Universal Job Match (The Facts)

Gavin Shaw made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Work and Pensions

The request was successful.

From: Gavin Shaw

12 December 2012

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

Could you please explain as to why Universal Job Match returns
anything but Matching Jobs.

For instance after running a search for "Warehouse Vacancies" with
in a 10 mile radius of my postcode, specifically requesting results
returned to be that of s Full Time nature, as well as making it
quite clear to JCP Staff in that a require a permanent job, not
temporary due to having mortgage repayment commitments, means that
if I failed to apply for any of the following returned results when
searched for on December 12th 2012 @ 9am, means that I am
automatically flagged by a system, which insists that I had failed
to apply for jobs which were specifically "Matched" to my Job
Seeking Agreement????

Vacancy Job Ref - SPH/47140 - Turns out to be a Temp Contract
through an Agency
Hitari Trade Ltd - Job Turns Out To Be Part Time, Temp Job for a
Month (No Job Reference Number)
Pixapro Ltd – Part Time Job – Less then 30 hours
Stapletons Tyres Ltd - Part Time Job – Less then 30 hours
Stapletons Tyres Ltd - Weekend Dayshift Warehouse Operative ad,
again listed as being Part Time under 30 hours
Warehouse Operatives – (Job Ref – Ware1) – Temporary Contract
Blue Arrow – Warehouse Operative Vacancy – Temporary Contract
Assembler\Warehouse Operative (Job Ref - 122266002 ) - Required
Experienced CB FLT Driver
Warehouse Operative (Job Ref -116362166 ) Late shifts make it
awkward to guarantee travel to and from start and finish of some
shifts).
Packer Vacancy through Assist Recruitment - Employer states that 2
work references will be required 1 of which would come from an
employer who constructively dismissed me. As well as start & ending
of shift times without overtime meaning travel to and from may be a
restriction.
Assist Recruitment – advertising jobs based in dudley, in which
once the full job description is viewed states “Packers required
for contract in Wolverhampton”.
Timber Order Picker based in Cradley Heath – requires experience of
picking timber products, experience in the use of circular saws,
and the position is temporary for 12 weeks."

Universal Job Match is anything but, the system is the same old
unreliable Job Searching methods that existed on the www.dwp.gov.uk
website.

What automated system has been put in place to actually read within
the full job descriptions within the list of results to reassure
job seekers, that benefits are not being stopped due to a system
returning nothing but the opposite of what a Job Seeker searched
for?

Out of the 33 jobs returned, there were possibly 2 jobs that were
not agency based, yet still failed to be anything but accurate as
to what a Job Seeker was searching for!!!

So now, If I handed that in to Job Center Plus Staff as stated that
after using the Universal Job Match system on www.gov.uk, to the
extent in that it was easier to list ell the jobs which did not
match search criteria, or even allowed a job seeker the choice from
the drop down menu as to why the job was not relevant because "Job
Details Did Not Match Search Criteria" means that you have limited
the Job Seeker from choosing the most appropriate choice, which
could be the only argument a Job Seeker could use against sanction
JCP or WP staff decide to impose on them!!!

Now, tell me that the Job Center have a right to continue
sanctioning benefits based on the above information.

These results will be saved (under my previous account details
which Job Center Plus do not have access to) and will be recalled
as evidence in front of a tribunal hearing if benefits continue to
be sanctioned based on a system which continues to have the same
old flaws, and is laughable beyond belief now being promoted as one
of the main ways to conduct job search.

It's now got to the stage in which a Job Seeker can be sanctioned
for failing to apply for jobs advertised on Job Center Plus Job
Points, because a Job Seeker failed to spend £10 a week in bus
fares, to ensure that they did not miss any job vacancies that
never get advertised anywhere other then on those machines within
the Job Center!!!

So what is a job seeker supposed to do to be seen as "Actively
Seeking Employment" when benefits have been stopped due to the
Universal Job Match system, providing anything but accurate
results, to then be sanctioned further for failing to walk 6 miles
a day 5 days a week due to not having any benefits, just to ensure
further benefit sanctions do not take place on the off chance in
that suitable job vacancies become available on Job Center Plus Job
point machines, and not advertised anywhere else, due either the
date they become available, or length of time it takes before the
vacancy becomes advertised externally??

Surely if the DWP wish to enforce tougher sanctions, they should at
least try to iron out flaws in their own Job Searching System as a
fail safe to provide job seekers with some sort of guarantee in
that they will not at least be subject to benefit sanctions, where
they are made to jump through a 4 step procedure in order to get to
a stage in which evidence\information such as that above would at
least be taken into consideration by an external source.

