Warm Handover (Restart Scheme)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restart-provider-guidance/chapter-2-referral-process-and-initial-engagement#jobcentre-referral-to-restart

I was reading a post (referenced below), and thought it needed a thread of it's own . About the "Warm Handover"?
(2.6)
"Warm Handover" - a 3x way call, between: Roach , Provider , and Participant. Before the first face to face meeting.

Now I have a couple of issues here. Firstly there might be some confusion between the parties, I believe #Oneman had some problems with this, crossed wires you could say. Of matter's being agreed to without his consent. Not to mention Moron's , 'putting words into others mouths'. Had a meeting once where someone thought it was clever to answer for other people. Needless to say the meeting lasted twice as long, and the person made a fool of themselves!. Secondly, is this a deliberate ploy of 2 against 1 scenario, to make the participant/claimant feel pressured into taking part in this scheme? To my next point, what if the participant doesn't like using the telephone, can they reasonable refuse to take part. And ask for the Provider to arrange a meeting at the Dole. And finally as the JCP record all of their phone calls. Can a claimant/participant receive a copy of the phone call/conference, audio preferably. So to avoid as previously mentioned people '. Putting words into others mouths . So it can be clearly heard and not a paper transcript of the phone meeting?




Reference:
pg 6, #d.appleby posting (08:48), 29/04/22.

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t4688p125-restart-program#14591

Pintel wrote:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restart-provider-guidance/chapter-2-referral-process-and-initial-engagement#jobcentre-referral-to-restart

I was reading a post (referenced below), and thought it needed a thread of it's own . About the "Warm Handover"?
(2.6)
"Warm Handover" - a 3x way call, between: Roach , Provider , and Participant. Before the first face to face meeting.

2.7. The majority of Warm Handover meetings will be held via a three-way conference call between the Potential Participant, Jobcentre Plus work coach and you.

It's the work programme all over again. Except this time the initial phone call to the claimant is monitored by the DWP in an intrusive fashion to ensure an appointment is made.

A notification has to be sent to or handed to the claimant informing them that they are mandated to participate in an employment scheme, which includes participating in an interview with a provider, before any provider has the authority to speak to a claimant. The DWP has made it quite clear via their Statutory Instrument that IB JSA claimants can be mandated onto Restart just like they could on the Work Programme. They left the words "9 months" in the documents, which is absurd, when no-one has been able to submit a new claim for JSA for a very long time. How long has it been UC only? 2 years or more?

2.17. Immediately after the Warm Handover, the Jobcentre Plus work coach will issue the Potential Participant with information you have supplied about your support offer and the Restart Scheme.

I presume this simply means them printing out confirmation of the date and time of the face to face. They'd better send me the notification mandating me to participate in an employment scheme called Restart first before thinking they can get me to "participate in an interview with a provider" where the JCP is present.

2.19. The PRaP Purchase Order Number (PO Number) will start with 10 for JSA Claimants. The Jobcentre Plus work coach will issue a notification to the Potential Participant confirming that participation on the Restart Scheme is mandatory.

When? The notification to participate in a mandatory employment scheme must be sent to the claimant before there is any contact from a third party provider.

2.18. Following a successful Warm Handover, the Jobcentre Plus work coach will make a referral to you using Labour Market System (LMS). This will generate a referral on PRaP.

The referral should have already been sent before the warm handover.

2.28. A Participant cannot start on the Restart Scheme without you receiving a DWP IT systems referral via PRaP. Following a Warm Handover call, the PRaP referral should be received within 2 working days. Should there be an outage of the PRaP system, DWP will issue a PRaP bulletin to inform you, and this will advise accordingly.

The referral should have already been sent and accepted before the warm handover.

Pintel wrote:Now I have a couple of issues here. Firstly there might be some confusion between the parties, I believe #Oneman had some problems with this, crossed wires you could say. Of matter's being agreed to without his consent.  Not to mention Moron's , 'putting words into others mouths'. Had a meeting once where someone thought it was clever to answer for other people. Needless to say the meeting lasted twice as long, and the person made a fool of themselves!

