What exactly happens on the Work and Health Programme?

What exactly happens on the Work and Health Programme?

Is it a building you go to? Do you have to go every day? What do you have to do there (apply for jobs, listen to lectures, write your CV? etc). Are you there all day? Do you still have to see your work coach while on it? If you are sanctioned while on it, do you still need to attend?

These are the sorts of questions i can't find answers to.

Has no one got any info on this?

Has anyone here been on the WHP?

Hi Archangel,

I did a brief stint on the WHP some time ago, before managing to get myself removed from it because of an advisor's inappropriate questioning about my health conditions, so I can answer your question.

It's basically the Work Programme with a few tweaks - you have to attend meetings with their advisors on the provider's premises, they advertise/push jobs which I think you'd be expected to apply for unless you're on ESA/LCW, and there's CV writing and lots of courses.

On my first meeting, I had to do an online 'diagnostic assessment' which included questions about whether I wanted to work. It's usually delivered by old Work Programme Providers (the office I attended was staffed entirely by former Work Programme advisors).

As the name suggests, there's an element of the WHP which focuses on health and wellbeing - your advisor carries out an NHS mental health questionnaire at the first appointment (in a busy open office in my case - I wonder if that's standard); and they can make (voluntary) referrals to mental health services. There are soft skills courses too - they booked me onto one which I think was one day a week.

You still have to sign on/attend UC meetings and carry out work search as normal but when I was on the Work Programme I was in and out of Jobcentre appointments in two minutes - I think you're seen as the provider's responsibility when you're on provision, which might be part of the reason why roaches are so keen to get people onto the WHP.

If you've been mandated to WHP and you're sanctioned, you still have keep attending or you'll get more sanctions; if you're voluntary, you can stop attending but you'll be mandated for the rest of the 15 months. That's why it's best not to join the WHP in the first place.

I'm sorry you've waited nearly a month for an answer to your question. Happy to answer any further questions.

Thanks for your reply. Very informative. It sounds like slave labour.

Glad you found it helpful.

Hi Gallazz,

Would be really useful if someone could post any sure tips to avoid this circus of WHP or how to disembark without being hung for doing so.

I remember you gave some great advice a while back on WP MK2 . Having failing physical or mental health is an excuse it would seem to enrol anyone they can find on the WHP. But, as we know, these morons keep banging on that work cures everything aka. 'Get your arses in here on these seats and providers can claim a prize from.gov.'

I am already seeing NHS MH services, but let that not stop the superior specialist provider companies with their secret cures for MH:  

Their sole intention can effectively only be, to try and keep pissing people off:twisted: .

Any advice on how not to attend this WHP circus I am sure would be greatly appreciated by many on this forum. Makes me laugh how they refer to mandating and voluntary .

Don't sign there forms and they won't let you on it, work coach will probably threaten you with sanctions because you didn't sign, but nothing will come of it. That's what happened to me......

Many thanks Catwoman and noted. Seems the worse circus to be thrown into but may feel worse for someone as old as me. Not least, could not see this WHP miraculously curring my MH issues.

Hey Jobber,

It’s been a while! Hope all is well with you.

I will add to and edit this later, but for now, here’s my advice.

Voluntary referrals

If the referral to WHP is voluntary, you just have to say no thanks and stand firm. Not the easiest thing I know, but you can’t be sanctioned for refusing to join a voluntary scheme. This also means you don’t have to give a reason, contrary to what certain RB members have been told recently.

This is important to note because once you accept a voluntary referral, you can’t stop attending or you’ll be mandated!

If they keep badgering you to join, then IMHO, you’d have good grounds for a complaint. Being pressurised to do something which you don’t feel is in your best interests would create anxiety for anyone, particularly when a)threats are made in the process and b) your mental health isn’t good.

Mandatory referrals

Very few WHP referrals seem to be mandatory. I wouldn’t accept a voluntary referral just to avoid being mandated. Think about it - why would so many roaches trick/bully claimants into accepting voluntary referrals if they could easily mandate you?

If they tell you you’ve been mandated with no referral letter, ask for one. If they don’t give you one, you don’t have to go - at least according to JSA regulations. I know on UC, roaches can mandate you verbally to some activities but idk if it covers schemes and courses - anyone

If mandated via the correct procedure, you can either:

-Refuse to sign data sharing and job outcome consent forms or...