Then what would be the DWP's answer to a claimant winning a
tribunal hearing which they had been subject to go through, where
unpaid bills resulted in £25 penalties due to direct debits
bouncing, WP providers putting in complaints of Job Seekers failing
to Attend Work Programme Job Search Reviews due to not having the
cash to attend them (regardless of the fact that it is the Work
Programme who should be covering these costs, in the form of a
"Discount Card" in my case, but rather then supply a "Discount
Card" in the form of a Travel Card, they would rather rely on the
job seeker being made to find these costs upfront, to then
reimburse them on receipt of receiving bus tickets). If all that is
not bad enough, then what about the bad credit a Job Seeker
receives when bills fail to get paid on time due to the immediate
stop of benefits?? Someone like myself who has had no issues with
paying bills on time in years where benefits were received after
providing the same level of Job Search Evidence as to what I have
been sanctioned for 3 times since October 22nd 2012 - means that's
even something such as applying for a contract mobile phone, due to
the fact in that they would be cheaper to use then a land line
would be due to the free texts and minutes within a package, means
that I could not even cut down on bills due to having a 100% Clean
Credit Rating where non payment of benefits meant receiving black
marks on several bills.

To be told to claim Hardship, which from what I believe is to be
set at 60% of a Job seekers original entitlement, is a complete
joke, if benefit entitlement had fully stopped based on whether or
not a Jobseeker had fully complied with what was expected of them,
to then be allowed a portion of the full amount you were awarded
when claiming benefit, which is made based on what the law say's a
claimant needs to live on taking their individual circumstances
into account, surely means that being offered 60% of an income that
was based on living needs, is nothing more then a way to penalize a
percentage of job seekers living costs, where the full amount of it
is taken away from them until hardship allowance is applied for.

What if someone decides not to claim hardship, as it would only be
a case of more time wasted, paperwork to fill in, interviews to
arrange, non of which solve the immediate job seekers problems of
finding money to cover the cost of outgoing bill which are due out
way before any hardship allowance would be made and could cover!!

That in mind, if people do not claim hardship, but rather depend on
loans from parents that enable their siblings to make payments of
bills on time, make mortgage interest payments on time, to prevent
being faced with Repossession etc, then whilst I am no longer
receiving any such financial support from the DWP, then surely I
have no obligation to provide Job Search Evidence, and the only
reason I am being required to sign on, is to continue claiming N.I
Contributions. Would this be fair to expect someone who is not in
receipt of Income Based JSA to have to find £4 a fortnight to
simply accrue nothing more then N.I Credits??? Surely this can be
arranged over the telephone?? - How can I be assured that whilst I
am signing a piece of paper that declares i am still actively
seeking work, which in turn decides as to whether or not payment of
JSA is released, could in actual fact be the only evidence in which
to suggest that although payment was not received the signature
would also be used to cover up any payments with held, that were
not official sanctions.

Yours faithfully,

Gavin Shaw

Link to this

From: DWP freedom-of-information-requests
Department for Work and Pensions

12 December 2012

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...

Link to this

From: Gavin Shaw

12 December 2012

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

To Clarify what I would like confirmation of is the following:

1. Does the Universal Job Match system have it's flaws?

2. Would Results Returned Using The Universal Job Match System Be
Used To Decide and\or Contribute Towards A Decision To Which
Benefits Were Sanctioned Based On The Efforts of the Job Seeker?

3. Why After Asking JCP Staff As To Whether It Was Mandatory In
Signing Up For Universal Job Match, To Be Told That It Wasn't, But
I Still See and Hear JCP Staff Conversations Insisting That Failure
To Sign Up To Universal Job Match "Could" Result In Non-Payment Of
Benefits. Could You Please Confirm As To Whether Or Not Benefits
"Could" Be Affected If a Job Seeker Fails To Sign Up To Universal
Job Match.

4. If Signing Up To Universal Job Match is Mandatory, Then Why is
Such An Unreliable System Being Used To The Extent In Which Job
Seekers Are Being Forced To Use A System Which Would Not Provide
Them With The Best Prospects Of Finding Work.

5. If Signing Up To Universal Job Match is Not Mandatory Then Why
Other Than Target Based Motivation Is Such a Flawed System Being
Used Where To The Extent in Which JCP Staff Are Trying To Convince
Job Seekers That Such a Method is Mandatory??

Yours faithfully,

Gavin Shaw

Link to this

From: DWP freedom-of-information-requests
Department for Work and Pensions

12 December 2012

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...