A couple of issues? lol I have an issue with the entire thing and the order of the actions taken.

The 'mandation to participate in an employment scheme' negates the need for the roach to be involved in the interaction between the provider and the claimant unless neither the roach nor the provider has ever met the claimant, or the parties can't be in the same room.  It makes no sense to us now, but it made sense to them in June 2021.

Secondly, is this a deliberate ploy of 2 against 1 scenario, to make the participant/claimant feel pressured into taking part in this scheme?

There is no choice but to participate in an employment scheme when a claimant has been mandated to do so. There is no need to pressure the claimant into it. As I wrote above, the claimant has no choice but to arrange a date and time to see the provider face to face so the conference call is about more than simply arranging an initial face to face, but likely to do with a roach and a provider attempting to get information together about the suitability of the claimant.

If they are still doing the warm handover, failure to mandate prior to the call is an abuse of process. They have no right to pretend that a claimant has to speak to a provider before notification has been given. I think they were fishing to see which claimants to mandate and which claimants to not bother with.

To my next point, what if the participant doesn't like using the telephone, can they reasonable refuse to take part. And ask for the Provider to arrange a meeting at the Dole. And finally as the JCP record all of their phone calls. Can a claimant/participant receive a copy of the phone call/conference, audio preferably. So to avoid as previously mentioned people '. Putting words into others mouths . So it can be clearly heard and not a paper transcript of the phone meeting?

Well, the assumption is that the call takes place in the joke centre, but I don't see that as a fact anywhere in the documents. As for not liking calls, no I see no reason why it's not ok to tell the roach a convenient date and time in person, which the roach can then pass onto the provider.

If the call does not take place in the joke centre the claimant has every right to record it off their own phone. If it does take place in the joke centre they have to explain why the claimant can't record the call for their own records. No, I think the likely scenario is claimant at home, roach and provider call at the same time to speak the claimant about Restart. The entire scenario taking place in a joke centre is what is baffling, if that happens.  

Thanks #Absolut .

One point, if you mention that the Participant is "Under Duress" and says this during the conference call. Would not it make the agreement void? .

Pintel wrote:Thanks #Absolut .

One point, if you mention that the Participant is "Under Duress" and says this during the conference call. Would not it make the agreement void? .

Ok, look at is this way. Your contract is with the DWP, not the DWP's Restart provider. Until the Scheme has started the provider has no right to speak to you.

It's referral to the provider, acceptance by the provider, written notification to the claimant ordering them to participate under threat of death, then the provider rings the claimant to make a face to face appointment - in that order.

Provider and roach speak to the claimant, claimant agrees date and time for first appointment, DWP then sends referral, referral is accepted and written notification given to the claimant that the scheme is mandatory is an abuse of process.

It's putting the cart before the horse.

No written notification to the claimant = no start date on the scheme.
No start date on the scheme means no sanction can be levied.
No start date on the scheme = provider has zero rights.

I was told up front that Restart is mandatory. They can eff off with their "warm hand on your orifice" then. Provider is taking the p*ss thinking they have the right to interview me before I'm mandated onto their scheme.

If anyone knows why a provider is suddenly the DWP itself I'd love to know.

I'll be surprised if there's a "warm handover" now it's got out that Restart is mandatory.

Ok, from what I've read the situation is this:

If Restart appears on a UC CC it covers them as a mandatory action that has to be taken by the claimant or a sanction can be enacted.  A UC CC includes a scheme or programme. They don't need a notification to the claimant to order them to participate in a scheme other than for it to appear on a CC.

Where legacy JSA is concerned they cannot put it on a CC. JSA conditions do not include schemes like Restart. That is why Coffey re-activated the JSA Employment Scheme 2013 for Restart to give them the power to mandate, but only on sending a written notification. It was confusing to me why london123 had not been sent a written notification before the "warm handover" call.

