As before, as after having not received any reply to my letter displayed for your attention at the Case Study 1 posting, I attempted to find out replies to some of the questions displayed there by seeking legal advise from the corpus of the London's legal professionals. I attended Citizen's Advice Bureau at Family Division of the Royal Courts of Justice to be told that the case is very very difficult and they in fact do not have legally qualiffied consultants. I was advised to attend Mary Ward Legal Center as it is staffed with such a consultants. I followed the advise, attended the center and soon received a letter from certain Mrs Sheldon asking for some dsetails. I forwarded an e-mail to Mrs Sheldon with my answers to receive a reply saying that she was unable to open my e-mail. So, I sent second letter, to which a reply was that she intended to have a break for two weeks, and she would contact me later, which never happened. So, I visited the City Citizen's Advise Bureau with exactly the same outcome as in the case of the Roal Courts of Justice's Bureau, namely: Sorry, we are not legally qualified, we are here just volunteers, you know, just to help you to write a simple letter etc. Somehow, all these advisors were becoming incapable of action as soon as they had understood that the case deals with the Department for Works and Pensions. Also, I had impression that there is something wrong with my person as soon as they knew my surname they recalled that they are not legally educated at all. By the way, at both these Citizen's Advise Bureaus you can see a notice informing you bluntly straitforward in the words similar to the following ones: The bureau is served by volunteers, and it reserves the right to refuse service to anybody without explainig the reasons for doing so. The last time I attended the City Citizen's Advise Bureau I was served by a gentleman with oily eyes in dark blue costume whom I never seen there before and who was very adamant to attract my attention to his computer screen. Can any reader suggest, why it was the case?
So, I understood , that I can not count on the Advice Bureaus. Hence, I decided to seek the luck somewhere else. For the start, I visited Law Society. No, we have no solicitors who are willing to take case on Legal Aid scheme or No win, no fees one. Go to the Community Legal Advise, that is to places like Mary Ward Legal Center, which I already did. So, I decided to approach private, well established legal firms known for their willingness to work within Legal Aid scheme, and I sent a letter to Bindmans. A copy of this letter and the reply to it are displayed below. It is useful to read the letters in the context of the Case Study 1 and apply hermeneutical and context analysis to transcend the text and to form a "pre-understanding" which will be helpful for the analysis of further postings.
Letter 1.
Legal assistance From "Alexandre Sobko" On Mon, May 19, 2008 11:07
Subject: Legal assistance
From: "Alexandre Sobko " Date: Mon, May 19, 2008 11:07
To: info@bindmans.com (more)
Priority: Normal
Dear Sirs,
I was kindly advised to seek legal assitance with the Bindmans by Mr
Rupert de Cruz. There two interconnected issues which I am concerned with.
The first one is as follows. I am a long term unemployed in the UK, and
in January I was ordered to attend a New Deal Programme called Action for
employment. I attended the provider as requested but refused to sign so
called Beneficiary Declaration form. I was subsequently ordered to attend
the programme many times with the same outcome. Meanwhile, I was receiving
such a treatment from Kentish Town Jobcenter which requires legal analysis
as it appears very much to be a professionally designed psychological
operation aimed at braking me down as a person. Finally, the sanctions
were applied to me which effectively disqualified me from getting
jobseekers allowance in this country altogether. I applied to the
Administrative Court for judicial review of the Jobcenter's decision to
cancel paying me Jobseekers allowance.The case is still under
consideration by the Court, but my application for interim relief was
turned down by a judge as "inappropriate". The decision seems to be an
irrational one from legal point of view, and it is hardly complacent with
the basics of humanistic ethics either. Recently I received a letter from
the Jobcenter issued on 22 May 2008 that my claim is closed on 18 April
2008 for not attending to sign my declaration which is conscious and
deliberate lying and framing the case. The scale and methods used by the
jobcenter clearly indicate that their policy is approved by their
superiors. At this point we arrive at the second issue, which is that the
case is being developed on the background of me suffering from many years
long harassment, gang stalking, regular poisoning, covert drugging, covert
interrogations, psychological pressure, continuing threats to murder, at
least one actual attempt to murder, attempts to prevent me from finding
discent employment and continuing suppression of my attempts to sustain
mental activities. Just one example. On 7 November 2006, while studying
for MA at King's College, I was standing between the King's College Library and St Dunstan Court. At 12.05 pm I was approached by a security from St Dustan Court and was ordered to
