CWP Participation

P Baker made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Work and Pensions

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

I have been mandated to Community Work Placements & have been assigned a provider.
Will I be sanctioned if I do not sign the contract the provider expects me to sign?
Wouldn't such contract be void if signed under threat of such sanction (duress)?
Do I still have my right to privacy ect without risking a benefit sanction?
Has the provider been given powers by the Secretary of State?

Yours faithfully,

P Baker

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

DWP CEP Correspondence, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear P Baker

Please see attached reply to your recent Freedom of Information request.

Many Thanks

Business Management Team | Department for Work and Pensions | Contracted Operations Directorate | DWP Operations | Level 4 Rockingham House, 123 West Street, Sheffield S1 4ER | www.dwp.gov.uk | Please consider the environment before printing

show quoted sections

Dear DWP CEP Correspondence,

I have been sanctioned for not fully participating in Community Work Placements. The decision makers say that it was because I refused to sign paperwork and failure to do so constitute an incomplete appointment.

In the FOI bellow which is similar to mine it was stated that,
"If a Claimant did not wish to sign an action plan they need not sign an Action Plan. We will review the
Community Work Placement provider guidance; and issue an amendment to clarify this."
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

1. Is it a sanctionable offence to refuse to sign any paperwork requested by Community Work Placement Providers?

2. Please confirm that not signing forms requested by the Community Work Placement Provider does not constitute a failure to participate.

3. Please forward any information you have on the clarity given to CWP providers, decision makers & Jobcenter Plus advisors including dates mentioned in the link above.

Yours sincerely,

P Baker

P Baker left an annotation ()

An Action Plan is the headder of the agreement/contract I was requested to sign in my Initial Engagement Meeting that failure constituted an incomplete appointment.

refuted left an annotation ()

@P Baker
“There is no mandatory requirement for individuals to sign specific forms when participating in Back to Work (BtW) schemes, including Help to Work (HtW) ” https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

DWP CEP Correspondence, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear P Baker

Please see attached reply to your recent Freedom of Information request.

Many Thanks

Business Management Team | Department for Work and Pensions |Finance Group | Contracted Employment Provision Directorate| Level 4 Rockingham House, 123 West Street, Sheffield S1 4ER | www.dwp.gov.uk | Please consider the environment before printing

show quoted sections

P Baker left an annotation ()

I WON THE APPEAL
(Step 1) I received enquiry about a doubt.
(Step 2) Was sanctioned & I asked for reconsideration, providing this FOI request as evidence along with “Mandatory to sign CWP Action Plan?” FOI request.
(step 3) Decision upheld so I requested an appeal through tribunal.
(Conclusion) Decision overturned as I did not fail to participate. “a person cannot be sanctioned simply for refusing to sign documentation drawn up by the provider.” The provider confirmed that I was willing to participate in the CWP & my only issue was signing the documents.

If you have/had an issue with signing the action plan/contract/agreement with your Community Work Placements Provider but can/have show(n) a willingness to participate ask the advisor/decision maker to look up the result of my tribunal decision using the JCP Ref: 34766
17th Feb 2015.

P Baker left an annotation ()

You may also wish to provide these alternative references:
HMCTS REF: SC068/15/00122 DATED 13TH FEB 2015.
(LMDM) Labour Market Decision Makers may wish to enquire with DMA Leeds

refuted left an annotation ()

@P Baker.
If possible, please email a scanned copy of your tribunal decision to email@refuted.org.uk and if OK please grant permission for a copy to be posted on www.refuted.org.uk , it would be redacted to remove your personally identifying info. This could help others with similar FOI requests and challenges to DWP benefit sanctions. Thanks

refuted left an annotation ()

Collated info on above, with details of new related FOI requests 'DWP Providers say: "Sign here or face Benefit Sanctions" True or False?' http://refuted.org.uk/2015/02/23/signhere

Trevor Roberts left an annotation ()

What's interesting about this is that Peter asks -
"Wouldn't such contract be void if signed under threat of such sanction"
DWP then answer Peter's question with threats of sanction!

