 weeks to comply.

The reason she did not carry out her threat was because London123 complied. Simple as that. Nobody appears to have grasped that she remains in breach of her statutory obligation to arrange an initial referral interview appointment. Hardly a Damascene conversion to adherence to the rule of law. London123 has agreed to surrender it.

We have been discussing examples for years of where coaches have been sanctioning claimants for non-compliance with decisions that they have imposed without legal grounds for doing so. Numerous overturned DWP decisions by tribunals are testament to that. Not sure why you believe now that this case is unique and somehow proves the opposite.

What happens when a claimant is sanctioned is usually that some vague phrase is used to impose the sanction such as, not actively seeking work, failing to attend interview, failure to participate in a programme or carry out an activity to which they are deemed to have agreed. Jobcentre Plus are never going to state outright as a reason for sanction something that has been ruled out by law. Neither are they going to specify verbally, or in writing, to a claimant what the legal position actually is on most issues, even when they know what it is.

Anyway, regrettably, London123’s position is still far from secure, he remains in a position where he now believes he can pick and choose what he will and won’t do whilst on the programme despite having agreed to go on the programme, which by implication means accepting and doing what the programme recommends. His coach, in the meantime, can now be resolute in her resolve to trample his rights into the dirt with impunity. I think his problems are only just beginning and it would be premature to claim that his position, as it stands now, is satisfactory.

The Jobcentre manager told London123 that s/he would not be sanctioned.  In the circumstances it would be unlawful to do so.

Outstanding matters:

The official complaint was passed to the Complaints Resolution Team by the District Manager.  The letter is then forwarded to the local manager and copied to the WC.  DWP must now respond in writing.

Claimants who are very stressed will find it hard to absorb all the information posted here and make decisions.

A threat of unlawful sanctions and daily attendance heightens the anxiety, particularly at this time of year with higher expenditure due to heating costs as well as Christmas.

I am not available for off line support at this time, so if London123 needs personalised support please contact your MP and/or a local welfare agency.  https://advicelocal.uk/

Summary

You have the right to change your mind regarding voluntary attendance at the W&HP.

You cannot be forced to participate in irrational daily attendance and more so when it being used as a threat to get you to start the W&HP.  

Whatever you finally decide, please let us know how you get on.

Suggestion

One way to counter the requirement to participate in unreasonable activity/provision is to provide evidence you do not need the assistance and/or offer you own solution.

"The WHP tackles barriers to work by linking up with health and social care providers and other local services aimed at getting people into work. It offers more intensive, tailored support than can be provided by the standard Jobcentre Plus offer, or through other available services and provision."



The above is one of my top of the list dislikes. So to put a cog in their wheels, maybe send the provider company and jc plus /dwp etc a firm letter making it crystal 'you don't want them contacting ANY health provider, Dr etc you maybe at present or anytime in the future with, without your written consent, "London123. These people are full of their dellusional ideas about getting people into work. Facts are, there are only 5 to 8% of people aged 50 plus that actually get back into some kind of work. And the juries still out on if that work actually pays.

All these morons want is bums on seats so the tax payer feels they are getting more for their tax. All total tosh as most will know. It's a game of control imho. To get people to sign off as fast as possible. Cause them as much undue stress as they can into the bargain. Provider companies get their fees and jc plus happy as Larry with the achievement of lowering the jsa figures again.

"One way to counter the requirement to participate in unreasonable activity/provision is to provide evidence you do not need the assistance and/or offer you own solution."


Non defierce2, I tried that myself and morons argued. As I have not been successful in finding work the last five years its only reasonable I should be trying their"offer"

Totally agree with defierce2 in that when people are stressed in particulary at this time of year, very hard to absorb information and make the right decisions.

I am a good example of that as anxiety and depression has got worse over the past two years. There is not one constructive thing dwp have done to help. Only by my own actions and taking advice from on this forum has really helped me.

It is worth pointing out that WHP providers and the DWP fail to tackle "barriers" before the program begins, i.e in addressing how a disabled claimant can get to the provider's premises and into their offices in the first place. Work coaches don't consider what barriers disabled claimants face before they attempt to railroad them onto the WHP, such as those faced when having to use public transport. Most claimants don't even know how many days they will be attending before agreeing to go (there is no minimum or maximum or even very much information about that at all).