get away from the place on the basis of it being a private one. This was a
false statement, and I refused. Then three policemen arrived on horses,
and I was searched on suspicion of being a terrorist. Obviously, all
documents were searched, which included my KCL identity card. After
certain suspicious manipulations with my documents, I was arrested and
detained at Sunny Hill police station on suspicion of being an illegal
immigrant, where under the threat of physical violence I was forced to
give example of my DNA. I was detained for four hours, and all my
belongings were sized, including my notebooks. As far as I can understand
, they were copied during this time. My demand to allow me to call Russian
Embassy was bluntly refused:'They are not intersted in you', I was told by
police officer who thretened me with violence. I was only allowed to
contact anybody after four hours of detention, after DNA was taken and
everything was completed. There were also other details essential from
legal point of view which I will release in proper circumstances. The
record sheet which I was handed in is falsified as it indicates that I was
released at 13.11, and this is not true. During arrest retaining equipment
was used and other psychological tricks were used to intimidate me. I was
detaind ' to secure or preserve evidence. To obtain evidence by
questioning'. Grounds for detention were 'to question DP RE immigration
offences', which were obviously not existant. From the circumstances
sorrounding the case it is also clear that the case was staged and
authorised by unknowm authorities of the UK. What is interesting , the
same accusation - of being an illegal immigrant in the UK was raised by a
Russian speaking staff of the British Embassy in Moscow several years ago
when I attempted to get visa which I needed in view of getting after much
difficulties my new passport.There are many other the like examples which
are well documented and many more which require special processing and
analysis using methods of content analysis, structural one etc., and some
of them are relevant to the European and International Law. As my e-mail
and any activities are under permanent surveiilance , I will not dwell any
more on those issues here because, firstly, of my security concerns while
I am in the UK, and, secondly, because of regular attempts to frame me as
a mentally ill om the basis of the nature of my complains. By the way, the
mode of treatment of my complains by the medical profession displays
strange predilection of medical doctors to evoke the notions of mental
health in the case, for example, a blatant poisoning.
At this stage I need urgent help with the first issue as I am deprived of
any income and threatened with eviction because I am not able to pay the
difference between my housing benefit and actual rent. The Jobcenter's
behaviour clearly indicate that the officers were given a carte blanche
for their actions by certain authorities in the UK. I have made some legal
research on legality of the jobcenter's activities, and it seems to me
that they merit delibarate judicial assessment.I sought an advice on the
matter at the City Citizen's Advice Center but was urged to find a legally
qualified person as they do not have neither sufficient expertise nor
access to the primary legislation. The Citizens Advice Bureau at the Royal
Courts of Justice, Family Division, refused to deal with the case
altogether. My contacts with Mary Ward Legal Center gave no fruition
either, and there were attempts to prevent my communications with the
legal advisor there, Mrs Sheldon.
From what I described above, it is clear that ideally I would benefit from
the guidance not of just one soliciter, but from a legal firm as it seems
to me that there are many legal issues involved in the case at large -
from medical jurisprudence to the Constitutional law to International law.
Depending on your willingness and capacity and ability to act, you can
either turn down my application altogether, or you could provide me with
assistance on the following levels of complexity:i) just having a look at
the results of my legal research and give me references to the primary
legislation for those instances where I was not able to establish them
myself; they mainly concern New Deal Regulations and issues of illegality,
irrationality, negligence and degrading treatment; ii) becoming involved
in prepairing my case against the Department for Work and Pensions for
damages; iii) becoming involved in the litigation which would place the
case agaist the Department for Work and Pensions in much wider context of
supposed violation of the Human Rights Act 1998; probably, certain
analysis of the nature of international obligations of the UK would be
necessary; the claim will involve also the assessment of damages to my
health and some other issues, and it should be done quickly as there are
persistent and very skillfully arranged attempts to put me down.
Because of my financial position, only Legal Aid payments or 'No win, no
fees ' basis could be appropriate in my case. Also, I am prepared and
able to do much of legal and technical work myself, if it could be of any
help. Any comments and suggestions will be grately appreciated.