Looking through the docs there are multiple problems for Restart taking on JSA claimants. They harass UC claimants via them having to look for work for 35 hours per week. There is no 35 hours per week for legacy JSA, that's why the 2 twonks at our joke centre tried to foist the wrong CCs onto us.

35 hour job search ...what a joke .Just as well be watching paint dry.

I guess UC claimants are treated this way opposed to JSA inmates due to the overwhelming 'tailored, specific, one to one support ' in that we have to 'work' harder for our 'money   .'

Dread the day when they force me onto this pile of crap ''retry scheme", I really am.

''Secondly, is this a deliberate ploy of 2 against 1 scenario, to make the participant/claimant feel pressured into taking part in this scheme?''

In red should be permanently stopped. Some, who may have mental health issues could be at risk of that being made worse due to this great idea.

Pintel: Can a claimant/participant receive a copy of the phone call/conference, audio preferably.

Id say yes SAR them  It will cost them and not you plus the administrative inconvenience . But ask for it in digital format as wouldn't put it past them, to send it out on cassette tape.

I was waiting for the Roach today on the 'Loafers️ Sofa' in the Dole. And there was some chap, having the Threesome call. So I made some notes 🤫, you got to open plan office's. #Dislaimer here this may not be the same for all just what I overhear, and took no personal information just questions asked:
* Name
* DOB
* Address/Post code
* NI Number
* Email address
* Phone number
* Last employer
*Work experience
* Type of job sector's
* Required basic skills
* Etc etc etc

While I didn't hear all the call as escorted to the roach's perch. But chap wasn't there when I return so it lasted approx 30 mins. Why the JCP couldn't email all of this from their records. Keeps someone in a job.

Just thought it might help to know what is on the Provider's script...

Well done #Catwoman.

You'd be surprised how many 'Sheeple' would just give out that private information in a public space! ...

I suppose the polite thing to say is 'I don't wish to supply that information down the phone , but I will inform you in person'. That way avoids any non-participation from the claimant?

They are expressly forbidden from asking for an NI number or home address:

Information, such Potential Participants’ address or National Insurance number etc, are not to be asked for at the Warm Handover as this information is included in the subsequent Provider Referral and Payment System (PRaP) referral.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restart-provider-guidance/chapter-2-referral-process-and-initial-engagement

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restart-provider-guidance/chapter-2b-referral-process-and-initial-engagement-income-based-jobseekers-allowance-claimants-jsa-ib

Was the claimant on their mobile phone for that 3 way call?

Absolut wrote:They are expressly forbidden from asking for an NI number or home address:
ce-claimants-jsa-ib

Was the claimant on their mobile phone for that 3 way call?

The punter was using a JCP landline phone, #Absolut. Not sure if the DWP use any encrypted phone lines? Surprised they didn't ask for Bank account details and pin number ...

As I previously mentioned that I didn't hear all of the Lukewarm handover-.
However, I wonder if they got the question; "Why are you not in employment?'.
Like it is entirely the claimants fault . Maybe it's due to year's of 'Streamlining/Outsourcing/Asset stripping' of British industries. While at the same time an increase in the population, therefore a decrease in the need for labour. But shift the blame onto the claimant's. They got this box ticked ok....

just questions asked:
* Name
* DOB
* Address/Post code
* NI Number
* Email address
* Phone number
* Last employer
*Work experience
* Type of job sector's
* Required basic skills

There is no way I would give that info out in a public space. It's asking for someone to commit identity theft. Looks to me like the claimant was self-referring with the provider taking all that info rather than the DWP sending it as they are supposed to.

Pintel wrote:The punter was using a JCP landline

Good. That is as it should be, except if you are a JSA claimant and the provider and/or the DWP has not given you a SAPOE Regulation 5 notice first.

[quote="Absolut"]

Looks to me like the claimant was self-referring with the provider taking all that info rather than the DWP sending it as they are supposed to.

