Tweet
I need help to expose the DWP, in particular Essex DWP for reintroducing a policy of enforced labour.
I was mandated onto the Work Programme whilst not in receipt of any out-of-work-income replacement benefits i.e the JSA, ESA benefits or disability benefits. My designated Work Provider, SEETEC, declared in their action plan that there was absolutely nothing they could do to assist me but despite this I was ordered to remain on the programme. Even when Live Work Memo 069 was issued on the 3rd September that clearly stated that those individuals already on the programme could only remain so if they volunteered to remain. Essex DWP maintains that as I was allocated prior to the issue of this Memo I had to remain! on the Programme as the DWP had invested such a large sum of money on my enlistment.
Matters came to a head when I refused to attend a mandated work placement on the basis that I would receive no remuneration from either the employer or the state and to compound the felony I was expected to fund my travel costs. I was duly punished (sic) for not attending the placement and refused a Tribunal Hearing to adjudicate on this censure
the Independent Case Examiner supported Essex DWP's stance of tendering no help and assistance to me prior to my allocation on the basis that as I was not in receipt of any benefits the DWP could decline t help you. It took them over 12 months to come to this conclusion.
The matter then progressed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman who found for the DWP on the basis I was in receipt of National Insurance contributions and thus was correctly allocated. An interesting judgement as it would mean such credits and employers national contributions are deemd to be a benefit and thus taxable. It would also mean an individual could be forced to work for no immediate renmuneration base on the fact that as and when you reach the state pension age you will receive some payment for your labour. For eack month worked you would receive 1/420th of the stae pension but this would not be on the declared amount but on a reduced amount as crdits are only classifeied as class 3.
I eventually engineered a tribunal Hearing and Essex DWP were found guilty but they refuse to accept a judgement which ordered them to write a letter apologising for their treatment of me.
Surprisingly I have obtained, under the Freedom of Information Act a legal statement declaring no one could be mandated onto the programme if they were purely in receipt of N.I. credits, they have further declared that such credits are administered by HMRC and are not considered as a benefit. Interestingly they have also declared that the Work Programme was not mandatory for all as it had to clearly show their was a benefit for the individual in being allocated.
Such evidence appears to be inadmissible and can be ignored by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I believe that their judgement was made to purely protect a very senior member of the DWP who stated clearly that I had been allocated as I had been in receipt of the JSA allowance for over 12 months. This person was subsequently been promoted and holds a very high position in another Government department.
The conclusion has to be that the state can demand that an individual undertakes a enforced labour programme without any immediate payments based on the fact that they may eventually see some benefit of approximately 5p a week for each month worked. If this is not a declaration that ENFORCED LABOUR was introduced by the Government of David Cameron then what is. It should be noted that the position of Parliamentary Ombudsman was under the patronage of David Cameron!
I need help in exposing such a policy please.
I was mandated onto the Work Programme whilst not in receipt of any out-of-work-income replacement benefits i.e the JSA, ESA benefits or disability benefits. My designated Work Provider, SEETEC, declared in their action plan that there was absolutely nothing they could do to assist me but despite this I was ordered to remain on the programme. Even when Live Work Memo 069 was issued on the 3rd September that clearly stated that those individuals already on the programme could only remain so if they volunteered to remain. Essex DWP maintains that as I was allocated prior to the issue of this Memo I had to remain! on the Programme as the DWP had invested such a large sum of money on my enlistment.
Matters came to a head when I refused to attend a mandated work placement on the basis that I would receive no remuneration from either the employer or the state and to compound the felony I was expected to fund my travel costs. I was duly punished (sic) for not attending the placement and refused a Tribunal Hearing to adjudicate on this censure
the Independent Case Examiner supported Essex DWP's stance of tendering no help and assistance to me prior to my allocation on the basis that as I was not in receipt of any benefits the DWP could decline t help you. It took them over 12 months to come to this conclusion.
The matter then progressed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman who found for the DWP on the basis I was in receipt of National Insurance contributions and thus was correctly allocated. An interesting judgement as it would mean such credits and employers national contributions are deemd to be a benefit and thus taxable. It would also mean an individual could be forced to work for no immediate renmuneration base on the fact that as and when you reach the state pension age you will receive some payment for your labour. For eack month worked you would receive 1/420th of the stae pension but this would not be on the declared amount but on a reduced amount as crdits are only classifeied as class 3.
I eventually engineered a tribunal Hearing and Essex DWP were found guilty but they refuse to accept a judgement which ordered them to write a letter apologising for their treatment of me.
Surprisingly I have obtained, under the Freedom of Information Act a legal statement declaring no one could be mandated onto the programme if they were purely in receipt of N.I. credits, they have further declared that such credits are administered by HMRC and are not considered as a benefit. Interestingly they have also declared that the Work Programme was not mandatory for all as it had to clearly show their was a benefit for the individual in being allocated.
Such evidence appears to be inadmissible and can be ignored by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I believe that their judgement was made to purely protect a very senior member of the DWP who stated clearly that I had been allocated as I had been in receipt of the JSA allowance for over 12 months. This person was subsequently been promoted and holds a very high position in another Government department.
The conclusion has to be that the state can demand that an individual undertakes a enforced labour programme without any immediate payments based on the fact that they may eventually see some benefit of approximately 5p a week for each month worked. If this is not a declaration that ENFORCED LABOUR was introduced by the Government of David Cameron then what is. It should be noted that the position of Parliamentary Ombudsman was under the patronage of David Cameron!
I need help in exposing such a policy please.
to LB [MENTION=89935]Londoncalling[/MENTION] ... I hope you get the help you need! I believe you will have a good response to this over on the Unemployment Movement Forum (
Comment