> With kind regards,
>
>
> Alexander Sobko
Letter 2
On Fri, May 30, 2008 15:53, Mariam Faruqi wrote:
> Dear Mr Sobko,
>
> Thank you for your enquiry dated 19 May. Unfortunately we do not have
> the capacity within the firm to take on your case.
>
> With best wishes,
>>
> Yours sincerely
>>
> Mariam Faruqi
>
> Paralegal, Public Law & Human Rights
>
>
> * 020 7833 5372
Letter 3
Re: Your new enquiry From "Alexandre Sobko" On Tue, June 3, 2008 16:06
Subject: Re: Your new enquiry
From: "Alexandre Sobko"
Date: Tue, June 3, 2008 16:06
To: "Mariam Faruqi"
Priority: Normal
Dear Mrs Faruqi,
May I take this opportunity to thank you for your reply which is what I
expected - it would be difficult to get anything else taking into account
the context of my enquiry, wouldn't it?
With kind regards,
Alexander Sobko
Friday, 15 August 2008
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Democracy, appearance and reality in Post-Bradley's England: A letter to Senior Legal Managers, the Administrative Court
Dr Alexander Sobko
05.08.08
Senior Legal Managers
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 23LL
REF: CO/3950/2008
Dear Sir,
On 24th of April 2008 I submitted my claim for judicial review to the Administrative Court. Having applied the reasonableness test to how my claim have been processed by now, I became induced to seek your opinion as to whether my judgement that the test failed is reasonable in its turn. There are two aspects that I wish to offer for your attendance.
Firstly, my application for interim relief was turned down on 29 April 2008 by Sir Michael Harrison on the basis that it is not appropriate to apply for interim relief when an alternative remedy exists (see a copy attached). As far as I understand the basic tenets of the English jurisprudence, in particular the Constitutional and Administrative Law, it is up to me to decide whether to follow procedures of complaining or taking the matter to the court. Therefore, should I construe the wording of Sir Harrison’s decision as semantically equal to the statement that it would be inappropriate to attend an evening party at a chamber in white trousers? As far as I understand, the interim relief is a remedy available for a person who submitted a claim to the court and who has a reason to seek urgent consideration of the case, which I had indeed. Therefore, Sir Harrison, in fact, disapproved my application to the Judicial System of the United Kingdom altogether. Consequently, the question arises as to whether a person in the capacity of a judge of the Administrative Court is empowered to impose his opinion as to whether somebody should or should not seek judicial help in this country?
Another question which comes to my mind in this context is whether Sir Harrison’s decision would contradict or adversely affect the English Law or running the English judicial system had he responded to my seeking interim relief in positive? If not, what was the basis of his decision? May be, to understand this, I need to make acquaintance with Sir Harrison’s ethical views? In this respect I would appreciate if you could be so kind as to refer me to the publications where a biography of Sir Harrison is laid down as I failed to find it. .
Secondly, on 4th of August 2008 I visited listing office of the Administrative Court to seek information as to the standing of my claim , and I had a pleasure of conversing with Mr Roberts on the issue. Firstly, I was taken my mobile's telephone number, which in fact I passed to the office on my previous visit. Secondly, I was told that nothing have changed in the status of my claim since I submitted it, that is, after 15 weeks time has elapsed. Mr Roberts found my question as to what percent of the cases submitted about the same time as mine was experience such a significant delay - I was told, that 8 weeks waiting time is considered to be a characteristic for processing of claims at the Court- a silly one.
Hence, I have a feeling that my perception as to what is reasonable substantially differs from that in operation at the Court. From my point of view, the above indicates of my case having biased treatment at the Court. Now, I have to let you know, that on a number of cases I was poisoned in the United Kingdom, and on three occasions when I complained about this to UCL Hospital and to St Thomas Hospital, I was offered to see a psychiatrist. My complains to the police were in vain also as there were no medical evidence to start a case (details can be supplied on demand). So far, i was used to believe that toxicologists are those people who are qualified to deal with poisonings, and the repeated suggestions to see a psychiatrist with respect to the complains of poisoning indicate that my cultural background and the notion of what is reasonable and what is not substantially differ from those that seem to be pertinent to the views held by the educated layer of the British society.