Link to this

Gavin Shaw left an annotation (13 January 2013)

Quote-marks Prior to clarifying the request for what information I required answering, it has been recently been stated by the DWP that using Universal Job Match at this present in time and still is at time of posting this annotation (Sun 13th January 2013). This now means all that is required answering would be questions 1, 2 and 5. We shall see if an Internal Review is required come January 15th 2013, in which they are required to provide answers to by law. The fact that the DWP eventually answered half of my request in prior f.o.i requests made by others, mean's that they are more then aware as to which questions would require answering. It certainly would not take the maximum amount of time required to respond to such a simple request.
Universal Job Match is commissioned through Monster Jobs. A company who has been hacked 3 times since 2007, which has lead to users having personal information such as CV details and email addresses in being made at risk by hackers. Even if Universal Jobmatch is made mandatory, and any flaws in the system were ironed out before it was made mandatory, then it becomes a concern as to how it can be guaranteed to which any data a user (jobseeker) submits to Universal Jobmatch as to how secure this information would be, given the fact that it's obvious that the company commissioned by the DWP to provide Jobs results, have the worst track record in history when it comes to safe guarding customers data. For it to happen once, is perhaps excusable, for it to happen 3 times would therefore suggest to me that Monster Jobs is a potential target for hackers where it cannot be guaranteed that users data on Universal Jobmatch would be safe at all, at least not to the extent in which Job Seekers would be held liable if they refused to sign up to a mandatory system that failed to not only produce job results that were anything but matched the information from a CV they would be required to upload. But, even the information required to actually make the system work even if it did match vacancies to what a CV shows, means that even the security of a users personal information is at risk to be potentially stolen, and leaked to millions on the internet by hackers, should they try to target Monster for a 4th Successive time in less then 5 years.

Anyway, perhaps that's something worth considering to ask for the next F.O.I request to be submitted.

Link to this

Gavin Shaw left an annotation (17 January 2013)

Quote-marks Update: Today (January 15th 2013) I had attended the Work Programme, which due to advisers having "300 Clients" each on their caseloads, appointments which were "One to One" support, now appear to be Group Sessions.

The very first thing people were asked were if they had a Government Gateway ID Number, this is what you are required to have in order to register successfully for Universal Jobmatch.

Obviously they were unaware as to the hassle I've had through JC+, so when it came to asking me if I had registered to use this service and replied with "No, because it's not Mandatory", it was quickly assumed that only certain JC+ offices were making registering for Universal Jobmatch "Mandatory". Needless to say, others who had attended today's group meeting, who were none the wiser as to the fact that Universal Jobmatch is "Mandatory" were still left thinking that the requirement to sign up for Universal Jobmatch is only "Mandatory" based upon the JC+ office you currently sign on with!!!

Having signed on for the first time since October 25th 2012, where jobsearch evidence was not considered as being "Actively Seeking Work" due to the Universal Jobmatch system failing to return positive results matching advanced job search requirements in order to restrict the results returned to only be that of results that matched my Job Seeking requirements, meant that on Monday 14th January 2013, my job search evidence (which was barely any different compared to the last 3 months of Job Search to which I had previously been sanctioned for) was now actually considered to be good enough to be seen as "Actively Seeking Work"!!!

The only thing that had changed when I had signed on, on Monday 14th January 2013, to the previous times over the last 3 months in which I had been sanctioned, was that the person who signed me on, was someone that I had never actually noticed working there before. So, whether this was a new employee, or whether it was someone called in to cover sickness, this person obviously did not care about meeting any targets, if it were the case in which handing out sanctions was not actually based on JC+ Staff hitting targets.

The fact that on Wednesday 14th January 2013, a WP provider was requiring that everyone who had not already signed up for a Government Gateway ID Number, which upon registering with Universal Jobmatch, the process requires you to click on a link within an email within 24 hours to confirm that you have successfully registered with the service, means that a WP provider is obviously using false information to blackmail clients who are non the wiser into signing up for a service which is not yet "Mandatory".

Furthermore, since the Universal Jobmatch website went live, the "Privacy Policy" (dated September 17th 2012) appears to be incomplete. By Incomplete I mean that there is no contact information within this "Privacy Policy" that would allow any user to be able to contact someone should they wish to have any information stored about them on the "Universal Jobmatch" site removed!! This very same "Privacy Policy" should be one of such that actually allows the sites users into having some small sense of security when it comes to the safekeeping of Data stored about them. If a "Privacy Policy" that has no sign of who to contact with regards to removing Personal\Sensitive information and has not been updated in almost 4 months (at the time of writing this) then surely this "Privacy Policy" remains invalid??

Simply put, if a user fails to read a "Privacy Policy" which contains no contact details for them to have their private information removed upon request, and no contact information has been added in almost 4 months, then surely this means that whatever is contained within this "Privacy Policy" is surely information that nobody wants to be held accountable for to the extent in which no contact information is supplied within it, that would allow someone to request their information to be removed, if they knew as to how secure the company you have commissioned in order to provide Job Vacancies shown on the Universal Jobmatch site, would actually prove that the service you offer, is likely to be any more secure then that of Monster Jobs who have been the target of hackers 3 times in 5 years.

