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because the law provides for the instalment facility to be withdrawn after two late payments,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