I would of said the claimant had been 'mandated' onto the 3xway call, from the look on his face 🤮. While I am not % sure of this....

How many times do the JCP roach's follow their own rules??? Instead of making it up as they go along....

Pintel wrote:I would of said the claimant had been 'mandated' onto the 3xway call

Yes, well, UC claimants can't get UC without agreeing up front to participate in employment schemes, which includes phone calls from providers where they get to ring up and arrange an initial meeting, but I don't imagine it was supposed to be in public and certainly not to include things like someone saying their address and NI number out loud for everyone to hear in the joke centre. I mean WTF?!

That "mandated" 3 way call does not consider the Equality Act 2010 whatsoever. It doesn't even occur to roaches or providers to ask first if the claimant can take the call. That is because roaches do not understand the word access. Nor do they understand the words "correctly notified". The only words they understand are "mandatory" and "sanction".

I will not volunteer myself on to a discriminatory scheme where UC claimants can get their sanction lifted, but JSA claimants can't. It's called Restart, but it's really the Work Programme all over again.

Restart for JSA before the first meeting - DM sets about enacting a sanction and can't find a record that says anything other than "referral to Restart" on LMS, a referral the claimant is not required to be involved in. The provider has not sent the required letter to the claimant as per Reg 5 of the SAPOE Regs. Neither has the DWP. Restart is not on the claimant's CC as "I will participate the Restart scheme"....DM quickly de-escalates hoping like hell the claimant doesn't know what a judicial review is.

Absolut wrote:[

[/i]Restart, but it's really the Work Programme all over again.
.

It seems to be that way #Absolute ... As I haven't received my information brochure as yet, I can definitel say...

Also after completing the 'Work Program'claimants where defined as a new claim. Just wondering if a legacy benefits claimant, completes the Retread scheme, are they clsssed as a new claim and forced onto the UC. Hence the reason for the JCP pushing this scheme for legacy benefits claimant🤨.

Pintel wrote:Also after completing the 'Work Program'claimants where defined as a new claim. Just wondering if a legacy benefits claimant, completes the Retread scheme, are they clsssed as a new claim and forced onto the UC. Hence the reason for the JCP pushing this scheme for legacy benefits claimant🤨.

We completed the work programme and it wasn't classed as a new claim. Yes they are pushing the scheme to get JSA claimants to switch to UC. Once on Restart they will endeavour to get a sanction that will close the JSA claim down where the claimant either starves to death or claims UC.

The only reference I can find about a SAPOE scheme and a new claim is this:

34878 A requirement to participate in a relevant scheme ceases to apply if the
1. Secretary of State gives notice in writing that the claimant is no longer required to participate or
2. award of JSA ends
whichever is the earlier1.

Note 1: If DMG 34876 1. applies the requirement ceases to apply on the date specified in the notice2.

Note 2: If the award of JSA ends and then the claimant returns to JSA, the claimant has to be re-notified of all the requirements of participation in a relevant scheme as per DMG 34867 for the new claim. Any notifications issued on the previous claim cannot apply to any failures to comply that occur in the new award. This is regardless of whether the claimant is referred to the same provider from the previous claim and regardless of how short the break in the claim.
1 JSA (SAPOE) Regs, reg 6(2); 2 reg 6(3)

A sanction that closes a claim while that claimant is on Restart kills Restart too. They would have to be re-referred. There are no new claims to JSA IB now. However, there is no time limit on getting a JSA claim re-opened, as long as the claimant does not claim UC. Time is short to get the sanction overturned and they are likely to delay it as long as they can, even knowing they would lose a tribunal case. The aim is to close JSA claims. 50,000 of them, by hook or by crook.

Restart does not fit JSA. It is geared towards a UC claim. Are we to believe that Restart is so brilliant they can get 50,000 long term unemployed JSA claimants into short term temporary work within 365 days? If Restart is about getting JSA claimants into work then why have they been given this specific power?:

The change will allow Restart Scheme providers to legally require JSA IB claimants (residing in England and Wales) to undertake Work Search and work preparation activities.

