­
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Advisor demanding I use ujm.

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 14 Jan 2018 14:43 #5690

  • The Gibbon
  • The Gibbon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Thank you received: 59
Hi all,

Hope everyone's doing well.

I seem to be having a spot of bother with my roach. I've just been assigned to a new roach after my old one retired and they're one of the nasty ones. It was very obvious from the moment I sat down that they had it in for me. First, it was sbwa's. I told them I wasn't interested to which the roach replied that they'd be informing a decision maker and I could lose my benefits as I was refusing an opportunity of 'help' from them. Not too bothered about that one though, as I've refused several times before and I know they're voluntary,but out of interest, does anyone know if that does happen or is the roach making it up?

Next, it was ujm. I keep my records (very detailed) on paper and this has been fine since I first signed on. But this roach decided they don't like that and added it to my CC that I have to keep them on ujm. I was told this was because "it's all going digital in November", to which I replied "I'll start doing it then then". When I asked what difference it makes, all they could say was "I like it this way". Anyhoo, a bit of arguing went back and forth and then I was asked if I was refusing to accept my CC. I said yes, because their regulations state that I can't be bullied into keeping my records a certain way just because it's the roach's preference. I was then told that I've got 5 days to either accept it, or it would be passed to another roach and if they agreed with the first, my claim would be closed. So, questions.....

1) Have the rules changed and they now can demand you keep them on ujm or is the roach being naughty?

2) If they're being naughty, do I have grounds for a complaint? If so, who do I send it to?

3) If I do refuse it and it's sent to another roach, what are the chances they'll disagree? Do they get to choose which roach decides as there's a couple of others in there don't like me either.

4) I have to call the UC service line to discuss the matter, so is there a chance that if I spout regulations at them, they can remove the offending bit?

5) If I do get my claim shut down, what then? Can I reapply straight away? Can I fight the decision like I would a sanction?

Sorry for all the questions, but I obviously want to be as informed as possible before I start :)

Many thanks to anyone who can help. B)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 14 Jan 2018 15:07 #5691

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2042
  • Thank you received: 1922
Hi Gibbon, have a read of this:
www.boycottworkfare.org/universal-jobmatch-do-not-sign/

I did a quick search around and this was just something that I found that was not older than just before Christmas 2017. This was also taken from the comments on the same page:

This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.


I will try and dig out a few more but unlike JSA, Universal Credit seems to be one of those things that we are all trying to understand and navigate the rules regarding UJM and what we can and can`t give access to. If it was me, (I have a UJM account) but I only ever gave access to it while signing on and then `in-ticked` the box when I got home. This never threw up any issues because that access box wouldn`t BE there if we were not allowed to use it. ;) So your argument would be that you HAVE a UJM account (if you don`t, they have to give you either a jobseekers direction or under UC, a similar direction in writing) and that is all you are required to do. If under UC regulations this is correct, then they are stuffed. All you need to do is find that crumb of evidence and print it out. Will be back shortly if I can find anything.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: KatiLB, The Gibbon

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 14 Jan 2018 15:30 #5692

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2042
  • Thank you received: 1922
Also found this FOI from September 2017
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_jobmatch_account_versu

Click on the Frank Zola link at the bottom of that page too for more info.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: The Gibbon

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 14 Jan 2018 15:36 #5693

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2042
  • Thank you received: 1922
And this has just been updated too for anyone looking for advice on Universal Credit:
scottishunemployedworkers.net/know-your-rights/

And taken from the above link:

This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Paul-UB40

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 14 Jan 2018 16:50 #5694

  • Benefit Bolshie
  • Benefit Bolshie's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 413
  • Thank you received: 715
Hello Gibbon.

Sorry to learn of the bad start you are being subjected to in the New Year.

First of all, what are the “sbwa’s” you mention?

Secondly, how long is it since you signed your Claimant Commitment (CC) and what does it require of you as regards using Universal Jobmatch?

The legal status of CC is set out in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and The Universal Credit Regulations 2013. It has not been altered.

The contents of your CC has to be agreed between your work coach and yourself, as should any proposed changes to it.