DWP work coach decisions are not always valid or even logical, particularly if no correct WHP interview has been conducted (as Claimant Commitment has pointed out). 9 times out of 10 it's a verbal interaction with a work coach with nothing on the system or any signature of agreement gained from the claimant. The fault occurs right at the start and not halfway through. Work coaches don't want to go through the rigamarole of a 50 minute WHP interview procedure, yet they should in order to protect themselves from the accusation that they are not doing their job properly. Half the time claimants don't even know they should have been invited to a proper meeting about it. Oftentimes work coaches simply hand a leaflet over about the WHP and the claimant is then expected to agree to attend based on minimal information. The DWP have given contracts to providers who are not disability friendly (such as providers who work out of a second floor location). Work coaches also tend to ignore CC restrictions (such as a travel limit) in their attempt to over-ride or simply ignore health issues or impairments. All these issues are weak points that can be used to show a work coach that their reasoning has fallen short of acceptable standards under the Equality Act and anti-discrimination laws.

DWP work coaches' subjective beliefs that "barriers" are a fault belonging to the claimant also tie in here as an excuse for the sloppy administration of a scheme aimed at claimants who struggle to get work with 80% of employers who don't give a toss about employment, anti-discrimination or equality laws.  Pretending that the WHP is going to fix the problem when neither the Equality Act or anti-discrimination laws have been able to do so and instead blame it on the claimant is, in my view, actively malevolent.

Totally agree with you Absolut.

Seems to be a nasty habit with jc and dwp in not taking peoples health dissabilities etc into full account being reasonable to their circumstances.

Going to find that piece of the regs and politely shove it in their face next time they say YOU HAVE TO DO THIS, GO THERE, GET THERE OR ELSE.

I feel they prey upon people not having that kind of information to hand. Now increasing my little folder of info for forthcoming roach shop visit. Aka :job centre.

all quiet for the moment but if they get stuck they can always come back and ask for help and we can see where it goes from there

Thanks, Admin, just wondering as I foresee a similar hell may be coming my way in the new year so keeping a careful eye on things to hopefully gather some more info for myself as well.

Without some of the knowledgeable people on here, some would be truly stuffed out there in the world by JC roaches, etc and all their supposedly "help"

jobber

i had another appointment with my work coach .she said i would be voluntary revered back to reed HWP. but as ive just moved she would wait until after Christmas. then she asked me if reed had been in touch i said no not yet. but i blocked their number on my phone, so they might have, ill have to unblock them after Christmas don't want then phoning before and spoiling my Christmas.

london123 wrote:i had another appointment with my work coach .she said i would be voluntary revered back to reed HWP. but as ive just moved she would wait until after Christmas. then she asked me if reed had been in touch i said no not yet. but i blocked their number on my phone, so they might have, ill have to unblock them after Christmas don't want then phoning before and spoiling my Christmas.

i also received this in an email
Welcome to the Work and Health Programme Notice of start

Dear Mr xxxxxx
Your work coach has told you about the Work and Health Programme and how it will help you prepare for work in the future.
We’re now inviting you to join the programme on a voluntary basis. You will not lose any of your Universal Credit payments if you do not go.
What happens next
• REED will contact you and arrange a meeting. They are a Work and Health Programme provider. • They will send you a letter to let you know the time and date of your meeting. This letter will also give you contact details for REED. You can use these details if you need to re-arrange your meeting. • They will support you for up to 456 days (15 months) from the date you start on the programme, even if your benefit changes. If you find a job they can support you for up to 182 days (six months) if you need it. You cannot take part in the programme (including any period of in-work support) for more than 639 days (21 months).
• How the Work and Health Programme can help you • REED will tell you about the support they will be able to give you while on the Work and Health Programme. Together you’ll make an action plan of things you could do to prepare for work in the future.

London check all the details of the provider company. What facilities do they have on site etc like ample amount of toilets. Do you need special requirements of any kind due to health issues you may have.Do you need regular breaks to stay hydrated etc. If they don't tick all the boxes you can make it difficult for them.

After all, they just want someone's bum on a seat ASAP to claim a payment.

Also, if its a voluntary invite just decline it. Once you set foot in the lions den I think you are then trapped for the next two years.

Someone with more experience than me will advise you better soon no doubt.

Good move London on blocking number. Read up ontthis forum about if you do attend the WHP do not, sign anything. An old trick by provider companies was get you to sign fire register. Think I signed mine as FC.

They make me want to vomit with all their idealisms of 'support'. If they looked that up in a dictionary it would be nothing as to what they have delivered to long term unemployed for years. This whole thing is another scam /farce and all politicians just sit back and allow these moronic circuses to continue.

