Live Work Programme 069 of 03.09.2012

James Spencer-Gray 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 refused by Department for Work and Pensions.

James Spencer-Gray

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

For absolute clarity I refer to your public domain published documentation as quoted above.

In this memo (069) it clearly states in paragraph 5, and I quote: -"In addition< JSA credit only claimants already on the programme will participate on a voluntary basis only"

The following paragraph states: - "We expect a small number of participants to be affected by this change"

Which begs the question was it the sole decision of the individual to remain on the programme or could the local DWP office make the decision for them and mandated them to remain on the programme.

It is also a matter of note from DWP public domain published documentation released at the onset of the Work Programme and titled the WORK PROGRAMME and I quote from page 5: -
" Participants must all be receiving an out-of-work income-replacement benefit at the time they are referred".

Therefore the only logical deduction has that the DWP acknowledged that certain offices may have inadvertently allocated certain individuals on to the programme contrary to their own rules and regulations and hence the issuing of the Memo and why logically it should have been the sole decision of the individual if they wished to remain on it.

I also refer you to a previous declaration made by your department which again I quote: -The Social Security (Credits) Regulations of 1975 which states the following; - A person who is being credited with class 1 National Insurance credit only whilst unemployed, under regulation 8A(2)(b) or 8A(2)(ba), would NOT be in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance.

So based on the law had an individual purely been in receipt of JSA credits they had been denied their constitutional rights under this Act as they were not in receipt of ANY BENEFITS let alone the JSA/ESA Allowance or even Disability benefits, the three benefits quoted under the document entitled The Work Programme.

So for the "small number of participants" misallocated the DWP PAID a sum of money to the Work Provider for enlisting an individual onto the Work Programme when they had been at ZERO cost to the tax payer therefore INCREASING the size of the Welfare costs to the tax payer.

Finally could you please confirm that from the start of the Work Programme until the issuing of Live Work Programme NOT ONE individual was censured for not undertaking a mandated work placement when the law determines they would have been forced to work FOR FREE.

I refer you also to your formal declarion, your ref: - FOI 2018/04471 when you refer to the Supreme Court judgement in the matter of Reilly v the DWP whereby you state NO ONE was forced to work for FREE under any of the Government's mandatory Back to Work Schemes which includes the Work Programme.

None of the above facts can be declared as VEXTIOUS as they all relate to OFFICIAL GOVERMENT POLICY PUBLIC DOMAIN DOCUMENTATION.

Yours faithfully,

James Spencer-Gray

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.

show quoted sections


Visible links

James Spencer-Gray

Dear DWP freedom-of-information-requests,

I am still awaiting a response t my original question which I note is late!

As the question concerns a public domain document released by your department I'm somewhat surprised by your dilatory behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

James Spencer-Gray on behalf of Operations FOI Team, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear James Spencer-Gray,

I am writing in response to your request for information, received 12th

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

Do the DWP ever answer a question or just use the get out clause of it being vexatious.

Interestingly it suggests that the validity of DWP official public domain documentation is not worth the paper its written on...…...corrupt or not?