Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take place

[Les]

The Brent Work Programme provider "Ingeus" had to hold a "mandatory" appointment on 11/12/2013. I attended but they would not let this meeting go ahead, in fact other people behind me in the queue did get to see her. (attached is a copy of appointment letter).
To hold this meeting would mean Ingeus having to admit to serious staff conduct issues that lead to them not being fit to perform their core duties for periods of time (serious substance misuse, not denied by Wembley Ingeus - this also happened at Ealing Ingeus). They would have to admit serious failures in carrying out their programme IE: it was 10 months and one week before they even sat down to discuss work etc with me, and that only lasted about 4 weeks, before an advisor with a serious drug habit lost all details of me (CV, skills etc). Due to the personal attention of a female advisor "under the influence" I was even given permission by Ealing JCP to "Stay away from her as she is Dangerous/Trouble", her manager refusing to discuss the matter with myself or Ealing JCP on confidentiality grounds.
This Talking out about drug use by staff caused a panic at the Ealing Ingeus office.
Ingeus (Ealing) then send myself and a few other clients to Wembley in order to pour cold water on what was fast becoming a heated situation. However they could not risk a fresh Wembley advisor asking "what has happened so far?" So the only way they could hide what had happened so far was to send one of the two advisors who was using drugs from Ealing, and try to keep us at the Wembley office as Ealing clients but using Wembley's office.
Ealing JCP stepped in here and wanted this move to Wembley discussed at the Jobcentre with myself, local Ingeus Manager and Jobcentre staff, but as predicted the local Ingeus manager failed to show up for this meeting, so the move was never discussed. I refused to be moved to Wembley.
As soon as I was given appointments to attend at Brent Ingeus it became obvious that this advisor was effected by substance abuse so I still refused to be moved to Wembley and asked for a different advisor but none were offered. Phone calls then followed from other genuine Wembley staff telling us that our advisor is not available due to his "serious problem habit" (their words) that he has to deal with. Soon came emailed appointments sent "under the influence" and to stop me receiving these and showing them to the Jobcentre (as I was doing), I'm given a false/fake advisor, who was really an administrator, and would or could not deal with me in an advisor's capacity. I had to prove to JCP Glasgow that I did attend these last few (easy as I signed both Security and Ingeus registers). There are also saved text appointments sent on the afternoon of the morning's appointments, that I was sanctioned for missing
So the big questions are, was this "Mandatory Appointment" legally binding? Were laws broken by refusing to hold it? Also can I insist that the local jobcentre (Ealing) step in as this meeting would of provided the evidence to overturn a long running six month JSA sanction?
The sanction letters themselves have no date of when or even what I did/did not do to be sanctioned (It will be refusing to attend), so neither me or local JCP staff can fill out an appeal form correctly.

[teaboy2]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

Did you appeal to the DWP regarding the sanction explaining all of the above, or just to your local JCP staff?

[Les]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

I tried to appeal to JCP Glasgow, however as you will see from the attached sanction notification letters (one going against me, the other finding in my favour), they are almost totally ambiguous in their message. They do not contain either the dates or even the reasons for the letters being sent in the first place.
The appeal forms require very specific dates, and as such no appeal has been registered as I cannot give the required information (dates etc).
Also attached is the appointment letter (both sides), making it clear it is a "mandatory appointment". Note the opening line "As you did not attend your last Appointment". well in fact I did attend, but as the advisor was not a real one I got no further than the front desk. I did prove my attendance to JCP Glasgow (I had signed the security company's register, before the Ingeus one). That is probably the reason the Sanction letter attached dated 18 October found in my favour.

[bluebottle]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

Hi Les,

Why on earth hasn't the DWP sanctioned this provider by terminating their contract? I have to say that I have concerns about the safety of claimants, especially those who fall within the vulnerable category, having to deal with those who are "under the influence", so to speak. If you have not already done so, I would urge you to speak to your MP about this. This provider's revenue stream of taxpayer's money needs cutting off and the money saved put into helping claimants find genuine work paying a living wage.