Amazing!

smshogun left an annotation ()

They would be a void contract if any threats, harassment, pressure, or intimidation is applied and with a threat of sanction it would be an unconscionable contract on the grounds of FINANCIAL DURESS.

Unconscionability or financial duress means that the contract is deemed a void contract and you are not obligated under its terms and conditions.

Go to websites such as getoutofdebtfree where they have a wealth of information and template documents to apply recission to any void contract.

ben left an annotation ()

P Baker
Since you won your appeal concerning the non-signing of the CWP documents, have you been forced to attend any CWP placement or any activities of any kind arranged by your CWP provider, or have you simply not had anything more to do with your provider? An update would be appreciated by those following your FOI request.

P Baker left an annotation ()

Hi Ben,

My JCP advisor told me that after the appeal it was up to the CWP provider to decide what action to take next. I notified the CWP provider that I won the appeal by phone & within the content of a cease & desist order due to the harassment & distress caused by them raising a doubt against me where there should have been no doubt that there was no obligation to sign. Afterwards I was never asked or mandated to attend any meeting with the CWP provider nor was I mandated to attend any work placements.

According to JCP I was mandated to attend & participate, the CWP provider admitted that I did attend, I was willing to participate & would have signed under duress making any contracts void. When I was at the CWP providers meeting for the second time after the first sanction I acted like I'd do anything to prevent another sanction but would make a civil claim against them once it was discovered that what they did was illegal. I also mentioned me supporting a few local activist groups that would love to help me open the flood gates to take every penny from CWP providers nationwide that mislead or cause unnecessary distress to people because they withheld their signature.

I attended appointments with the CWP provider twice & got my train fare reimbursed each time. Near the end of the six months I got bored of waiting for them so I volunteered with the British Heart Foundation of my own free will. Now I have a paid 4hr per week job on minimum wage & I love it.

There is no guarantee that what happened to me will be the same for anyone else but if the CWP provider only gets paid for signatures then I understand perfectly why they wouldn't risk taking on someone for free who cannot be coerced, recognizing their illegal practices & threatening civil action on a public arena.

That's checkmate ; )

John Slater left an annotation ()

If people feel like they are being pressured/coerced into signing anything at all they can protect themselves by righting "Vi coactus" or the initials "V.C." next to/underneath their signature. It means that the document was signed under duress/coercion and therefore any agreement isn't valid.

Curtis Allan left an annotation ()

Hi P Baker,

Well done. It looks like you fought the law, and you kicked the law's ass. Good for you, mate. I imagine it must have been quite stressful for you as well.

Between your being referred to a decision maker, being sanctioned and appealing – could you tell me how long the whole process took?

And up to and while your appeal was being heard, did you have to return to the provider and start again?

Thanks.

Joe Green left an annotation ()

If you don't want to be re referred while waiting for decision then kick up and be strong, they will try it on.

smshogun left an annotation ()

No, he hasn't fought the law at all.

He has enforced the law and they will drop it as they know I am looking for a case to get into the High Court and will fund it myself on behalf of somebody. They also know that most (around 95%) of contracts are obtained illegally and won't face the consequences of spending £millions of taxpayers money fighting a case they cannot win.

It will also highlight their inherent fraudulent actions which are numerous and extensive and they don't want people seeing this.

Adrian Richards left an annotation ()

One thing you can do is refuse to sign the piece of paper on the basis that you didn't receive one of the documents (e.g. whistleblower policy) that you are signing to confirm you have received. This has worked for me, I got kicked off CWP by the CWP provider and no sanction from the DWP, so result.