You should have been issued a Jobseekers Direction, in writing, informing you of any changes or additional activities, and the reasons for such changes/additions. If the correct procedures have not been followed it renders the proposed changes null and void and you could have grounds to lay a charge of maladministration against the work coach.

Repeated demands to use UJM despite explaining your legitimate reasons for not doing so could be regarded as harassment by the work coach.

Last year, in another place, I posted the following which could be used as the basis for an argument to avoid being compelled to use UJM. Feedback I got since informs me that the arguments put forward have has been used successfully.

I would suggest, if you haven’t already done so, that you send a complaint letter to the manager of your jobcentre without delay, and before they sanction you, along the following lines:

1. In response to a Freedom of Information request the DWP stated the following:

“…The disclaimer on the Universal Jobmatch (UJ) service forms part of the Standards of Behaviour which are for jobseekers’ information. A jobseeker is not required to accept the Standards of Behaviour when they receive a Jobseeker’s Direction to create a UJ profile…”

The DWP response can be seen in full here:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/155118/re...se%20v1%200.pdf.html

And again:
“The disclaimer forms part of the Jobseeker Standards of Behaviour which jobseekers are not required to‘accept’.”
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/152647/re...%20Response.pdf.html

As stated in the response, the Standards of Behaviour are for information only and thus cannot be made mandatory. However, there is a tick box for the Standards of Behaviour on the UJ registration page that must be ticked to enable registration. I do not (as allowed) accept the Standards of Behaviour, cannot therefore tick the box, and consequently am unable to register with UJ.

2. There is a tick box for a “mandatory” equality questionnaire. This is the DWP’s own message (from the UJ FAQ) regarding this:

“DWP requests equality information to help it monitor and continually improve the services it provides to the public. To help us to do this, we would like you to complete this questionnaire. Providing equality information is strictly voluntary. If provided, this information may be used only in accordance with applicable law and will not be shared with employers. If you do not want to answer any of the questions, please select Prefer not to say."

It is not possible to register with UJ without ticking the “mandatory” equality questionnaire box but, as clearly evinced in the DWP’s own statement, the equality questionnaire is “strictly voluntary”.

To be clear, being given the option to select “Prefer not to say” once in the questionnaire is not acceptable as, from a legal perspective, this constitutes a response to the questionnaire, i.e. taking part in it, and is in direct contravention to the “strictly voluntary” nature of the questionnaire. Clearly registering for UJ cannot be made conditional on taking part in a “strictly voluntary” activity.

I do not wish to take part in the equality questionnaire and until I can register without having to tick this box I am unable to register with UJ.

3. The Welfare Reform Act 2012, chapter 2, section 17(3)(c) states:

(3) Action which may be specified under subsection (1)(b) includes in particular—
creating and maintaining an online profile

This is the only legislation relating to online job-searching and it is clearly very generic. There is no mention of UJ, nor can there be as it would be anti-competitive and therefore illegal. Therefore, to demand that a jobseeker registers with UJ, particularly under threat of a possible sanction if not complied with, is not reasonable and would fail the Wednesbury principles’ test of reasonableness.

I maintain several online profiles through the many other job-search websites that I use and I have an email address. This is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Act and obviates the need to register with UJ which, as a job-finding service, adds nothing which would enhance the job-finding process compared to that which I already undertake).

It is also recognised by the DWP that other jobsearch engines are a sufficient substitute for UJM:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/167039/re.../FOI%203016.pdf.html

"Whilst those claimants for whom it is reasonable will be required to register with Universal Jobmatch, the Department also recognises that there are other job sites on which profiles can be created and maintained for the purposes of work search activity. Work search expectations will differ for each claimant depending on their individual circumstances and job goals and advisers will tailor requirements for each claimant."

As a consequence, any FLA issuing a JSD mandating a jobseeker to register with UJ would have to demonstrate why it is reasonable (Wednesbury principles) to single out UJ amongst the many other equally good, and usually better, job search websites.

4. The enforced acceptance of cookies is illegal.

The DWP has attempted to subvert the Data Protection Act by accepting cookies on Internet access devices (IADs) in Jobcentres. This is illegal. The requirements Under EU Data Protection Regulations (Directive 95/46/EC) are unequivocal. Consent must be informed, explicit, specific and freely given (for both the subscriber and the user).