-Sign it and write to the providers to revoke your consent.

Even though you’re officially on the programme, you might find that they rarely contact you.

*without first disengaging as a voluntary ‘client’

The Catwoman wrote:Don't sign there forms and they won't let you on it, work coach will probably threaten you with sanctions because you didn't sign, but nothing will come of it. That's what happened to me......

I remember! Well played As I recall, your referral was voluntary. I wonder if that's why the provider told you that. Who knows, though.

The EA 2010 doesn't disappear simply because a claimant consented to attend a scheme, were then mandated onto it and found rampant discrimination and/or barriers to access on attending. Like london123 did.

Gallaz is right that where JSA is concerned they must send a correctly worded notification first. (The SSWP had to insert Restart into the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013 (SAPOE) in order for the DWP to be able to mandate JSA claimants onto it. Section 5 lists the format of the letter they must send first before any provider has the authority to speak to a claimant. No official notification = no sanction.)

The ability for roaches to mandate UC claimants onto an employment scheme/program is built into the Welfare Reform Act 2012. However, that doesn't mean they have to mandate, only that they can. The claimant might be "eligible" but not suitable.  They have this backwards - it's the scheme and the provider that has to be suitable where ill and disabled claimants are concerned.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/part/1/chapter/2

16 Work preparation requirement

(1) In this Part a “work preparation requirement” is a requirement that a claimant take particular action specified by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making it more likely in the opinion of the Secretary of State that the claimant will obtain paid work (or more paid work or better-paid work).

(2) The Secretary of State may under subsection (1) specify the time to be devoted to any particular action.

(3) Action which may be specified under subsection (1) includes in particular—

(a) attending a skills assessment;

(b) improving personal presentation;

(c) participating in training;

(d) participating in an employment programme;

(e) undertaking work experience or a work placement;

(f) developing a business plan;

(g) any action prescribed for the purpose in subsection (1).

23Connected 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.

The above is how they get away with the "warm handover" 3 way call for Restart. It's an interview that falls under a work preparation requirement, which includes employment schemes. The JSA Act 1995 does not include employment schemes. They can't retrofit new ideas into old legislation. They have to write other legislation, hence the SAPOE Act. We aren't discussing Restart though, it's the WHP, which is included in the above under UC.

Suitability

The big sticks to use are barriers to access, discrimination arising from a disability, and lack of reasonable adjustments. If a reasonable adjustment can't be made that does not mean the participant still has to go. E.g stairs, lift, lift out of action during a fire, one person on the premises who can't evacuate the disabled person on their own = unsuitable.

How many providers are qualified to give employment advice/help to anyone who is ill and/or disabled unless that provider has experienced the barriers that ill and disabled people face themselves, or who are at least willing to listen? DWP provider documents instruct the provider to get the disabled person to remove barriers themselves as if a) they should and b) they can.  

Neither the DWP nor the provider know what the barriers are that each individual has to face to a) get work and b) remain in work. The same goes for what the barriers are to access the scheme. Often those barriers aren't discovered until they get to the provider's and/or employer's location. Most of the time the provider doesn't bother to find out, up front, what the barriers might be for the individual for either access to work or access to a scheme. That's what the "warm handover" call is for I suppose, but providers tend to lie and won't reveal that their office is horrible or there's health and safety issues for them, never mind any visitors. Some barriers can't be removed. If the barrier can't be removed or the provider refuses to remove it then the participant does not have to go. The participant has good reason.

If the claimant doesn't complain and/or demand that the barrier is removed on discovering it, the DWP will take it as read that no barriers exist.

The PSED duty is an anticipatory one. The person assigned to a participant with mental health needs will not have a qualification in mental health needs and the barriers in society those people face, none of which are caused by the participant, but which the provider will have backwards. Maximus local advert - no qualifications required other than being able to tick boxes and use a computer. That is a barrier the participant can't remove, only the provider can remove it. The assigned worker not having any qualifications in the area of "mental health needs" and employers being prejudiced about mental health is likely to worsen the participant's mental health. This was proved by the Work Programme.