One more fact in support of the latter thesis is that recently during my visit to the City Citizen’s Advice Bureau to seek advice on my claim submitted to the Court an adviser expressed her strong disapproval of that I dared to sue the Department for Work and Pensions at all. In view of that all, it well may be that my classifying of my case treatment at the Court as biased is not reasonable, and I am seeking your judgement as a reasonable person as to whether my expressed perception of how my case is being treated is reasonable or just a delusion?
Sincerely yours,
Alexander Sobko
05.08.08
Senior Legal Managers
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 23LL
REF: CO/3950/2008
Dear Sir,
On 24th of April 2008 I submitted my claim for judicial review to the Administrative Court. Having applied the reasonableness test to how my claim have been processed by now, I became induced to seek your opinion as to whether my judgement that the test failed is reasonable in its turn. There are two aspects that I wish to offer for your attendance.
Firstly, my application for interim relief was turned down on 29 April 2008 by Sir Michael Harrison on the basis that it is not appropriate to apply for interim relief when an alternative remedy exists (see a copy attached). As far as I understand the basic tenets of the English jurisprudence, in particular the Constitutional and Administrative Law, it is up to me to decide whether to follow procedures of complaining or taking the matter to the court. Therefore, should I construe the wording of Sir Harrison’s decision as semantically equal to the statement that it would be inappropriate to attend an evening party at a chamber in white trousers? As far as I understand, the interim relief is a remedy available for a person who submitted a claim to the court and who has a reason to seek urgent consideration of the case, which I had indeed. Therefore, Sir Harrison, in fact, disapproved my application to the Judicial System of the United Kingdom altogether. Consequently, the question arises as to whether a person in the capacity of a judge of the Administrative Court is empowered to impose his opinion as to whether somebody should or should not seek judicial help in this country?
Another question which comes to my mind in this context is whether Sir Harrison’s decision would contradict or adversely affect the English Law or running the English judicial system had he responded to my seeking interim relief in positive? If not, what was the basis of his decision? May be, to understand this, I need to make acquaintance with Sir Harrison’s ethical views? In this respect I would appreciate if you could be so kind as to refer me to the publications where a biography of Sir Harrison is laid down as I failed to find it. .
Secondly, on 4th of August 2008 I visited listing office of the Administrative Court to seek information as to the standing of my claim , and I had a pleasure of conversing with Mr Roberts on the issue. Firstly, I was taken my mobile's telephone number, which in fact I passed to the office on my previous visit. Secondly, I was told that nothing have changed in the status of my claim since I submitted it, that is, after 15 weeks time has elapsed. Mr Roberts found my question as to what percent of the cases submitted about the same time as mine was experience such a significant delay - I was told, that 8 weeks waiting time is considered to be a characteristic for processing of claims at the Court- a silly one.
Hence, I have a feeling that my perception as to what is reasonable substantially differs from that in operation at the Court. From my point of view, the above indicates of my case having biased treatment at the Court. Now, I have to let you know, that on a number of cases I was poisoned in the United Kingdom, and on three occasions when I complained about this to UCL Hospital and to St Thomas Hospital, I was offered to see a psychiatrist. My complains to the police were in vain also as there were no medical evidence to start a case (details can be supplied on demand). So far, i was used to believe that toxicologists are those people who are qualified to deal with poisonings, and the repeated suggestions to see a psychiatrist with respect to the complains of poisoning indicate that my cultural background and the notion of what is reasonable and what is not substantially differ from those that seem to be pertinent to the views held by the educated layer of the British society.
One more fact in support of the latter thesis is that recently during my visit to the City Citizen’s Advice Bureau to seek advice on my claim submitted to the Court an adviser expressed her strong disapproval of that I dared to sue the Department for Work and Pensions at all. In view of that all, it well may be that my classifying of my case treatment at the Court as biased is not reasonable, and I am seeking your judgement as a reasonable person as to whether my expressed perception of how my case is being treated is reasonable or just a delusion?