By accepting cookies on a jobseeker’s behalf on Jobcentre IADs the ability for the jobseeker (the user) to consent freely to their use is removed. I would point out that this is a matter of common sense if nothing else. It is the individual user of the UJM website (the jobseeker) who is affected by the use of cookies and not the DWP. Which particular machine or device they are accepted on is immaterial. It is the act of accepting the cookies that is salient and to which the user’s consent, freely given, must be explicitly obtained. Pre-accepted cookies clearly subvert that right.

Specifically, DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 July 2002 in point (17) states:

“For the purposes of this Directive, consent of a user or subscriber, regardless of whether the latter is a natural or a legal person, should have the same meaning as the data subject’s consent as defined and further specified in Directive 95/46/EC. Consent may be given by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the user’s wishes, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website."

You will see that whereas the “subscriber or user” phrase can be misinterpreted, as the DWP have chosen to do because it benefits them, the above makes it clear it is the “user’s wishes” that are paramount.

The DWP are of the mistaken belief that the subscriber (the DWP) can accept cookies on a user’s behalf on the IADs. It is in your interest to know that because the IADs are reset after each user a new set of “clean” cookies is used for each new user. These cookies monitor a uniquely identifiable jobseeker using UJ (as evidenced, for example, by an adviser’s ability to monitor the log in times of a user even if that user has not given full access to his account). The cookies are therefore user based and not subscriber or, more generically, terminal based. For this reason the DWP must explicitly obtain the freely given consent of each user to accept cookies as per Directive 95/46/EC.

I do not consent to the use of any cookies and consequently will not be able to use UJ.

5. The protocol for obtaining consent from the jobseeker has not been followed because it enforces consent through threats of penalties, i.e. sanctions.

DWP definition of consent:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copy_of_d...docu#incoming-225710

ICO on cookie consent:
www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/privacy...mmunications/consent

6. It is not mandatory for a jobseeker to reveal his email address to the DWP. This is confirmed in this DWP FOI response:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/169236/re...%20response.pdf.html

“Providing a CV, email address or telephone number is not mandatory, therefore is not sanctionable.”

Creating a Government Gateway account and registering with UJM both require an email address to be provided and that email address is made available to the Jobcentre even if the jobseeker does not give permission to access his UJ account (as evidenced by the default method of locating a new UJ registrant’s account by their unique email account per the UJ Toolkit). Therefore a jobseeker who does not wish to reveal his email address cannot be mandated to register with UJM.

7. The U&JM site is insecure and has advertising disguised as jobs etc. anyone can set up as a business because there isn’t even basic checks done.

8 I have not signed a data protection waiver (for which the Jobcentre has a form) and therefore retain my DPA rights to my personal information.

9. Use of IADs not mandatory either:

“A3. Claimants will not be mandated to use IADs available in Jobcentre Plus offices and will, therefore, not be sanctioned if they refuse to use them. Use of IADs by claimants is voluntary.”
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wireless_technology_safety

By attempting to enforce registering on UJM and giving consent for access by DWP to it through threats of penalties, you, or [Name of adviser], are in breach of the several laws and statutory guidances referenced above and the codes of practice put in place by your superiors and employers.

Unless you cease and desist, with immediate effect, from the action that you have chosen to pursue, be advised that I propose to seek advice on initiating proceedings against you, you personally, in the civil courts on a charge of maladministration which, may I remind you, carries a prison sentence of up to five years.

I do not propose to enter into lengthy in-house DWP reconsideration processes that are in my view designed primarily for DWP to watch its own and it's staff's backs. As you don't appear to have the sense to understand or assimilate the evidence placed before you it does not inspire me with any confidence in those to whom you intend to pass the buck.

Should you choose to pass the issue in dispute on for mandatory reconsideration be advised that, according to law, officers, agents, servants or others of the Secretary of State may not issue a direction, amend my Jobseekers Agreement/Claimant Commitment or make demands or impose penalties in regard to proposed changes unless/untill they are agreed.

The arguments put in the Tribunal Judgement I referenced above and in the argument as set out can't be said to be out of date and are as relevant to Claimant Commitments as they are to Jobseeker's Agreements.