If the provider knows that the participant has mental health needs they have to ask what the participant might need to be able to access the scheme. This might include such things as there being no red colour (pick any colour) anywhere in the building, or no birds roosting nearby or a 101 other things that might bother the participant. I suppose a woman plastered in make up that makes her look like a clown could be included for people who are scared of clowns. That's the thing about mental health, it's entirely an individual thing. I doubt that any provider has such an employee who could cope with, for example, someone who is physically well, but who hears voices.  

They are, when it comes to disabled people, to ask (but they don't bother) what aids and adaptations that participant might need in order to be able to use the provider's computers. They appear to think that the disabled person has to ask for them, otherwise they don't have to bother. If the participant is to use the provider's computers are the chairs correct, is the desk at the right height, do the computers have flare from a window on the screen etc? I've come across the latter countless times. No mouse mat. No wrist rests. Shabby offices. Cables across the floor (trip hazard) etc. Odd smells. Weird location. Blocked exits. Rooms that are too small, which is bad for people who get claustrophobia. None of these things can be known until the participant goes to the first face to face. After that the location problems or lack of accessibility to things needs to be listed and forwarded to either the provider or the roach, pronto. It does not mean the participant has to get over the barrier. In a lot of cases it's physically impossible. The "mandation" itself is not lawful in those circumstances.

Many claimants won't risk the sanction, they want to keep their heads down, but that won't help them in the long run. They go and they put up with all sorts of things not knowing that a 101 tiny things could be a breach of the EA 2010 and in return for being hassled by the provider, talked down to, condescended to etc, the participant can hassle the provider right back. On attendance they can take note of any and all health and safety law breaches, or the provider's ignorance where barriers to access are concerned and let them know. After all, they are only letting them know, as is their right under the EA 2010. If the provider bends over backwards I recommend giving them due respect for that, a win was scored. The point of this exercise is to get them to the Equality in the Equality Act - i.e equal access. We all have the right to be able to access these mandated schemes and that's where the DWP and the providers tend to fall down.

If the DWP mandates a claimant to a scheme and then sanctions them for anything that occurs in relation to their disability or any other problem that falls under the EA 2010 that person has a strong claim for disability discrimination. It's free when a claimant is on benefits, or a very low income, to submit a claim to the small claims court (under £10k). There is a pdf in the law section here that helps individual takes action against the DWP themselves. It's no harder to make the claim than it is to fight off a sanction. It usually doesn't get to court. With a strong enough case the DWP will fold and settle out of court. The claim itself is usually enough to get them to listen, which in the end, is what most of us really want.

Some excellent points there Absolut. Especially under suitability as i see from my own circumstances are very unsuitable to many of their idealisms.


"making it more likely in the opinion of the Secretary of State that the claimant will obtain paid work (or more paid work or better-paid work)."

They forgot to add their other favourite of 'will remain in work for longer' if we go along with that specialist thought process .Has anyone told these 'intellectuals' that we too have an opinion, and that, differs substantially from theirs .

I can assure these planks that I, will not be discussing my MH with any of these cowboy providers.

Thats outstanding info Absolut and many on the forum should take note and file it . This is the type of information roach ville will be hoping many will not realise.

"If the DWP mandates a claimant to a scheme and then sanctions them for anything that occurs in relation to their disability or any other problem that falls under the EA 2010 that person has a strong claim for disability discrimination. It's free when a claimant is on benefits, or a very low income, to submit a claim to the small claims court (under £10k) ."

Thanks Jobber. I was told yesterday by a roach who isn't the brightest bulb in the box that benefit claimants can't take an individual roach to court. I don't think he got the memo:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/request/313390/response/766283/attach3/Reply%20363.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Complying with the legal requirements of the Equality Act 2010 is part of the Civil Service Code. Therefore, any member of staff who fails to comply could face disciplinary action.

If a customer is able to establish in a court that they have experienced discrimination as defined in the Equality Act, they could be awarded compensation. This could be awarded either against DWP or an individual member of staff. Therefore, staff must take their responsibilities in regard to complying with the Equality Act seriously.