P Baker left an annotation ()

Curtis Allan

My first appointment with the CWP provider was on 27th November 2014 when I refused to sign & on the 17th February I received a letter from the decision maker notifying me they had changed their decision in my favour. I was re referred once more with the same result a few weeks later.
http://postimg.org/image/o55os0grh/

A doubt was raised. I didn't respond to the letter telling me the doubt was raised because I couldn't imagine that the decision maker would imply that a breach of contract law & violating my human rights was legal. I was sanctioned. I requested a mandatory reconsideration including FOI evidence.
The decision makers original decision was upheld. I then presented my paperwork with my airtight evidence to HM Courts & Tribunal Service. The decision makers changed their decision before the hearing (out of court). I guess they didn't want to spend money on my case because their legal department probably told them they had no leg to stand on.

Smshogun is right. I didn't fight the law I just enforced it.
Nobody needs a reason to avoid signing, just ask, "Am I obliged to sign & will you raise a doubt against me if I don't?" They will paint a scary picture of how they are an extension of JCP implying equal powers but in fact they have the same powers as a cleaning company hired by JCP who like to snitch when people don't lift their feet when ordered. 3rd party companies have limited powers & they don't like it so they market direct services that require a signature making them a data controller of services that the JCP has not mandated e.g. the work program asked people for a CV & an email address so they may send emails of vacancies however this all required the signature to consent but once consent is withdrawn the job search service is terminated whilst attendance & participation is still mandatory. I remember those good old days when me & my A4E advisor would talk about the weather & having a laught whilst avoiding anything that would breach my right to privacy. Another nastier advisor would always ask why I was there if I didn't reveal my ambitions & job search history. I found myself repeating many times the words, "I'm not obliged to."

Extra services by 3rd parties that require consent are not mandatory even if the JCP help to advertise these extra services as beneficial.

P Baker left an annotation ()

Just a quick note. this statement quoted from above, "Extra services by 3rd parties that require consent are not mandatory even if the JCP help to advertise these extra services as beneficial. " is my opinion & should not be perceived as fact however evidence supporting this opinion my be found or generated if you ask the right question on this websited or do your own research.

smshogun left an annotation ()

P. Baker

Now claim back all your estimated costs and include everything, charge an hourly rate for your time, administration costs for your letter production, and even postage costs for the letters you have sent. If you have suffered health wise, maybe going to the doctors for stress and prescribed medication, then bring a claim for personal injury against them.

When they tell you they can't do this get them to put it in writing and most importantly get them to sign it with a true signature with a pen, not a printed signature, de facto evidence they are lying as they can do this. Then casually mention you are short listing no win, no fee solicitors later in the week I will guarantee they will pay your costs.

Curtis Allan left an annotation ()

P. baker

Thanks for the postings and the links. You've been a big help, buddy.

Mr May left an annotation ()

Keep it simple

“There is no mandatory requirement
for individuals to sign specific forms
when participating in Back to Work (BtW)
schemes, including Help to Work (HtW) ”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

More https://refutedarchive.wordpress.com/don... & https://refutedarchive.wordpress.com/201...

Related https://communityworkfare.wordpress.com/

Curtis Allan left an annotation ()

P baker,

mas locin claims to have been sanctioned several times and has had appeals turned down for failing to sign provider documentation.

" mas locin left an annotation ( 7 April 2016)

You state it is not mandatory to sign health @ safety and sign in sheets. However, I have experienced a very different situation. I have been subjected to multiple consecutive sanctions for seven months and repeatedly harassed, bullied and intimidated for refusing to sign these documents on the WP despite willing to fully participate at all times.

Matters became very nasty with JCP/WP when only a few months before I had completed WP I was mandated to suddenly sign in on health @ safety grounds. At the first of several appeals for the same reason, the judge would not listen to me when I told him I did not legally have to sign ANY documents the WP put in front of me.

The judge's reason to dismiss my appeal was on the grounds I HAD to legally sign the documents in order to comply with the landlord of the building's insurance and health and safety obligations and where the WP was taking place!

There is NOTHING here or anywhere else to state this as I have undertaken a vast amount of research and am well aware of Peter Baker's upheld appeal for the SAME reason! Neither have I been provided with any proof of any insurance policy by DWP/WP/judges - just told this is the law and raises alarm bells! (no pun intended!!!)