My work search activity is something I do, not something they do. They are, in effect, taking over from the roach and becoming a new "what have you done to look for work in the last fortnight" roach. They are box tickers. If, in their view, you have not done enough to look for work they snitch on you to the joke centre. Guess what happens when you are not ASE? That's right, claim closed.

Btw "work preparation" is a UC term that only applies to people in UC groups. It doesn't apply to JSA claimants unless it's on a JSD, which only a DWP Employment Officer can issue.

In order to sink the Restart ship before it sails we can look to the Work Programme to see what happened in regard to procedures and apply that to what should be happening for Restart. They are both SAPOE schemes. Restart has replaced the Work Programme.

https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/resources/article/working-work-programme-sanctions

A jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) claimant is only required to participate, and hence can only fail to participate, where s/he has been given a written notice that includes details of what s/he is expected to do to participate.1 In R (Reilly and Wilson) v SSWP [2013] UKSC 68 (now best referred to as Reilly (No.1)), the issue of the adequacy of the notices given to Mr Wilson was extensively considered to check whether they complied with this and the other requirements. Of most, ongoing, relevance was what the Court had to say about the details of the activities provided:

‘The letter […] merely informed Mr Wilson that he had to perform “any activities” requested of him [...], without giving him any idea of the likely nature of the tasks, the hours of work, or the place or places of work. […] [T]herefore […] the letter failed to give Mr Wilson “details of what [he was] required to do by way of participation”’.

Since then, the DWP has changed the notices. A standard first letter is now issued when the claimant is referred onto the scheme. That letter should provide enough detail to cover all of the issues which must be notified apart from the ‘details of what the claimant is required to do by way of participation’. The claimant’s participation requirement notification is then supposed to be issued by the Work Programme provider in a ‘MAN’ letter (the letter also re-states various other bits of the information required to be notified).

Replace the words "Work Programme" with "Restart". The "standard letter" is a notice as per Regulation 5 of the SAPOE Regs. That notice MUST be issued and it MUST have a start date on it if the DWP and the provider wish to make Restart mandatory. No notice = not mandatory and that includes the phone call from the provider ringing up to arrange a first meeting. If they do issue a notice then the provider can contact the claimant to arrange the first meeting.

Now, personally I don't give a toss when the providers enter that start date on their systems, what is important for us is that the DWP or the provider has put it in writing that we are now ON Restart and from what date prior to the provider ringing up to arrange a first meeting. What they are doing is skipping the required notification and going straight to the provider ringing up to get an initial meeting date. Roaches believe sending a referral and that referral being accepted by the provider means the SAPOE Regs have kicked in, but they have not. If a roach inserts into any letter that the claimant will be sanctioned under SAPOE Regs if they do not participate in a call from a provider and the DWP does not have proof that a Regulation 5 notice was issued to the claimant a DM cannot legally justify the sanction. They don't care about that. They only care about their target - which is 50,000 referrals to Restart.  

A further issue that may arise is where a claimant has, since being referred onto the Work Programme, had a gap in entitlement to JSA – eg, due to being held not to have been actively seeking work. The initial notice issued by the DWP referring the claimant onto the Work Programme ceases to be valid as soon as entitlement to JSA ceases.3 For that claimant to again be required to participate in the Work Programme, a new notice needs to be issued.

Although the Court expressed doubt about ‘whether the Work Programme as operated in fact fails to give claimants such information’, the door is now firmly open for advisers to argue in a particular case that a claimant was not given sufficient information about an activity s/he was mandated prior to the mandation being issued. In CPAG’s experience, it is not uncommon for claimants to first find out about activities they are to be required to undertake from the mandation letter itself, without any prior discussion having taken place (indeed one case, albeit of mandatory work activity, involved a claimant with a medically documented arthritic condition being asked to perform 30 hours a week ground work in a park – the need to perform the activity having been presented to the claimant as a fait accompli). In these cases, everything depends on what objections claimants might have raised had they had sufficient information of the activities they were to be asked to perform, and of the guidance to Work Programme providers.