Sincerely yours,
Alexander Sobko
Friday, 18 July 2008
A letter to Mr Mark Field, Member of Parliament
The letter below is informative as to the way how the British state may operate in reality, and it can be of particular interest to specialists for whom any detail is informative. As to the educated reader of the blog it may serve as the precaution: "Be diligent and watchful, there are many bastards around who are well versed in the teaching of Clausevitz, and who will not stop at anything on the way to break you, destroy your personality, make you a slave and rob you of everything you may have!"
London,
18 July 2008
Mr Mark Field, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Sir,
Writing this letter is induced by my concern with , firstly, the aberrations in the working of the Department for Works and Pensions that produced degrading, illegal and irrational treatment of myself in violation of Articles 3, 4.3 and 8.1 of Human Rights Act, 1998, and, secondly, with the relations of the said aberrations to the basic tenets of civil life in this country altogether.
As to the former, the summary of material facts is as follows ( in the brackets the number of a relevant page in the attached bundle of documents is indicated).
In January 2008 as a participant of New Deal option at Kentish Town Jobcenter I was ordered to attend a programme at an organisation called A4e to increase my employability. On the second day of the programme I was requested to sign the Beneficiary Form (p.17) which I refused on the basis of the entries of the form being semantically diffused. The situation had been repeated several times after that, and on February 22nd a doubt has arisen that I may have not taken sufficient or appropriate steps to find job (p.1). After an investigation of the matter the doubt evaporated, but on 14th March 2008 I was informed by Kentish Town Jobcenter that they would not pay me jobseeker’s allowance from 15th March 2008 as I had not attended the programme at A4e (pp.5-7). Moreover, the Kentish Town jobcenter states that I will never get jobseekers allowance in the UK altogether (see underlined on p.5, mark 4). The absence of logic in the Jobcenter's decision is clear from the fact that in one of their letters to me they explicitly admitted that I had attended the programme (see underlined on p.3), whereas in other letters (p.5, marks 1-3) they claim that I had not. The decision, in my view, is bluntly illegal and prejudiced, and I submitted the case for judicial review to the Administrative Court on 01 May 2008 (pp.9-16). My application for interim relief (pp.15-16) was turned down by a judge on the basis of being not ‘appropriate’: in the judge's view, I should have lodged an appeal instead (p.18). The date of the hearing itself is not determined yet.
Since that decision I continued signing on while being an object of harassment and intimidation initiated by the Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus resulting in that on 12 May 2008 I was informed by the said center that my claim would be closed altogether from 19th of April 2008 as I allegedly did not attend to sign my declaration (pp.20-21). As the decision of the center was based on bluntly falsified facts, I appealed on 16 May 2008 by submitting the application to the said center in person (pp.22-24). As no reply to my appeal had been received by 13 June 2008, I called the jobcenter and Glasgo information center to find out the status of my appeal. In reply, I was told that there was no trace of my appeal being received!
I was making the enquiry as to the status of my appeal from the premises of a Jobcenter at Denmark Street , and I asked the staff to send my completed appeal form to the Kentish Town Jobcenter by fax again. This was done, but no receipt was issued to me on the basis of the fax machine being not able to do this. By now, no reply from Kentish Town has been received. Meanwhile, I noticed the increase of some activities around me which can be called covert psychological intimidation, and on 28 June 2008 at 11.55 pm near the Tesco superstore premises at Charing Cross, I was assaulted by two youngsters in a manner which suggests it being staged on purpose. The case was reported to the police, no response being obtained by now.
There is one more important fact illuminating the manner how Kentish Town jobcenter operates. On a number of occasions I tried to find out the legal basis of the Jobcenters actions, and I was not able to get it from the staff in oral form. Finally, I submitted a letter to the Center which I posted by recorded mail on 28th May 2008 (pp.25-34). As no reply to the letter had been received, I asked the Center for explanation during the above mentioned telephone call on 13th June 2008. As it was the case with my appeal handed in person at this very Center my letter sent by recorded mail had not been received by Kentish Town Jobcenter as well. On top of that, I was told that there is no evidence of receiving a letter (p.35) which I posted to Kentish Town Jobcenter by ordinary mail, certificate of posting being issued (p.40). Therefore, on three occasions Kentish Town Jobcenter claimed that there was no trace of documents submitted to them , no matter sent by post or delivered in person.