I will regard any undue delay in your response to rectifying the issue before you as contempt for the law and abuse of my legal and human rights.

PS:
Please also check out recent discussion of the topic on this forum at:
welfarecentral.org/index.php/forum-home/job-search/1233-providing-evidence-of-job-search-activity
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Paul-UB40, comply or die, KatiLB, dboy, The Gibbon

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 14 Jan 2018 17:08 #5695

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2042
  • Thank you received: 1922
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/534893/adm15-16.pdf

Taken from this link:

This image is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it.


I also know there are people who register their CV with other online job sites and agencies who don`t/won`t use UJM, so I would argue that point with this work coach. Having a UJM account is one thing, but the cookie consent and the fact that you have registered shouldn`t mean you have to use it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 15 Jan 2018 02:43 #5697

  • The Gibbon
  • The Gibbon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Thank you received: 59
Thanks both for the replies. :)

Bolshie,

SBWA is a Sector Based Work Academy. It's a 2-6 (I think) week, full-time unpaId 'work experience' followed by a guaranteed interview but no guarantee of a job. I currently volunteer and am doing work towards IT qualifications there which I believe will be better for me than a definite maybe. It's voluntary by the way, though they do seem to be doing the HARD sell on them where I live.

At the moment, I'm more worried about the 'closing the claim' part. I get the distinct feeling that the roaches are conspiring in this as a way to boot people off the dole and meet their off-flow targets. Find claimant you can't sanction off benefits, put unreasonable thing on CC, claimant refuses so you pass it to roach B, they agree it's okay and claim is shut down. Is it as simple as that? Do I have any recourse? I'm panicking a bit as I seem to remember someone saying that if your claim is closed, that's it. You can't appeal it as there's no claim to appeal for. Is that right?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jobber

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 15 Jan 2018 12:36 #5704

  • dboy
  • dboy's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Elite Member
  • Posts: 187
  • Thank you received: 259
You can be mandated to attend the initial meeting with an SBWA but cannot be mandated to take up the offer.

Personally I think your on solid ground refusing to sign the CC, you can present evidence in any format you choose, and filling in the UJM activity is not a market related activity.

I would ask to see the local manager to clarify your position but I believe the 5 days are for the work coach benefit to get advice and I think that would be to accept your position.

Still I know exactly how you feel it is easy knowing your rights, but exercising them is another matter when it comes to the DWP.

When faced with choice of fighting what you know is right but at the loss of income for X amount of time, which for a lot of people who have no access to savings,loans,family and friends it is much easier to waive those rights.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jobber, The Gibbon

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 15 Jan 2018 13:57 #5707

  • Benefit Bolshie
  • Benefit Bolshie's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 413
  • Thank you received: 715
Thanks Gibbon for clarifying that by SBWA you meant Sector Based Work Academy. A useful tip when presenting your case or conducting official correspondence is to give the full title of the body, organisation or activity that you are referencing, followed by any abbreviations, (in brackets) initially. The abbreviations can then be used in subsequent references. In this way nobody can be in any doubt as to what exactly is meant.

I asked you how long it is since you signed your Claimant Commitment (CC) and what does it require of you as regards using Universal Jobmatch? This is important to establish since, as you say, the way you were fulfilling your commitment up to now appears to have been acceptable and the only reason that the work coach can give for seeking to alter it is that it does not suit ‘they’. Another tip, be specific about facts/details. I see no reason for going to such lengths to be so vague about the sex of your work coach. It compels me to be just as vague, and being vague is a sure fire way to waste your time and that of others.

You say that you have been given five days to accept the changes proposed, so what day/date is that? Do you have enough time to make a case, commit it to writing as suggested above, and present it before the deadline?

Another tip, although it may be too late now, is never to answer in the affirmative when challenged directly about whether you are refusing anything suggested to you. It would be helpful on such occasions to be as vague as possible; this is an example where wasting time would work to your advantage.