Anyhow, back to the main subject at hand. It now appears that you have failed to respond to my original freedom of information request within the time you are legally required to do so by law, which, half of the original information requested has actually been confirmed by yourselves in other F.o.I requests, this being that Universal Jobmatch and the requirement to sign up to this service, still remains voluntary, not Mandatory.

With that said, I will be asking for an Internal Review to take place against the DWP as to why this information has been "Delayed". This bearing in mind, could be information required to supply as evidence to accompany any other information which is required to be sent within 30 Days of the date in which a sanction was applied, in order for the information to be considered when appealing against a decision, and to whether or not this decision could be reversed.

Link to this

From: Gavin Shaw

17 January 2013

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Work
and Pensions's handling of my FOI request 'Universal Job Match (The
Facts)'.

It is now January 16th 2013, information requested that still
requires answering is now 24 Hours overdue. Could you please
provide me with the information I requested within a prompt manner.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/un...

Yours faithfully,

Gavin Shaw

Link to this

From: DWP freedom-of-information-requests
Department for Work and Pensions

17 January 2013

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...

Link to this

From: DWP Digitalisation Programme Support
Department for Work and Pensions

17 January 2013


Attachment 4917 Response pdf.pdf
16K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Gavin Shaw,

attached is the response to your Freedom of Information request -
Universal Job Match (The Facts).

<<4917 Response pdf.pdf>>

Regards,

DWP Digitalisation Programme Support

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: DWP Digitalisation Programme Support
Department for Work and Pensions

1 February 2013


Attachment IR 55 response.pdf
11K Download View as HTML


Dear Gavin Shaw

 

Please find attached response to your Internal Review of Freedom of
Information request -

 

Regards

 

DWP Digitalisation Programme Support

show quoted sections

Link to this

DI left an annotation (31 May 2013)

Quote-marks Just signed up today and tried to sign for a part time temporary number (2008769)cleaning job was directed to site where I was ask totally in appropriate questions for what I was interested in

Link to this

Gavin Shaw left an annotation ( 2 July 2013)

Quote-marks After further investigations it would seem that the www.gov.uk website domain is actually based in Ukraine, an uses several Re-directing services to make it appear that it's a website hosted in the UK.

Furthermore, when using Universal Jobmatch through the www.gov.uk site, it appears to be re-directing back to the old www.direct.gov.uk website.

Does this not therefore mean that any information regardless of whether or not consent is given, is actually being sent back to the DWP's original job search website that existed before www.gov.uk?

Seems suspicious if you ask me.

Link to this

Gavin Shaw left an annotation ( 2 July 2013)

Quote-marks To add further specualation to my original assumption in which the universal jobmatch website is nothing more then a clone of the old direct.gov.uk job search site, is the fact that a personal adviser was seen to access the old dwp.gov.uk job search website when it came to search for job vacancies in an interview I had with JCP yesterday.

Why do JCP staff still access an old system to search for job vacancies for their clients as appose to using the Universal Jobmatch website through www.gov.uk, if the later site is indeed any different from the old dwp.gov.uk website??

Proof???

"Loading...

http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk/HomePage... | 22:51:04 Jun 25, 2013

Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time

Redirecting to...

https://www.gov.uk/jobsearch!

http://web.archive.org/web/2013062522510...

Link to this

Graham George left an annotation (29 November 2013)

Quote-marks It is clear to see the same vacancy being touted my many different agencies.
All seem to delete the original author of the vacancy, and then have the cheek to include, that all applications must be made through "their" website.

The Universal Job Match, is just the same old jobs, (if there really was one to begin with) being re-hashed by blood sucking agencies.

Link to this

Phil Catterall left an annotation (13 December 2013)

Quote-marks To whom It may concern

The fact of the matter is that you are not legally bound to acces the UJM website, the document you have signed"your plan of action" is just a guideline all you are required to do is prove that you are actively seeking work through any means at your disposal, the DWP as no legal right of sanction., if you are threatened with sanction for not accessing the website ask them to prove that you are not doing enough to look for work, ihave had this thrown in my face several times, the fact of the matter is that it is only their opinion not the facts. The bottom line is on your agreement you have agreed to search for work it does not state how you go about this, if you agree to do at least 5 or 6 different methods a day of job searching ie searching through business directories accessing other job websites this is considered quite sufficient. the 35 hour a week job search the DWP have layed down is NOT LEGALLY ENFORCABLE

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department for Work and Pensions only:

Follow this request

There are 9 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?