social entitlement tribunal - grounds of appeal redacted.pdf
Post on 28-Oct-2015
707 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT CHAMBER
Rule 23 (6) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement
Chamber) Rules 2008
Appellant:
Respondent:
Mr ......
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Tribunal ref: SC993/13/01435
01 September 2013
Contents
Background of Appeal .................................................................................
Decision to claim JSA...................................................................................
Notes on appeal.............................................................................................
Grounds of appeal.........................................................................................
1
3
4
5
Annex A – Disallowance (21/11/2012 to 4/12/2012)............................
Annex B – Disallowance (16/01/2013 to 29/01/2013)..........................
Annex C – Leaked documents (Performance & League tables).......
Annex D – Guardian article on Jobcentre targets..............................
9
13
16
21
1
Background of appeal
1) Voluntarily left employment on health grounds with the intention of supporting myself
financially (which I did) until deciding on which direction next to take.
2) Continued without claiming for living costs one would normally associate with being paid by
the state whilst unemployed. Council tax, mortgage, health treatment, prescriptions etc., where
all met from savings.
3) Without the distractions associated with being beholden to the state it was possible to pursue
skills, unhindered, which were necessary to achieve the planned change in direction.
4) This worked for several months and would have continued had the Council not begun court
proceedings for non-payment of Council Tax. This action was taken, not for non-payment, but
because the law provides for the instalment facility to be withdrawn after two late payments,
meaning payment in full is demanded immediately. Failure thereafter to raise the lump sum
permits the council to obtain a liability order through the court which in turn gives it powers
to instruct bailiffs.
5) It seemed outrageous to be threatened by the council, whilst opting to support myself, so
carried on paying as normal each month. The council then took lawful but unnecessary court
action, adding costs and irresponsibly instructing its crooked bailiff contractor, Rossendales.
6) By the time bailiffs were instructed, the bill had been settled. Hundreds of pounds were added
fraudulently and so reported to the Police. Humberside Police's Economic Crime Section
fobbed off the incident as a civil matter to be taken up with the council.
7) The authority lied, condoning Rossendale’s criminal actions throughout the formal complaints
procedure. The Chief Executive failed to uphold allegations of fraud, which is probably what
his remuneration of around £200k a year is for. Ultimately however, this made him complicit
to the crime.
8) The Local Government Ombudsman was contacted and proved equally corrupt. Its
involvement served solely to justify that its governing statute gave no powers to investigate.
9) More research discovered Rossendales are notorious for defrauding householders pursued by
councils. Fobbed off again by the Police, each new piece of evidence was countered with a
new excuse why they would not investigate. When escalated to the IPCC, the Police watchdog
proved equally corrupt as the Council, Police and LGO and mirrored the Council watchdog by
doing nothing because the law allowed it to.
2
10) The corruption extended to the county court where a bent Judge found that the bailiff's fitness
was not in question after being presented with evidence of the fraudulent way he'd imposed
charges.
11) Corruption also existed in the organisation which oversees complaints about breaches of
confidentiality. The Information Commissioner concluded after several months that a letter
left threatening to remove goods and accessible to the public was not in breach of the Data
Protection Act.
12) A distinct pattern of cover-ups and corruption was evident. Public bodies seem reluctant to
uphold complaints about another. The explanation could be in the cosy arrangement which
exists between bailiff firms and the Ministry of Justice. For example, Rossendale’s chairman
helped shape future legislation, which when implemented is likely to see profits for her
company soar.
3
Decision to claim JSA
13) The state had no reservations in screwing me; first extorting money through the court, then
allowing opportunist bailiffs to try their hand at extorting some more. Experiences with the
Police and various watchdog organisations made it abundantly clear that within the
government a substantial element of corruption exists. It’s my opinion that the millions of
pounds it cost each year to fund bogus organisations like the LGO and ICO is money
defrauded from the taxpayer.
14) There is no doubt that the events described so far formed my decision to get from the system
what I was entitled and made a claim for JSA. I now wholeheartedly regret that decision; the
damage as a consequence has added significantly to that caused by the council.
15) An application for contributions based jobseekers was accepted allowing entitlement to the
basic amount (without means testing) for a maximum period of six months. After this point,
means testing was necessary if wanting to claim anything other than NI credits.