When a work coach enters into the system that s/he is raising a doubt about a claimant’s work search activity or CC compliance it invariably means an immediate stopping of benefits. You can ask for reconsideration or appeal but, even if you are successful, it could be at least a month before you receive a penny.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jobber, The Gibbon

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 15 Jan 2018 14:28 #5709

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2042
  • Thank you received: 1922
dboy wrote:
Still I know exactly how you feel it is easy knowing your rights, but exercising them is another matter when it comes to the DWP

dboy, it seems we have to be somewhat of a Philadelphia lawyer and be able to find and present answers to what is thrown at us in a panic and when the doubt is there, it`s not easy to say no to their demands unless we have already printed off something in writing and carry an A4 folder around with pages full of regulations, which I doubt most of us do. Asking if something is voluntary usually has the reply, no it`s not. So it can be a fine line between saying no thanks and being looked at as if we are sat in some kangaroo court for refusing.

I`m going to play devils advocate here because I often wonder if complying with `some` of the things they offer is a wiser move than placing ourselves at the mercy of doubt. In Gibbon`s case, there seems to be a clash of heads going on because if someone is already doing voluntary work and/or training while also looking for work through the correct avenues, I`m not sure asking that person to ditch all of that to persue a work based academy, especially if it`s voluntary to do it?

So my personal argument with this work coach would be (in writing) stating that the current training and volunteering I am carrying out, as well as my daily job search means a great deal to me and has helped me to progress in the areas I want to work in. I would then say that being asked/told to stop or put this on hold to attend another line of training would prevent my progression in that area and I felt it was not justified to interrupt what is, in my view, an essential opportunity for me.

Having said all this, it could end up being a delayed action anyway on their part, but trying to get that message across is better than saying no, or saying yes and just not bothering to argue the case without making them think you haven`t thought about both. It`s as if they are fine for claimants to find volunteering roles and their own training and then suddenly say sorry mate, you have to do as we say now and just throw it all away or put things on permanent hold. I think I would be asking the coach why I was encouraged to do my own thing just to be told I can`t do it anymore?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jobber

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 15 Jan 2018 18:20 #5710

  • The Gibbon
  • The Gibbon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Thank you received: 59
Bolshie,

Sorry for not answering the other questions. This all has me in a bit of a panic.

Basically, the letter I was given says I have to ring them before the 18th. My last CC was signed towards the end of November (not sure of the exact date) and various parts mention 'using UJM and applying for anything I'm capable of doing' and 'keeping a record of my jobsearch and presenting it at each intervention'. No mention is made anywhere of how I have to keep it. As I said, the roach added the part about keeping it on UJM, but could give no better reason than "That's how I like it done". It was not discussed at all and I wasn't given an opportunity to say no, except for refusing to sign after it had been added. I also wasn't given a copy of the CC to take with me, if that matters. The letter I was given states that 'If you disagree with what we ask you to do on your CC, call us and if we agree, it could be removed', so I'm hopeful that's what will happen before it gets to the meeting with my roach.

When you say I can appeal, do you mean if my claim gets closed? As I said before, my biggest worry is that the second roach brought in will be 'in on the act' and will just agree to get me kicked off benefits and I'll have no comeback at all, but if I can appeal, I'm okay with doing that, as I'm pretty damn sure I would win an appeal and I have some money set aside I can live on in the meantime.

As for being vague about the gender of the roach, that's for the same reason I don't mention where I live etc. I don't want to give information that could be used to identify me by anyone who may be watching these forums. I don't really think it matters anyway as their gender doesn't change anything in this situation. I'm sorry if my being vague about such things limits the amount of help you can/will offer, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, even if it paints me as somewhat paranoid. If information is relevant and necessary to a discussion, I will provide it if possible. ;)

Thanks all. Please keep the info coming.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jobber

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 15 Jan 2018 21:04 #5712

  • jobber
  • jobber's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 713
  • Thank you received: 1114
Let them DEMAND away as there is NO way they can make you use that crap heap of a website when there are many others which work better and are more suitable to people's needs. :)

Gibbon, do not let them have access to UJM; and if you have withdraw consent, you are free to do this at any time. :)

Stay strong Gibbon. I feel real sorry for you they are trying to push you into this utter crap go nowhere earn zero course its the only thing their good for which is ultimately nothing;that's the joke centre i am referring to.