After arrogantly telling me the opposite of the above, the roach then threatened to send me on a course that is outside the distance I can travel. Guess which one? WHP (JETS) Do I get UC? No. Do I get NS JSA? No. If he meant WHP (core), where the candidate is disabled, it's still voluntary the last time I looked.  

https://disabilityrights.org.uk/images//Challenging_disability_discrimination_by_the_DWP.pdf

The Equality Act 2010 stipulates that the DWP must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. That means the DWP cannot impose fixed administrative processes on claimants that disadvantage them unless it can demonstrate those practices are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

E.g: Demanding engagement with work related activity that a claimant could not reasonably be expected to be able to deal with due to disability.

Broadly speaking, if the DWP does something to a disabled person that harms them, and that harm could have been prevented by a practical and realistic change in the way the DWP handled their case, it’s likely that the DWP has breached the Equality Act.

The roach hears the word "equality" and the script is "As long as I treat you equally as sh*t as every other claimant, I'm all right".  The "script" is that they can do whatever they like, but they forget that they are not above the law. They aren't actually the Gestapo, at least, not yet.

"The Equality Act 2010 stipulates that the DWP must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. That means the DWP cannot impose fixed administrative processes on claimants that disadvantage them unless it can demonstrate those practices are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

E.g: Demanding engagement with work related activity that a claimant could not reasonably be expected to be able to deal with due to disability.

Broadly speaking, if the DWP does something to a disabled person that harms them, and that harm could have been prevented by a practical and realistic change in the way the DWP handled their case, it’s likely that the DWP has breached the Equality Act.
"

Love the way Absolut explained the above, and so very useful for many to start quoting to any  jumped up jobsworths in Roach Shops who lets face it, really do feel they are the law when we have the misfortune to visit that crap hole of a place talking about nothing. So next time the bullying starts, I for one will be using this as effectively as I can .

Having things in a condensed good to go format, can save hours of reading Law and regs.


The nut cracker imo:
E.g: Demanding engagement with work related activity that a claimant could not reasonably be expected to be able to deal with due to disability.

Is there any way to disengage once you've unwittingly agreed to this bollocks? I suffer from clinical depression, anxiety and PTSD and find regular signings and everything in between stressful enough. I now have to deal with this lot harassing me, texting me nearly daily etc. Making matters worse they've just changed offices and I am expected to drive 15 miles to each appointment, then 15 home. It isn't helping, quite the opposite. I don't want to do it anymore but fear I'm stuck. I am doing everything I am supposed to do and more than I feel capable of doing already. Thanks for any advice

Look on the section of the forum headed Programmes and Courses, there are several threads about the WHP on there. Lots of people on here have WHP experience so will be able to point you in the right direction.

Also Google WHP Provider Guidance and have a read of that to inform yourself about what your provider should be doing. You may find they are not playing by the rules-providers don't normally follow the rules. Off the top of my head, you say they are texting you daily. It may be the case the provider guidance says you get to choose the method of communication. If so, tell them you wish to deal with them by post to stop the texts. They will hate that. Is the provider's office more than 90minutes away, door to door, by public transport? If so, you probably shouldn't have to go. Those are just 2 examples of why the guidance is always worth a read.

Are you are a voluntary referral to the WHP?

The biggy with these awful programs is around consenting to share data and letting them retain a copy of your CV. They are normally your best bet at making life easier. Look on the section of the forum I mentioned, after all the threads about how awful Restart is there are plenty with good advice for you about the horrors of the WHP.

DPW Provider Guidance for the WHP

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-and-health-programme-including-jets-provider-guidance

Written in easy to understand style, and invaluable for ensuring you know what the provider has been contracted to do. Hint: there is all too often a big difference between what they do and and what they are supposed to do. They rely on you being unaware of said guidance to bully you. Get reading and nitpicking to make sure they are not trying it on with you.

Links to some of the threads on this forum about the WHP.

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

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t4339-consent-work-health-programme

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t1329-how-to-avoid-the-work-health-programme

Have a read and post again in the Programmes and Courses section. This forum, though not the busiest, is home to some bolshy types who will do their utmost to inform you of your rights on the WHP (you have more than they would like you to know) and how best to swat away the pestilence otherwise known as providers delivering the Work and Health Programme.

Good luck.

Hi Tim290724,

Just sent you a PM.