Now the word "discuss" in DWP-speak means a roach tells you what is going to happen. There is no discussion whatsoever. Any objections that are raised are ignored. I had to raise my objections in writing. I threw the Equality Act at them and the SAPOE Regs. They complied with the EA 2010 and ignored the SAPOE Regs. I objected physically to the 3 way call by not taking my mobile phone with me. The roach went nuts. I had to give his supervisor a copy of the SAPOE Regs and a written objection to the Restart provider procedure guidance not fitting JSA SAPOE Regulations, highlighting the fact that the start date on the scheme is the first meeting and therefore that date could not appear on a Regulation 5 notice due to it being subject to change. I've heard nothing since then.

The Court of Appeal now confirms that it will be rare for a claimant to be able to rely on a failure to provide prior information at the stage of referral onto the Work Programme (para 172). However, the Court of Appeal explains that the requirement to provide prior information relates to each activity a claimant is subsequently mandated to perform:

‘In principle, JSA claimants who are required, or who it is proposed should be required under the Work Programme, to participate in a particular activity should have sufficient information to enable them to make meaningful representations about that requirement – for example that the activity is unsuitable for them or that there are practical obstacles to their participation [….] [T]he whole purpose of the representations, and thus of the claimant having the relevant information to make them, is so that the provider may be persuaded that the requirement should not be made, or should be withdrawn or modified.’ (para 177)

The Restart procedure for JSA claimants should be modified to include the words "voluntary" at the point of referral and highlighting (like the SBWA) that the scheme only becomes mandatory after the claimant has attended the first meeting. So far they have not done so. They need to withdraw the 3 way call as it breaches the Equality Act 2010 for thousands of claimants. Apparently neither the DWP nor the provider gives a toss about the Equality Act. The DWP must not mandate JSA claimants into taking calls from providers when they have no authority to quote SAPOE Regs they are failing to follow to begin with.

Sorry this post is so long.

hello all just registered!
my 3 way handshake call session has enough faults through the process i am making a timeline of events prior to complaint...

i have 3 different dates for my "Restart Initial Induction" amongst other failures to follow procedures, it`s almost like they don`t know what day it is :-D

mandy tori wrote:hello all just registered!
my 3 way handshake call session has enough faults through the process i am making a timeline of events prior to complaint...

i have 3 different dates for my "Restart Initial Induction" amongst other failures to follow procedures, it`s almost like they don`t know what day it is :-D

Hi and welcome

Interesting re 3 different initial induction dates. Which benefit are you on? JSA or UC?

During the warm handover were you asked to give your NI and address over the phone, in public, to the provider? I am deeply concerned that joke centre staff, in their zeal to get claimants onto Restart, are putting claimants at risk of identity theft.

yes the WC had told the provider my NI number at the start of the call prior to merging me into the call, literally the first question from the provider was my home address.
im on legacy JSA

also my mobile phone has the call recorded but lacks any recording when WC had muted me but was still talking with provider at the end

mandy tori wrote:yes the WC had told the provider my NI number at the start of the call prior to merging me into the call, literally the first question from the provider was my home address.
im on legacy JSA

also my mobile phone has the call recorded but lacks any recording when WC had muted me but was still talking with provider at the end

Ok, thanks.

I am fully convinced that the JSA LMS system can't connect to the Restart provider referral system or they'd simply send all the info like they are supposed to for schemes like the WHP. The routine they are following looks like a JSA claimant referring themselves to Restart and the DWP "facilitating" the call. That means our roach lied when he said a referral had been sent (by them) when all he did was book a call.

the person i was told to see on the day of the call was "sick" so not in the office, so i got sent to her colleague whom was doing her workload for the day who stated he "couldn't have access to her account fully" - i would say your suspicions are correct that the LMS is being circumvented in that fashion