Out of interest Gibon are you 40+ age group,just wondering what lunatic has conjured up this great idea for you if you have a long previous work history with previous skills qualifications etc.Silly me for thinking logical as its a quality the roach's dont get. :angry:

best of luck Gibbon.



Here's all the wonderful bull on the SBWA www.gov.uk/government/publications/sector-based-work-academies-employer-guide

"a guaranteed job interview :cheer: " Oh well everyone lets have a bloody party then :cheer:
They dress this utter crap up to make you feel like you've won the lotto.

The administrator has disabled public write access.

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 02:55 #5713

  • Benefit Bolshie
  • Benefit Bolshie's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 413
  • Thank you received: 715
Ok. You signed a CC about 3 months ago (which means you are regarded as having agreed and accepted it). You should have been given a copy of that CC to keep when you signed it. That CC remains valid until such time as you agree to and sign another one.

Whether you are given a copy of the CC that they are trying to get you to sign now or not is irrelevant, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on unless it’s signed. I can’t find any documentation suggesting that refusing to accept a new CC automatically cancels the original one.

For an answer to the question on whether or not you can appeal please check out the following link:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/317750/response/796003/attach/2/IR%20128%20reply.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Specifically this paragraph:

It is a condition of entitlement to universal credit that a claimant accepts a claimant commitment. If a claimant commitment is not accepted there can be no entitlement to universal credit. In such a case, the Department would write to a claimant explaining that their claim had been disallowed and that they can phone or write to the Department to ask us to explain our decision and/or to look at the decision again. After the Department has looked at decisions again, a process known as Mandatory Reconsideration, claimants can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

I repeat, as a first step, send a complaint letter to your Jobcentre manager before the deadline expires along the lines suggested in previous post. Make it clear why you object to using UJM and that you are not legally obliged to do so, especially not on a work coach’s whim. Also make it clear that you fully intend to appeal if a second work coach, or what they call Mandatory Reconsideration insists on trying to coerce you into using UJM.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: comply or die, jobber

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 09:07 #5716

  • miguel1975
  • miguel1975's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Premium Member
  • Brexit casualty
  • Posts: 89
  • Thank you received: 48
We need to be pragmatic here. As long as I sympathize with the OP for his principles, I'd say that in practice this is not a big issue.

I do use UJM. I do have an account on it and I have checked the box to allow my roach to see my applications, but he's never bothered checking it. I do write my daily jobsearch (and in many cases I make it up) on UJM and nobody has ever checked it. The real issue here is that your roach is an arschloch and you must win this war on a psychological level.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: comply or die, dboy

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 11:35 #5717

  • dboy
  • dboy's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Elite Member
  • Posts: 187
  • Thank you received: 259
miguel1975 wrote:
We need to be pragmatic here. As long as I sympathize with the OP for his principles, I'd say that in practice this is not a big issue.

I do use UJM. I do have an account on it and I have checked the box to allow my roach to see my applications, but he's never bothered checking it. I do write my daily jobsearch (and in many cases I make it up) on UJM and nobody has ever checked it. The real issue here is that your roach is an arschloch and you must win this war on a psychological level.

My experience was much the same, most of the work coaches did not know how to access my account, some forgot their passwords to access it, while others could not be bothered.

I was actually pressurised once to use the paper templates rather than UJM to record my search on one occasion after my work coach could not access my account, they told me that if they could not access my account even if it was their system that was at fault and they could not see my steps they would raise a doubt.

The DWP seems to be a department in chaos,there is no parity across the country, experiences differ,the work coaches are mostly ignorant of their own departments policies, people are punished until they can prove their innocence,.

I cannot wait until 8 million people join our ranks under UC and then lets see if the mood of country changes, after all most of them support sanctions.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: miguel1975

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 13:12 #5719

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2042
  • Thank you received: 1922
dboy wrote:
The DWP seems to be a department in chaos,there is no parity across the country, experiences differ,the work coaches are mostly ignorant of their own departments policies, people are punished until they can prove their innocence,.

I cannot wait until 8 million people join our ranks under UC and then lets see if the mood of country changes, after all most of them support sanctions.