16) The claim continued beyond six months but only for NI credits; a means test would have
almost certainly highlighted that there was no entitlement to benefit.
4
Notes on Appeal
17) On 29 March, 2013 the appeal form was submitted with a view to providing later the grounds
of appeal and details of the letter to identify the decision. This could not be until information
had come back from a Subject Access Request (SAR).
18) I have been unable to submit details of the letter identifying the decision because I learned
verbally at the jobcentre that my claim had been disallowed.
19) The information was obtained on 20 August 2013, identifying a number of disallowances I’d
not been aware of (see grounds of appeal). However, the final disallowance leading to my
claim ending was from 16 January to 29 January 2013.
20) Correspondence was sent explaining why I’d been unable to provide the tribunal with
information it requested (several times). Important letters were sent to the contact I had from
the Hull BC Appeals Team which were never answered. I have not until August 20, 2013 had
the necessary information to complete this application.
21) Notice to strike out the appeal has been sent by the tribunal despite explanations described in
the preceding paragraphs.
5
Grounds of appeal
22) The appeal concerns;
a) Disallowances made over the period of claim whilst registered unemployed
b) National Insurance credits missing as a consequence of those disallowances.
c) Not being notified of disallowances or missing credits
d) Reckless use of taxpayer’s money to falsify unemployment figures
e) Encouraging advisors to lose sight of their roles by giving inappropriate targets
23) Issues were raised in regards the claim after a forecast revealed only one qualifying year’s
pension entitlement had accrued over approximately a five year period.
24) Records revealed that National Insurance credits had not been awarded over certain periods of
the claim. It must be noted that any number of credits less than the full 52 excludes that year
as qualifying for pension entitlement.
25) Information obtained from a Subject Access Request (SAR) reveals that the Jobcentre – for
short periods – disallowed the claim on a number of occasions. Consequences are for each
year they occurred credits are missing and so for pension entitlement disqualify that year.
Whilst this was happening there was no knowledge of the disallowances or what would be the
consequences in regards pension entitlement.
26) Where the SAR has only been able to provide minimal details, i.e., dates of disallowances or a
claim ending for failure to attend to sign etc., they are listed below:
a) A claim ended therefore no credits awarded from 7 July 2010 to 3 August 2010 with
the reason being a failure to attend to sign. A gap of 5 credits was created to National
Insurance records.
b) From 18 January 2012 to 31 January the claim was disallowed for not actively
seeking work where the Jobcentre has been unable to provide a copy of either the referral
or one of the decision.
27) The Claim was disallowed for a two week period from 28 March 2012 to 10 April 2012. The
Jobcentre has been unable to provide an electronic copy of the referral or the decision but
provided a copy of its contents below:
6
Notes: "Customer uses internet ad hoc, see LMS conversations.. Cust states he
doesn't have to do anything as he is only getting his credits and we can't stop that".
I have disputed saying this and contacted the Jobcentre asking about the level of proof
advisors are required to provide when referring a case for decision and where the department
stands legally in circumstances where an advisor has lied to achieve suspension of a claim.
28) Another claim ended 28 August 2012 with the reason being a failure to attend to sign. There
appears to be no information in regards when the claim resumed. The recollection is that the
failure to attend was because of an ambiguous letter sent by JCP. Several failed applications
had been submitted until it appeared finally to be remedied. The information obtained from
the SAR has therefore raised doubts as to whether if it was in fact resolved.
29) The period from 21 November 2012 to 4 December 2012 also relates to a disallowance I knew
nothing about, until receiving the information (20 August 2013). I can now confirm this was
during a time when I was suffering a debilitating conditioning where for most days, the pain
experienced was excruciating. If employed – in any capacity over that period – I’d have
needed signing off without doubt. The condition is still present, though to a lesser degree, but
began early November 2012.
30) The released information made it possible to call to mind the adviser and interview which led
to the decision maker disallowing the claim. The adviser, it seemed, was bent on achieving
targets, maybe to bump up numbers he could put his name to for reducing unemployment
figures and therefore justifying his job.
31) The advisor argued that the national insurance credits I received in exchange for remaining
registered were not worth the aggravation and therefore could see no sense in continuing the
claim – adding comment that a short fall in credits would not affect pension entitlement. A
similar tactic had been used previously by another adviser, which suggests that – particularly
with recent press attention (see Annex C & D) – staff were under pressure to hit targets.