[Les]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

Attached here is a screen-grab of an email from one of the above mentioned advisors. (sorry I had to rotate this to fit in with the size limits).
Note the email is sent on "Tuesday, 25 June 2013 9:22am".
Then look at the date in the message appointments for "Tomorrow Tuesday 23 June 2013". The 23rd of June was the previous Sunday, and he must realise it is already the second working day of the week. I have text appointments on my phone, clearly sent 5 hours after the appointment time as well.

But the gall of refusing to hold such a crucial and "Mandatory" appointment, as it meant they will have to admit on paper what has gone on so far (they don't deny it to my face), is a real eye-opener to me. To be honest I would of loved to see the police involved in this.

[Amethyst]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

The appointment on 11th December - you were notified of it at the end of October and attended at the relevant time.

What was the reason for the appointment not going ahead and have you been sanctioned again because of it ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

Attached here is a screen-grab of an email from one of the above mentioned advisors. (sorry I had to rotate this to fit in with the size limits).
Not the email is sent on "Tuesday, 25 June 2013 9:22am".
Then look at the date in the message appointments for "Tomorrow Tuesday 23 June 2013". The 23rd of June was the previous Sunday, and he must realise it is already the second working day of the week. I have text appointments on my phone, clearly sent 5 hours after the appointment time as well.

But the gall of refusing to hold such a crucial and "Mandatory" appointment, as it meant they will have to admit on paper what has gone on so far (they don't deny it to my face), is a real eye-opener to me. To be honest I would of loved to see the police involved in this.

The question that needs to be asked is "Was there an intention, deliberate or reckless, on the part of the individuals concerned and/or the provider to cause you loss, or expose you to loss or the risk of loss?" If the answer to this question is "Yes," then that is of significant concern as it raises questions as to how many other claimants have been unfairly and/or wrongfully sanctioned as a result of the actions of this provider and its employees who, going by your account, appear to be experiencing some "interesting side-effects" as the result of taking pharmaceutical preparations.

Could you please confirm if it was JCP or the provider who imposed the sanctions and/or issued the sanction letters?

[Les]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

The appointment on 11th December - you were notified of it at the end of October and attended at the relevant time.

What was the reason for the appointment not going ahead and have you been sanctioned again because of it ?

No reason was given, they just froze, The kid on the front desk not knowing how to deal with the situation (he'd never had a member of staff who was present not want to hold their appointment before). They knew If It took part I'd mention everything that has gone on. Including the cover-ups and false advisors, and they could not deny any of it, and it'd all go down on record.

It is too early to say if I've been sanctioned again for this one, they tried that the first time and I had to prove I attended to JCP Glasgow.
I finished my two years on the course on the last day of November.
At this meeting of 11 December (actually was originally to have been held on 16 September), they should of discussed my issues. In particular the unfit as I saw it (under the influence) advisors.
The failing to keep their appointments goes back to April and the the Manager (Ealing) failing to turn up to an appointment at the local Jobcentre, or even discuss the issue of the advisor there.
Plus of course the failure of advisors in the early days to hold their own appointments from December 2011 - March 2012, and then they forget us until JCP step in and force them to see the forgotten clients at the end of August 2012 (9th September in my case). After that the only help from Ingeus ran from 09 September 2012 until Mid October 2012.

The attached pic is a screen-grab showing the Your advisor is... This woman is not an advisor, she is in fact an administrator. All previous appointments with her never happened, despite my turning up, and I had to provide proof of attendance to JCP Glasgow. It is also with her that the 11 December appointment was to be held.

[bluebottle]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

You need to bring this whole sorry episode to the attention of your MP at the earliest possible opportunity. Although my inclination is to advise you to formally complain to the CEO of Ingeus, the fact that substance abuse and the making of false and misleading statements to JCP, thereby resulting in claimants being unfairly or wrongfully sanctioned, has been going on and JCP staff have, seemingly, done nothing whatsoever to have this situation formally investigated, despite knowing this was going on, is a matter of some concern. Your MP needs to pursue this with the relevant Minister or Secretary of State.