Value for the tax payer, I feel not. If they were made more aware of how this was all being implemented I think many would have a melt down.

my work coaches manager said if i did not like it i could pull out. but i have to give the reason, so im thinking ill go a few times and listen to their bull. but if the try the work experience thing at my age, 62, ill say im leaving.

You can London they are telling you right but from what I understand and have been told by others.

Once you have voluntarily attended whp office of provider you are in firing line so to speak.

Gallazz and others on here will confirm what I say is correct... Hopefully.


Do read up on all this whp crap London I am also your age and they've tried their best to screw me down. If I rember right, you have health conditions, if so make sure you cover those in a to z fashion with your work coach in writing through the uc journal and drop a line to any provider, in your case Reed.

Being as informed as you can will save you a belly ache of hassle in the long run.

Good luck.

 “We’re now inviting you to join the programme on a voluntary basis. You will not lose any of your Universal Credit payments if you do not go”.

They are not even asking you to let them know that you don’t intend to go.

End of!!!

As Jobber has told you twice already this afternoon, and others on numerous occasions since you began this thread, the minute you set foot on their premises you will have accepted referral to the programme and all the obligations that this places you under. There’s 18 bloody chapters of those.

Once you have accepted the referral the voluntary aspect of the process is exhausted, it no longer applies. Take as example being called up for military service or enlisting voluntarily. Once actually in the military no distinction is made, the same regime applies in the sense that they dictate the terms. Nor are the enemy’s bullets programmed to make allowances for one or the other either.

It looks like you intend to find out the hard way that once you accept you are hooked and it will not be as easy as you think to get out of it. Have no doubt, the minute you fail to turn up at an appointment or choose not to engage in any activity decided for you a summary hearing to ascertain your brashness in non-compliance is called and a Doubt goes winging off to a DWP Decision Maker.

Anyway, the choice is yours at the end of the day. Its one you must make alone and face the consequences.

Very clearly put Committed Claimant.

It's the way they like to dress these schemes up I feel confuses people. There is information out there for all but just makes laborious reading.

I guess it's better studying the info available rather than being thrown into the lions den. Hope London is now slightly clearer on things and makes the right choice.

Jobber

Unfortunately, these schemes are designed and presented with the deliberate aim of confusing, misleading and pressurising those they are supposedly directed towards.

The most vulnerable, that they affect most, have neither the time nor the inclination to fully absorb what is being asked of them.

Add to that obfuscation, misinformation and maladministration by those charged with administering the schemes and we have a system riven with unfairness, intimidation and not to say, cruelty.

Totally agree with you committed claimant. Maladministration runs riot all through this poxy system, as does psychological bullying preying upon the vulnerable etc. I swear they get off on being able to sanction or close someone's claim down for the most pathetic reasons. Good to hear 75% of tribunal cases are wins for claimants. Long may that continue.

Committed Claimant wrote:  “We’re now inviting you to join the programme on a voluntary basis. You will not lose any of your Universal Credit payments if you do not go”.

They are not even asking you to let them know that you don’t intend to go.

End of!!!

As Jobber has told you twice already this afternoon, and others on numerous occasions since you began this thread, the minute you set foot on their premises you will have accepted referral to the programme and all the obligations that this places you under. There’s 18 bloody chapters of those.

Once you have accepted the referral the voluntary aspect of the process is exhausted, it no longer applies.

My understanding is that you'll be mandated if you drop out, so CC is basically right - dropping out would leave you in a worse position than before, even if you weren't sanctioned.

Unfortunately, a majority of claimants haven’t got the heart to pursue their case to tribunal stage.

Neither do they have the sort of assistance out there to help them if they wished to.

We are limited in how much we can do here other than offer advice based on our interpretation of the legal position.

Yes very true CC, being informed and gaining as much advice as possible is a must. I am knocking on now and due to divorce clearing me totally out financially speaking don't see myself ever working again. I have been renting the past five years and any job a roach suggests is 90% of the time mini wage, temporary, unsuitable or a 100 miles away. That's their specialist help being used there

“I actually got out of the WHP myself after starting because I hadn't declined a 'voluntary' referral and wasn't able to find out if I could miss the initial provider appointment without being sanctioned (I now know I could have), but the incident the Jobcentre accepted as good reason not to continue was quite a major one - I think I was lucky, and always advise claimants to decline a voluntary referral. What's more: the roach who referred me told me, "If you don't like it, we'll try you with something else", but that turned out to be my last appointment with him, so I wouldn't take the manager at their word if I were London123.”

Well done you Gallazz. A fuller account of your experience and how you overcame the ordeal might prove helpful to members or claimants who might come up against a similar situation.