Totally agree here dboy. I feel most work coaches are under strain to understand all of their own regulations and it is us, the claimants, who end up at the brunt of this confusion or wrong decisions made. I would like to be able (if I was signing on again) to meet with any work coach and be able to hold a civilized conversation that wasn`t one sided. If I didn`t like the idea of something they presented, it would be nice to be able to explain why and walk out the door without feeling victimised for saying no or at least be given the opportunity to show evidence of my reasons for declining without any doubts or decision makers getting involved. A claimant commitment should be an agreement between BOTH parties, but what is happening most of the time is our minds are being made up for us without much tug of war tactics being used. This really is a big issue with DWP and job centres and unless it is addressed, the system will never be there to HELP anyone.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 13:49 #5721

  • miguel1975
  • miguel1975's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Premium Member
  • Brexit casualty
  • Posts: 89
  • Thank you received: 48
comply or die wrote:
dboy wrote:


I cannot wait until 8 million people join our ranks under UC and then lets see if the mood of country changes, after all most of them support sanctions.
.
Well, put it this way: the majority of the populace are cowards who will only complain if and when they are hit in their own wallet. Give credit to the Tories that they are masters at playing this game. Their job is to keep the populace just a tad above the point when they rebel. They are achieving their target. I can't see riots coming any soon.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 14:19 #5722

  • comply or die
  • comply or die's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2042
  • Thank you received: 1922
miguel wrote:

Their job is to keep the populace just a tad above the point when they rebel.

Exactly. And those not already ON Universal Credit should know that it could come to their door at any time. Saw a man on the news yesterday who will be affected by the recent Carillion collapse and he said to the cameras that, `he`s been laid off and just found out over Christmas that his girlfriend is pregnant`. I thought, welcome to the world of UC my friend. Six week wait for any payment and if you have little savings, god help you.

But like the majority, he will accept the ways of the system and feel betrayed but be powerless to do anything.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: El-dudeareno, jobber

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 16:48 #5727

  • Benefit Bolshie
  • Benefit Bolshie's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 413
  • Thank you received: 715
There is a danger here of taking over Gibbon’s thread to further or justify negativity, submission and capitulation. If half the energy expounded to those ends were used to encourage and stand up to the systems that are grinding us down, indeed killing some, we would maybe achieve our goal quicker.

Dboy has found ways that suit him to beat them at their own game but it’s a sad day when one has to resort to DWP’s own underhand methods to maintain sanity and survive. Good for you, lad, at least you’re in the fight. The very idea that in this day and age some of our fellow citizens have to cower and cringe in fear rather than celebrate a Christian and family holiday in their own way is sickening.

Gibbon, here’s some more ammunition for your fight. Use it well, the other side has no defence against it.

The reasons put forward for the Government introducing Universal Jobmatch(UJM) initially, back in 2012, was to encourage claimants to subscribe to an online process when claiming benefits, both unemployment benefit and in- work benefits, as part of the "Digital By Default" agenda. It would also be utilised to assist the DWP to formulate, manipulate and monitor claimant’s job seeking activities directly.

The idea that UJM was designed to assist, find or place a claimant into a job is for the fairies. UJM’s own website spells out in its “Standards of Behaviour for Jobseekers” the following:

jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/Account/StandardsOfBehaviour.aspx

2.2 This Site is provided for the purpose of providing information about employment and career opportunities and for recruitment by employers and business owners.

2.3 For the purposes of the Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 this Site operates as a venue only and does not introduce or supply work-seekers to recruiters (or vice versa).

2.4 Since this Site is only a venue you need to undertake appropriate checks to ensure both your suitability for the role advertised and of the role itself. For example, checking the identity of the recruiter and the nature of its business, the commencement date and duration of the position, the position to be filled, location, hours and risks to health and safety, experience, training, qualifications and authorisation which the recruiter considers necessary or are required by law or otherwise to undertake the position, whether any expenses are payable by you as a work-seeker or whether there are any requirements imposed by law or otherwise for you to satisfy before taking up a position.