Three further facts I would like to submit to your attendance.
Firstly, before mailing the letter dated as 28 May 2008 I had attended on the same day the City Citizens Advice Bureau to seek an advise as to how should I send a letter to Kentish Town Jobcenter to be sure that the letter would reach the destination. The reason why I was seeking this advise was that my letter to the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (the IEEE), USA, containing my membership fees and renewal form had not been received by the IEEE (p.39) despite being mailed by 'signed for' International Mail Service provided by Royal Mail and despite being accounted for as delivered by the Royal Mail. Further enquires and correspondence with the Royal Mail to get a name of the person who signed for the delivery failed to shed any light on the matter (p..37), and presently I prepare a legal case against the Royal Mail to recover damages. The advisor advised me to think whether I should send the letter altogether, and if I decide to do so to send it by recorded delivery which I did. Upon some consideration, the advisor told me that the best way would be to send a letter by fax, but I was not able to afford it , though it was done later without any effect. Hence, my precautions proved to be justified.
Secondly, my appeal to Kentish Town Jobcenter was received by a person whom I never seen at the Center. This person stamped and dated the copy of appeal form but refused to sign it.
Thirdly, my attempt to have the legal bases of the Center’s actions towards me elucidated failed, and the way how it failed is conspicuous. Thus, when I asked for oral clarification by the manager, I was told that I would need an appointment which would arrive by post. No letter with the appointment details has ever been received. My attempts to talk to the New Deal manager or to an advisor on duty were ignored altogether upon my expressed desire to make audio records of our conversations. My calls to Glasgo Customer Service failed altogether as I each time I was referred back to the jobcenter. Finally, my letters sent either by ordinary mail or by recorded delivery were not received by the Jobcenter as my personal delivery of appeal was not also. It is a bit awkward, isn't it?
Now let me pass on to the issues of political significance. They are as follows.
Firstly, I found that factually the Kentish Town Jobcenter is beyond effective control which is available for their ‘customers’. Particulars on which this claim is based you can find in the text of my letter of 28th May 2008 to the Center which copy you will find attached (pp.25-34). In general, my numerous calls to Glasgo Customer Center were absolutely useless as all my questions and complains were ignored and I was advised to resolve all problems within the Kentish Town Jobcenter. The website of the Department for Work and Pensions provides no way to address the questions also. There are two ways to challenge the actions of a Jobcenter in this country, first one being via court system, second via appeal procedure. The court system seems to be not sympathetic to the litigant as my application for interim relief was declined by a judge of the High Court as inappropriate. In my application for interim relief I indicated that I have no means to support myself and that I faced eviction from the Barbican YMCA were I was dwelling. The decision of the judge in fact raises the question of the standards which govern the judges of the High Court in taking their decisions, and you may find it of interest, as I did, to explore this subject further on taking into account other decisions of the judge. The problem is even more troubling as the referral of the judge to the appeal system is not helpful in view of the fact that Kentish Town Jobcenter had not received my appeal submitted to the Center by myself in person, and I subsequently have had no response to my appeal from 16th May 2008. There are two explanations to the chains of events displayed above. The first is that the functioning of the UK’s political system requires further close scrutiny as to its efficiency, corruptibility and ethical basis of its guiding principles. The second is that my particular case is an exception, and I am just a target of some forces in this country which are beyond the democratic control. In this relation, I would be pleased if the identity of the person whom I handed over my appeal at the Kentish Town Jobcenter was established as there are many indications that I am a targeted person in the UK, but presently I do not want to dwell on the issue to save your time.