The unheard identical appeals have dragged on for over two years.

Anyone else any remote experience of this anomaly and error of law? I'd be very grateful for any comments asap. Thanks."

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Frank Zola left an annotation ()

P Baker's letter and related DWP FOI disclosures like
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
often refer to signing DWP providers docs/forms, specifically:

"person cannot be sanctioned for simply refusing to sign documentation drawn up by the Provider"
http://postimg.org/image/o55os0grh/

It's unclear whether the building's sign-in sheet was "documentation drawn up by the Provider"?

What specific law makes signing x on health and safety grounds?

Might be possible to secure a copy of the insurance documents via FOI, the DWP may hold a copy
and or the WP provider may have an obligation to give them to the DWP if an FOI request for same
is made.

Pragmatically anyone choosing not to sign DWP provider or related 3rd party docs can consider what kind of detriment would be outcome of not signing. So signing a buildings sign-in sheet would have what consequence?

Not easy to comment further without seeing all provider, DWP and tribunal paperwork, or at least the WP provider's mandatory activity notice(s) to sign building's sign-in sheet on health and safety grounds. (redacted of course, like http://s30.postimg.org/xppbew63k/sign.jpg)

mas locin left an annotation ()

Frank Zola
I recently found your annotation.
Thank you very much for all your very helpful advice which I will research. I will try to secure a copy of the insurance documents via FOI,
Please refer to further updated information about my case:

‘Signing Provider Documentation’
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

If you can offer any further advice I would be very grateful.
I am in the process of securing a formal decision from the DM regarding the first of the five identical WP appeals made in my favour when the other four in succession were referred to the tribunal.
I have also received a reply to DWP’s submission and all my recent evidence has been ignored. What a suprise! DWP have misled me and the court over two of the appeals but have done everything to disguise the fact as this utter nonsense drags on and on pointlessly and their intent.
You couldn’t make this case up no matter how hard you tried!

mas locin left an annotation ()

Dear Frank Z

Further to your reply 09 04 16, if you provide an email I will contact you direct with the details asap as appeals are soon. Thanks.

smshogun left an annotation ()

You are obliged to sign in and out when you enter or leave the premises and this is covered by multiple sections of the H&S acts and it depends upon which way it is employed.

The stark reality is simple, if you refuse to sign in then the service provider is legally required to remove you from the premises and they have the right to use "reasonable force" to remove you. If they let you remain in the building then the provider is at fault for non compliance with H&S regulations.

They can also refer to the laws of trespass to remove you, or have you removed. Currently (and for centuries) there is no actual law of trespass as it has to be accompanied with something else which is usually "intent" and proven by the fact the po-lice arrest someone and charge them with "trespass with intent to" and the to can be anything.

Trespass can also be applied another way and this is you must inform them they are trespassing, if they dont leave you tell them they are trespassing and by telling them they are trespassing for a second time it becomes "aggravated trespass" which is still a civil offence. If you tell them to leave for a third time and that they are now committing "aggravated trespass" and they still refuse to leave it turns the aggravated trespass from a civil offence to a criminal trespass which as its name suggests, is a criminal offence and the police can be used to arrest and charge them.

So, there is no excuse for any service provider to have anyone on their premises who refuses to sign in or put of the premises.

refuted left an annotation ()

@smshogun As a site for FOI requests, can you please ask the Health and Safety Executive to substantiate:

"You are obliged to sign in and out when you enter or leave the premises and this is covered by multiple sections of the H&S acts and it depends upon which way it is employed. "

If you can quote any legislation/"H&S acts" that requires "sign in and out when you enter or leave the premises" please provide direct links using http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?theme=...

HSE FOIs https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hse

Health and Safety Legislation
http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?theme=...

John Slater left an annotation ()

If people want to know the facts about trespass I suggest you read the following:

CPS Guidance
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/tresp...