So, there you have it, from the horse’s mouth as it were, UJM does ‘not introduce or supply work-seekers to recruiters (or vice versa)’. It gives the lie to anything a work coach may tell you to the contrary. ‘Since this Site is only a venue you need to undertake appropriate checks to ensure both your suitability for the role advertised and of the role itself. For example, checking the identity of the recruiter and the nature of its business, the commencement date and duration of the position, the position to be filled, location, hours and risks to health and safety, experience, training, qualifications and authorisation which the recruiter considers necessary or are required by law or otherwise to undertake the position, whether any expenses are payable by you as a work-seeker or whether there are any requirements imposed by law or otherwise for you to satisfy before taking up a position.

If the UJM site was not a venue but did indeed act as an employment agency as the work coaches would have us believe, then the above mentioned ‘Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003’ would apply to it.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/3319/contents/made

What would that mean? It would mean that the following legal requirements would apply to UJM:

6.—(1) Neither an agency nor an employment business may (whether by the inclusion of a term in a contract with a relevant work-seeker or otherwise)—

(a) subject or threaten to subject a relevant work-seeker to any detriment on the ground that—

(i) the relevant work-seeker has terminated or given notice to terminate any contract between the work-seeker and the agency or employment business, or

(ii) in the case of an employment business, the relevant work-seeker has taken up or proposes to take up employment with any other person; or

(b) require the relevant work-seeker to notify the agency or the employment business, or any person with whom it is connected, of the identity of any future employer of the relevant work-seeker.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall not constitute a detriment within the meaning of paragraph (1)(a)—

(a) the loss of any benefits to which the relevant work-seeker might have become entitled had he not terminated the contract;

(b) the recovery of losses incurred by an agency or employment business as a result of the failure of the relevant work-seeker to perform work he has agreed to perform; or

(c) a requirement in a contract with the agency or employment business for the workseeker to give a period of notice which is reasonable to terminate the contract.

(3) In this regulation, “relevant work-seeker” means any work-seeker other than, in the case of an employment business, a work-seeker who is or will be employed by the employment business under a contract of service or apprenticeship.

9.—(1) Neither an agency nor an employment business may, in relation to the introduction or supply of a work-seeker to a hirer, purport to the work-seeker to be acting as an agency and purport to the hirer to be acting as an employment business.

(2) Neither an agency nor an employment business may, in relation to the introduction or supply of a work-seeker to a hirer, purport to the work-seeker to be acting as an employment business and purport to the hirer to be acting as an agency.

If UJM did act as an employment agency it would be in breach of the ‘Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003’ and it could not operate as it was originally intended, to snoop, entrap and facilitate the sanctioning of claimants.

If I understand Clause 9-(2) correctly, a work-coach is acting outside the law who purports to the work-seeker that UJM is acting as an employment business, and the work-seeker legitimately accepts this as fact and registers with, and uses, UJM on that basis.

If I, as a work-seeker, genuinely accepted and believed that UJM acted on my behalf in a similar way to Reed, Indeed, Concept, et-al, because I was told so by DWP, what recourse might I have when I realised that the ‘agency’ I was registered with was acting outside the Law?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: El-dudeareno, jobber, The Gibbon

Advisor demanding I use ujm. 16 Jan 2018 18:42 #5728

  • The Gibbon
  • The Gibbon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Thank you received: 59
Hi again folks,

Thanks again to everyone and especially BB for their great advice and help.

I was in the process of writing out a complaint letter earlier and a thought crossed my mind. I was wondering whether the roach may have added this demand to use UJM to section 3 of my CC and just made out that it was compulsory. This would cover their own back against complaints as section 3 is voluntary and therefore they could say they weren't bullying me or trying to force me into anything. If that's the case, I could just accept the CC and then ignore that part and carry on as I have been. It would also make a complaint seem rather churlish and unnecessary.

If that's the case, I think my best plan would be to call the service line and ask them. If it's in section 3, I'll just accept it, but anywhere else and I'll go with the complaint letter (I know there's another roach who has put this same demand in section 1 of someone's CC).

If I do still go with the complaint, is it best to post it or deliver it by hand? I've also had a look online and found a name and address for someone working for the 'Complaints Resolution Team'. They're listed as manager, so are they the manager of my JC+ (the address listed is the address of my JC+) or are they a different dept?

Thanks :)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
­