32) The department seemed under pressure to cut numbers registered. It was put to the adviser
that doing this was his function, and by doing so was falsifying unemployment figures. I don’t
recall it being denied, but distinctly remember the adviser referring to how in the 1980s the
Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher had falsified unemployment figures by
encouraging job centre staff to divert hundreds of thousands of claimants from the
unemployment register to claiming invalidity benefits or to take early retirement so she could
claim that her government had reduced joblessness.
7
33) The criminal and underhand way government departments operate (see background to appeal)
was further reinforced by staff exposing the DWP as a taxpayer funded political instrument
used for re-election purposes, fronting as a department for getting unemployed back to work.
34) The comments I’d made and submitted by the adviser (see Annex A) was that I’d failed to
comply with minimum conditionality obligations by taking steps to find work in the period
disallowed because of time spent fighting corruption within the council and various other
organisations. These were made for no other reason than the contempt I had for the reasons
outlined in the previous paragraph. In summary, there was no obligation felt to provide
information to an organisation whose remit has deceit at its heart.
35) The period from 16 January 2013 to 29 January 2013 also relates to a disallowance I knew
nothing about, until receiving the information (20 August 2013). To reiterate (see paragraph
29) this was during a time when I was suffering a debilitating conditioning..... If employed –
in any capacity over that period – I’d also have needed signing off.
36) Again, the SAR made it possible to call to mind the adviser and interview which led to the
decision maker disallowing the claim. The adviser, in this case appeared to be someone
wanting to help rather than add to his “sanctions” score – though on reflection it more
exhibited his expertise in deception than anything else.
37) The decision to disallow the claim (see Annex B) was for repeating job search activity I had
stated I’d done to a previous adviser. There appears also to have been a vacancy or vacancies I
had not, but should have, applied for (ref uj 867034). However, I have no recollection of this
matter being discussed with the adviser, or of uj 867034.
38) The underhand way in which the Job Centre has been found operating makes it feasible that
issues raised recently by the Guardian (see also Annex C & D) are what is behind staff opting
to hit targets over providing a service for the jobless – perhaps as a means to justify their jobs.
The cost, however, is being born by the taxpayer.
Guardian – Thursday 28 March 2013
After the sanction is served, they will make a fresh claim to jobseeker's allowance.
The office in question will claim the off-flow, and the statistics look favourable.
However, the cost of making a fresh claim to benefit in real terms is around £500
and is therefore [a] false economy at its worst in order to try to climb up the league
table – which, despite all assurances, do exist within clusters, districts and regions
for all departmental targets.
8
"Simply put, the targets imposed for sanctions is a way for district managers to
fudge figures in order that they are seen to be doing their jobs, whereas the
government continues to stress that the off-flow should always be into sustainable
employment and is being kept in the dark about the reality. All advisers at my place
of work and most in the district have been given mid-year review statements (on
which performance-related pay is based) which include a target to achieve 6% DMA
referrals, although again this has been widely denied.
On this basis, to improve unemployment figures by cancelling my claim, the Job Centre has
caused the unnecessary expense of £500 for the taxpayer (should I have re-submitted the
claim). It is therefore evident that the government is willing to exchange £1k of taxpayer’s
money for every two people less appearing on the register.
39) At annex C there are leaked documents which speak for themselves. One of which relates to
Walthamstow Job Centre and the other an internal newsletter for the attention of Jobcentre
Plus staff in Malvern. At Annex D an article by the Guardian published on March 25, 2013.
9
Annex A – Disallowance for period 21 November 2012 to 4 December 2012
Initial interview notes taken
10
Completed notes referred to Labour Market Decision Maker
11
Auto-generated notification of intention to disallow the period (cannot locate)
12
Final decision made by the Labour Market Decision Maker
13
Annex B – Disallowance for period 16 January 2013 to 29 January 2013
Initial interview notes taken
14
Completed notes referred to Labour Market Decision Maker
15
Final decision made by the Labour Market Decision Maker
16
Annex C – Leaked documents (Performance & League tables)
Walthamstow Jobcentre
17
18
Malvern Jobcentre
19
20
21
Annex D – Guardian article on Jobcentre targets
top related