HoC Research Briefing on Trespass
http://www.researchbriefings.files.parli...

smshogun left an annotation ()

Try looking it up for yourself, I have already stated an employers duty of care is one way.

refuted left an annotation ()

" smshogun left an annotation ( 9 July 2016)

Try looking it up for yourself, I have already stated an employers duty of care is one way."

“…there is no mandatory requirement for participants on the Work Programme to sign action plans, health and safety documents, sign in sheets or acceptable behaviour documents and participants will not be sanctioned if they do not sign the documents. ”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

FOI question: "You must sign a buildings 'in and out' document/sheet on health and safety grounds."

HSE FOI reply: "In short, there is no specific legislation that is that prescriptive."

So no actual legal requirement to sign, but a "duty holder" may use a sign in sheet to meet H&S requirements. In short, as stated above. 'What harm can from from signing a H&S sign in sheet? Some people just print name, if the sign-in sheet is 'manned' they can be asked to 'sign' the person in, if not, how does anyone know if signed in, or the real name is used or that a person just put's their initials or prints a name?

Anyone making a claim that x must signed on a basis of law, need to cite the precise legislation or regulations, otherwise they just convey mere opinion that cannot be acted upon. This is a site to secure information, failure to provide such information whilst claiming it exists means the annotations are worthless, just like they are when given by the DWP ot one of it's contractors.

“There is no mandatory requirement for individuals to sign specific forms when participating in Back to Work (BtW) schemes, including Help to Work (HtW) ”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

The risk of not signing H&S forms is about not been seen as participating and the FOIs generally only talk about forms created by a DWP contractor and not all H&S forms are created so.

/response/392997/attach/html/3/Reply%20FOI2301.pdf.html

refuted left an annotation ()

To clarify, when referring to H&S forms, was only talking about sign-in sheets. Would treat any other DWP provider H&S forms with caution. Always worth asking to take home forms to read and get advice on or ask for a letter (mandatory activity notice) that states a form must be signed and why and on what precise legal basis and if not signed what happens.

mas locin left an annotation ()

Refuted
Great advice as always!

I have done all of what you suggest and everyone else.

However, the judge who dismissed my appeal said I had to sign in, 'in order to comply with the landlord's health @ safety regulations/insurance'. However, he NEVER stated a law to this effect and neither has WP/DWP/JCP, judges or anyone else, not even the Judicial Review Queen's Council judge! WP/DWP/JCP, judges have thrown everything they have at me to push through these bogus appeals. I had multiple sanctions and they are highly flawed. I have 4 identical appeals for the same reason - refusing to sign in on arrival for 'health and safety' reasons on WP on their hand made sheets and one decision was revised. It is absolutely SHAMBOLIC and the shows how corrupt the appeal system really is! If you knew my story and all the inconsistencies involved and the court/DWP have deliberately ignored all of them.

No-one has been subjected to the long-term harassment that I have over any appeals or even threatened with a sanction since Peter Baker's upheld appeal.

I have been put through absolute hell over this for OVER 2 years and the appeals are imminent so any further comments ASAP are really appreciated.

I would really like you to see/go through this case as it is shocking!

Read my detailed story on:
hhttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Anyone please comment further...

refuted left an annotation ()

Would suggest any attendance at a tribunal includes representation. Lawyer/CAB/Law Centre or knowledgeable McKenzie friend.

mas locin left an annotation ()