[Les]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

The question that needs to be asked is "Was there an intention, deliberate or reckless, on the part of the individuals concerned and/or the provider to cause you loss, or expose you to loss or the risk of loss?" If the answer to this question is "Yes," then that is of significant concern as it raises questions as to how many other claimants have been unfairly and/or wrongfully sanctioned as a result of the actions of this provider and its employees who, going by your account, appear to be experiencing some "interesting side-effects" as the result of taking pharmaceutical preparations.

Could you please confirm if it was JCP or the provider who imposed the sanctions and/or issued the sanction letters?

Sanction letters all came from JCP Glasgow (albeit posted from a Belfast address).
The point I was trying to highlight is this: If the meeting (11 December) had gone ahead, Ingeus would not have been able to deny what had happened so far.
As it would from that date on be recorded as having happened etc. This would be enough for the local Jobcentre to step in (as promised) with regards my appeal (most of it now being outside the time limit), local jobcentre are well aware of my situation. The local Jobcentre staff are well aware that as I reported everything to them at the time (as local Ingeus Manager would not deal with it), and nothing is seen as being done about it.
At the moment the situation is that the original Ingeus office (Ealing) were trying to hide (deny) what has happened re the substance abuse, but Wembley made the mistake of admitting it happened, plus they also now have an advisor who brought his "serious habit problems" (their words) with him from the Ealing office. If the 11 December meeting had taken place, there would of been all the evidence for the local JCP to step in and my appeal would of been straight forward.
My current JSA sanction actually finishes today.

[bluebottle]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

It appears you have been sanctioned wrongfully and, as such, should claim back what has been withheld. In any case, the matter needs to be referred to the appropriate Minister or Secretary of State as a contractor is allowing employees, involved in substance abuse, to deal with claimants, some of whom are likely to be vulnerable, nothwithstanding the contractor effectively told porkies to JCP. Be in no doubt, the provider is receiving taxpayer's money and, as such, is subject to scrutiny or should be. This does not appear to be happening as JCP staff have not, it would seem, reported the matter to DWP senior management. This is why you need to get your MP onboard as soon as possible.

[Les]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

Thanks for the replies. A quick update. It has been decided that I will need a witness as I am going to ask provider why this meeting was refused, and need the witness to confirm what was said by them. This might effect my JSA as the provider has to effectively provide an end of term statement of my time on their scheme.
I've found a person who represents people at tribunals from a neighbouring London borough. I wish someone from JCP would do go with me as witness.

Some clients who witnessed things as they happened to me in back in February/March were (Back then) getting annoyed with it all, so if anyone was "vulnerable", believe me it wasn't the clients.
I'm trying to keep things civil, and calm, where as the work programme staff seem to have wanted me to kick off so as to ban me from the building. Small tit-for-tat thing because I had caused Glasgow to ask awkward questions on my Wembley advisors substance issues, two example were when job searching on the Ingeus Works website once I signed into It, for months would only showed jobs outside of Greater London, in places like Aberdeenshire, South Wales etc. The other example was following Glasgow's asking of those awkward questions, I get a change of advisor to a fake one, who did/could not act as advisor, leading to missed appointments although I attended etc. That latter example to me is fraud and corruption, and in the light of the last interview (11 December) they knew all too well there was a victim to this dishonesty.
I'll repoprt back here on the outcome.

[bluebottle]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

Thanks for the replies. A quick update. It has been decided that I will need a witness as I am going to ask provider why this meeting was refused, and need the witness to confirm what was said by them. This might effect my JSA as the provider has to effectively provide an end of term statement of my time on their scheme.
I've found a person who represents people at tribunals from a neighbouring London borough. I wish someone from JCP would do go with me as witness.