Jobber


"What exactly happen's on the Work and Health Programme?" People become sicker, or are dragged into completely unsuitable jobs with crappy conditions. So I've been told.

Yes, there is. Did you read the PM I sent you?

Tm290724 wrote:Is there any way to disengage once you've unwittingly agreed to this bollocks?  I suffer from clinical depression, anxiety and PTSD and find regular signings and everything in between stressful enough.  I now have to deal with this lot harassing me, texting me nearly daily etc.  Making matters worse they've just changed offices and I am expected to drive 15 miles to each appointment, then 15 home.  It isn't helping, quite the opposite. I don't want to do it anymore but fear I'm stuck.  I am doing everything I am supposed to do and more than I feel capable of doing already.  Thanks for any advice

[size=18]I started on the DWP'S own Back to Work and Health Programme[ about April 2021.
I went to work for myself as a heating engineer. I didn't start work until July with everything I need to ready for the job, a job Id done before.
I stopped about June 2023 due to the health problems I've had since 2012, Fibromyalgia, chronic depression and acute fog, and the job not working out.
I was re-assessed and have had my UC claim money more than halved with the limited capability for work component and status stripped from me after 10 YEARS[u]of being in receipt of.
After gaining an unfit for work note whilst on appeal I've been harassed 4 times by a work coach asking for interviews and commitment reviews.
Apparently if it goes against you while appealing the Doctor will not go against their remote statistic conclusion for work fitness.......
I emailed Damien Moore ,my, MP for Southport, and after a couple of emails have basically had no help with Dwp failing to give me any information about the complaints procedure.
I][u]I URGE ANYONE DO NOT GO ON THE BACK TO WORK PROGRAMMES !!!!!
Do not trust them
Please COPY PASTE SHARE SEND to share to help me and anyone else this might distroy.
Yours sincerely G from SOUTHPORT.[//size]

[size=18]I started on the DWP'S own Back to Work and Health Programme[ about April 2021.
I went to work for myself as a heating engineer. I didn't start work until July with everything I need to ready for the job, a job Id done before.
I stopped about June 2023 due to the health problems I've had since 2012, Fibromyalgia, chronic depression and acute fog, and the job not working out.
I was re-assessed and have had my UC claim money more than halved with the limited capability for work component and status stripped from me after 10 YEARS[u]of being in receipt of.
After gaining an unfit for work note whilst on appeal I've been harassed 4 times by a work coach asking for interviews and commitment reviews.
Apparently if it goes against you while appealing the Doctor will not go against their remote statistic conclusion for work fitness.......
I emailed Damien Moore ,my, MP for Southport, and after a couple of emails have basically had no help with Dwp failing to give me any information about the complaints procedure.
I][u]I URGE ANYONE DO NOT GO ON THE BACK TO WORK PROGRAMMES !!!!!
Do not trust them
Please COPY PASTE SHARE SEND to share to help me and anyone else this might distroy.
Yours sincerely G from SOUTHPORT

This is bad news, and typical of what can occur. Unfortunately it's usually the involvement of an MP to sort stuff like this. Or a good copy and paste to media channels, radio,tv, local journalists may be interested.

"Apparently if it goes against you while appealing the Doctor will not go against their remote statistic conclusion for work fitness......."
If this was me, I'd go see a GP asap in advance of any maybe decision going further against you, ask Dr what he/she is willing to write in your favour. GP's ive spoke with don't take kindly to any jumped up Muppet, telling them they know better. They have a duty of care to their patients despite what roach and co may think. I have also come across some real Tory jobs worth of a Dr, and would not do sod all when they clearly should of. One overlooked my mental health so badly i ended up seeing a shrink not long after. If i had done what the original Dr proposed, my life would have been an absolute hell. Not all Drs are Tory jobsworths and do and can, think outside the box. Act in the patients very best interest when required.

If you feel, they are not acting in your best interest tell them. File a formal complaint against them as they clearly would not be acting in your best interest if its seen to be very clear, you meet the definition of being disabled, for instance ? Then get a 2nd opinion from another GP sharpish. It's the only way to deal with these situations imo. Their hoping you will just go away, but dont

Good luck

Thanks for the advice.
Just feeling swamped in atm.
Regards Graham