NOTE, once again DWP have NOT provided a S P E C I F I C law/ legislation to support my health @ safety FOIs!
As usual, it's the same old regurgitated responses, readily available information and attachments. Suprise! suprise! just by coincidence, it will cost too much to provide the specific answers I need for my appeals. How well did I know this would be the outcome? It's been far more worthwhile reading the contributions on this site! DWP are being very wary and obstructive if you ask me and I totally agree that all the this information is bogus unsubstantiated opinion as WP/DWP/JCP, judges have never cited the specific law/s and just keep referring to toothless 'it’s for health and safety' reasons when they haven’t got a clue what they really mean or refer too! WP/DWP/JCP, judges take advantage of their ‘authority’ and people’s ignorance on the subject in the hope they won’t be challenged any further on the matter. I have proof of this as I was NEVER told/mandated to sign in had anything to do with the landlord’s insurance and the horrible judge just bunged it on as his reason for his dismissed decision post appeal! It wasn’t until I requested a copy afterwards I was shocked and found this out realising just how open to abuse the ‘reason’ was!
Refuted are right. DWP ONLY refer to provider documents. My case is on a completely different level as there is no mention of building regulations and landlords when refusing to sign in.
There/NO-ONE has ever come across a case like mine before. WP moulded the bogus ‘health @ safety’ excuse for their own means all along to enforce the multiple sanctions because I stood up to them and I know this for a fact.
DWP have proved shown this by refusing to provide the:

Copy of the Landlord’s Building Insurance Policy/Safety Certificate

saying it would exceed £600!!! What a suprise! This flies in the face of the judge’s ‘decision’. So. where did he get the information from you may wonder? What a suprise! ...Never provides any legislation to this effect! . . . Know where I’m going with this? –No legislation exists in the first place just like I’ve said all along and have been forced into destitution as a result of this shambles for 3 years!!!
I am really grateful for all your contributions but am already aware of all this information due to the extensive research I have had to do and informed WP/DWP/JCP/judges about all the inconsistencies all over the place and unlawfulness of my sanctions but have been repeatedly ignored and was literally torn to pieces by a Queen's Council High Court Judge when I made an application for a Judicial Review for having my first of FOUR successive appeals totalling nearly 9 months including 2 extended appeals so that makes it SIX IDENTICAL appeals!!! None of what any of you state above has been taken in to consideration by anyone at any time and I have mountains of paperwork to prove it!
That is, except this one decision maker who overturned the second appeal. Are you still following me? Talk about DWP love to obfuscate-understatement of the century! I am still desperately trying to get hold of the legislation urgently for my appeals. However, I have a nasty feeling it is deliberately being withheld as I still haven’t received it and have serious doubts it will arrive for the hearing!

refuted left an annotation ()

If you ask the DWP using your real name, as a customer they can consider giving specific responses to questions. FOIs can only be used for information that already exists. You can ask by writing to a named person in the Jobcentre/DWP, specific questions. The request can be devised as a formal complaint, you can also indicate the request is a combined complaint, subject access request and foi request.

As suggested, representation is needed to assist in getting the DWP to engage in full disclosure prior to a tribunal, of what they are relying upon to argues it's side of the case.

mas locin left an annotation ()

NOTE, once again DWP have NOT provided a S P E C I F I C law/legislation to support my health @ safety FOIs. ...Just received the 'Decision Makers' Queries' response dated today and trying to take it in!
As usual, it's the same old regurgitated responses, readily available information and attachments. Suprise! suprise! just by coincidence, it will cost too much to provide the specific answers I need for my appeals. How well did I know this would be the outcome? It's been far more worthwhile reading the contributions on this site! DWP are being very wary and obstructive if you ask me and I totally agree that all the this information is bogus unsubstantiated opinion as WP/DWP/JCP, judges have never cited the specific law/s and just keep referring to toothless 'it’s for health and safety' reasons when they haven’t got a clue what they really mean or refer too! WP/DWP/JCP, judges take advantage of their ‘authority’ and people’s ignorance on the subject in the hope they won’t be challenged any further on the matter. I have proof of this as I was NEVER told/mandated to sign in had anything to do with the landlord’s insurance and the horrible judge just bunged it on as his reason for his dismissed decision post appeal! It wasn’t until I requested a copy afterwards I was shocked and found this out realising just how open to abuse the ‘reason’ was!
Refuted are right. DWP ONLY refer to provider documents. My case is on a completely different level as there is no mention of building regulations and landlords when refusing to sign in.
There/NO-ONE has ever come across a case like mine before. WP moulded the bogus ‘health @ safety’ excuse for their own means all along to enforce the multiple sanctions because I stood up to them and I know this for a fact.
DWP have proved shown this by refusing to provide the:

Copy of the Landlord’s Building Insurance Policy/Safety Certificate

saying it would exceed £600!!! What a suprise! This flies in the face of the judge’s ‘decision’. So. where did he get the information from you may wonder? What a suprise! ...Never provides any legislation to this effect! . . . Know where I’m going with this? –No legislation exists in the first place just like I’ve said all along and have been forced into destitution as a result of this shambles for 3 years!!!
I am really grateful for all your contributions but am already aware of all this information due to the extensive research I have had to do and informed WP/DWP/JCP/judges about all the inconsistencies all over the place and unlawfulness of my sanctions but have been repeatedly ignored and was literally torn to pieces by a Queen's Council High Court Judge when I made an application for a Judicial Review for having my first of FOUR successive appeals totalling nearly 9 months including 2 extended appeals so that makes it SIX IDENTICAL appeals!!! None of what any of you state above has been taken in to consideration by anyone at any time and I have mountains of paperwork to prove it!
That is, except this one decision maker who overturned the second appeal. Are you still following me? Talk about DWP love to obfuscate-understatement of the century! I am still desperately trying to get hold of the legislation urgently for my appeals. However, I have a nasty feeling it is deliberately being withheld as I still haven’t received it and have serious doubts it will arrive for the hearing!

mas locin left an annotation ()

Refuted.

Many thanks. I contacted you right at the start of all this shambles and you were ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. I am so glad to have you on board again.

Trust me, I have tried everything to obtain legal help and have had no luck. I would have to pay a solicitor privately and had nothing to live on for 3 years over this period due to other malicious sanctions.

The solicitors, CAB, Legal Centre I spoke to were clue-useless. They don't have a clue about DWP guidelines and just apply everyday law so automatically tell you "There's nothing they can do as that's the law". I even had one really arrogant solicitor say to me "So, you want me to change the law and lie for you, do you!!!???" I was horrified at the way he spoke to me. More to the point he admitted he didn't have a clue but did the decent thing and referred me to another solicitor. She was really nice and I really appreciated her time but she wanted at least £300.00 to look in to it. Her speciality was housing benefits so wasn't the right person to deal with it anyway not to mention I didn't even have 3p, let alone £300.00!!! I even applied for pro bono at the High Court CAB and all they did was hold on to my bundles for months and didn't even tell me they had no intention of offering me any help. I had to contact them and they only gave me a couple of sheets and it turned they lost my pile of ever increasing bundles and they didn't reappear for months. Not to mention the amount of conflicting information I have been given by the legal profession in general and end up telling 'benefits advisors,' CAB, solicitors etc the law. I have asked them to represent/attend court and they flatly don't want to know. When I mentioned this to a 'benefits advisor,' who knows my case is bad, she didn't want to know and responded as if I'd asked her something impertinent.
I am actually drafting a complaint at the moment but the appeals are my priority right now. However, contacting JCP is not an option as they are the cause of all this as weel they know and they continue to harass me at every appointment. Not to mention my JCP is one of the most notorious JCPs in the country, if not the worst and there has been serious underhand goings on in there if you get my drift?
I have gone a lot higher but the replies are embarrassing, short and under a guise of extremely vague monosyllables and the usual waffly, cringe-worthy apologies which take up most of the ‘letter.’ This only leaves on average five lines of pointless regurgitated information they've sent me in the white automated ‘letters’!
DWP have already breached DPA guidelines by contacting my MP without my knowledge and not sending me a copy of the correspondence/s and it took them nine months just to reply to his first letter.

smshogun left an annotation ()

I never said you could be sanctioned for refusing to sign any signing in or out sheet so stop trying to twist my words.

As I have already stated there are many ways to trap you and a signing in sheet is not one of them, but the occupier can refuse you entry, or remove you from their premises if you dont sign in and out.

mas locin left an annotation ()

Don't attack me as I have done NOTHING of the kind to twist your words.

I don't know what you are referring to.