Some clients who witnessed things as they happened to me in back in February/March were (Back then) getting annoyed with it all, so if anyone was "vulnerable", believe me it wasn't the clients.
I'm trying to keep things civil, and calm, where as the work programme staff seem to have wanted me to kick off so as to ban me from the building. Small tit-for-tat thing because I had caused Glasgow to ask awkward questions on my Wembley advisors substance issues, two example were when job searching on the Ingeus Works website once I signed into It, for months would only showed jobs outside of Greater London, in places like Aberdeenshire, South Wales etc. The other example was following Glasgow's asking of those awkward questions, I get a change of advisor to a fake one, who did/could not act as advisor, leading to missed appointments although I attended etc. That latter example to me is fraud and corruption, and in the light of the last interview (11 December) they knew all too well there was a victim to this dishonesty.
I'll repoprt back here on the outcome.

Whether Ingeus like it or not, they are in receipt of taxpayers' money and, as such, they are subject to scrutiny by H.M. Treasury, the Department of Work & Pensions and appropriate House of Commons Select Committees who can summon the directors of Ingeus before them to answer questions as and when they see fit.

If Ingeus are causing claimants, including yourself, to lose benefit to which they entitled to receive, due to the actions (or inactions) of Ingeus employees, then the matter needs to be formally investigated. If JCP know about what is going on at Ingeus, then DWP senior management should have been informed and a formal investigation commenced.

It is important that you get your MP onboard as soon as possible as they can apply pressure where pressure needs to be applied.

As regards someone from JCP being a witness at the meeting you mention, have you considered speaking to DWP's Fraud Investigation Section about one of their officers coming along with you? If Ingeus is making false reports to JCP about claimants and receiving money from the taxpayer in return, then it is a matter for DWP FIS. Give them a ring and see what they say.

[Les]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

Whether Ingeus like it or not, they are in receipt of taxpayers' money and, as such, they are subject to scrutiny by H.M. Treasury, the Department of Work & Pensions and appropriate House of Commons Select Committees who can summon the directors of Ingeus
As regards someone from JCP being a witness at the meeting you mention, have you considered speaking to DWP's Fraud Investigation Section about one of their officers coming along with you? If Ingeus is making false reports to JCP about claimants and receiving money from the taxpayer in return, then it is a matter for DWP FIS. Give them a ring and see what they say.

I Like that last part, I now have an appointment to talk it over at the local jobcentre on Christmas Eve, (signing on time) and will put that to them. I was going to email Info@ingeus.co.uk to ask why it had to get this far regards never held appointments with this final (phoney) advisor, but might just take them by surprise with that instead.
Thanks for that reply, that was really helpful.

Edit: I might not let the local jobcentre know of this either, they might want to cover their backs in some way.

[bluebottle]

Re: Work Programme provider would not let a crucial "Mandatory appointment" take plac

I Like that last part, I now have an appointment to talk it over at the local jobcentre on Christmas Eve, (signing on time) and will put that to them. I was going to email Info@ingeus.co.uk to ask why it had to get this far regards never held appointments with this final (phoney) advisor, but might just take them by surprise with that instead.
Thanks for that reply, that was really helpful.

Edit: I might not let the local jobcentre know of this either, they might want to cover their backs in some way.

You're welcome, Les. DWP Fraud Investigation Section don't just investigate claimants; they also investigate employers who fraudulently claim Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay repayments or exaggerate claims and will become involved if HMRC catch an employer underpaying an employee. By this, I refer to benefits paid to employees, National Insurance contributions, Employer's National Insurance contributions, etc.. There is no reason why they cannot investigate any claims for payment made by providers like Ingeus. As you have illustrated, Igneus refused to hold a mandatory meeting. If they have submitted a claim for payment for that meeting and claimed you did not turn up, that needs to be investigated. A4e, another provider, like Igneus, are already under investigation, albeit by the Serious Fraud Office, for their "accounting practices".