Secondly, I found that there are no effective means in the United Kingdom to get legal information on which the Jobcenters Plus operate. Thus, during the evolution of the above described case I started to doubt that the actions undertaken by the Center are legally substantiated as I found many indications in the secondary legal literature in support of my suspicion. My attempts to find references to the primary legal sources failed as the answers to the legal questions which I sought I was not able to get neither from City Citizen's Advice Bureau, nor from Mary Ward Legal Advice Center, nor from RCJ Advice Center. My approach to a couple of private legal firms yielded no result also (pp..45,46). Moreover, some advisors at the City Citizen’s Advice Center clearly disapproved my suing the Department for Work and Pensions. Also , my question to the latter advisor as to whether there exists a sure way to get legal advice in the UK from a qualified solicitor the answer was in negative. Therefore, I was effectively prevented from getting basic legal information in the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, it seems to me that there are some problems with the exercise of democracy in the High Court. Thus, application for remedies at the Administrative Court requires reference to the law which was allegedly violated by a respondent, and three copies of the full texts of corresponding legal texts are required to be attached to the claim. In my circumstances it is impossible as, firstly, it proved to be impossible to find legal references themselves, and , secondly, if I would be successful, it would amount to many hundreds , if not thousands, of pages, with corresponding expenses beyond the capacity of a person with no income. Therefore, the British Judicial system is not available for everybody even in theory, and, consequently, is not democratic.
Fourthly, in the United Kingdom there is no mechanism which would provide anybody seeking work with a job. In fact, this is a basic tenet of bazaar economics, but my experience with applying for a position of Senior Lecturer in Physics at South Bank University in Autumn 2007 says that there are no provisions in the English legal system which would assure that those people get job who are the most fit to do it – in other words, the labour bazaar in the UK seems to be imperfect. Moreover, there is no means for the applicant to get any information as to the process of selection. Thus, in my case, despite the employer initially clearly manifested an interest in my proposals with respect how the job required could be done and urged me to file an application for the position, subsequently no response was obtained to my application. My subsequent letters to the human resources department of the University and to the Chancellor of the University requesting information as to how the vacancy was filled were just ignored. This case perceived on the background provided by the evolution of my described relations with Kentish Town Jobcenter indicates that in the UK there exists a room for operation of routines which allow anybody who is perceived as troublemaker being thrown on the street, reduced to the state of animal by destroying one’s human capital and left without any warranty of physical survival.
In this respect, the system of Jobscenters plus is formal and not effective. Last time I was getting Jobseekers allowance for more than eighteen months, and during this time I was asking my advisors to assist me with tuition fees for a postgraduate course which would substantially enhance my chances to find the work appropriate to my education and experience. I was replied that there is no such opportunity. Nevertheless, as I remember, such opportunity existed in the middle of 1990th, and the abolition of this scheme was politically unjustified decision and contributed to the fact that, as my experience says, the jobcentres may contribute to the process of throwing the person on the street by pretending that they aim at helping people to find work. To illustrate this statememnt, let me refer to my personal experience which is as follows. In January 2008 I submitted an abstract of the paper to the IEEE International Conference on the Education in Engineering 2008, which was accepted. The paper itself was due by the end of April 2008. Because of the Kentish Town Jobcenter’s illegal and irrational activities which were allegedly to provide me with unspecified "experience", I was left without means to exist and found myself involved in useless activities trying to find out an exit from the clasps of the Jobcenter and its accomplices. In result, I did submit the paper, but it was not sufficiently well deliberated to be accepted for presentation and publication. Consequently , I lost a valuable opportunity to attend the International Conference where my chances to meet a potential employer were much high than at the premises of Kentish Town Jobcenter. Upon having overviewed my experience, I have impression that Jobcenters in this country treat their customers as slaves whose disobedience should be punished by application of measures including extrajudicial ones. Moreover, I hold the view that even though the Kentish Town Jobcenter is staffed mainly by people with humanistic views, there are number of people who seem to acquire their professional experience in institutions with totalitarian tradition. To find support to this statement, please read attentively my letter of 28 May 2008 to Mrs Morton (pp.25-34).
From 16 March 2008 I reduced my consumption to the level of just above physical survival relying on irregular borrowing and donations from the people who know me, and this way of life is highly adverse to my health and damaging for my professional qualifications and to the integrity of my personality. I also received a number of letters from Barbican YMCA threatening me with eviction as I am not able to compensate the difference between my Housing benefit and the actual rent. Besides, the Department for Work and Pensions’ campaign of harassment and intimidation has adversely affected and continues to affect my chances to find work.
To sum up, the essence of this letter is that there is an abundant evidence of me being treated unfairly and with prejudice by Department for Work and pensions, and the manner of the treatment amounts to the level when it can be called degrading. Also, there is clear intervention of some forces acting in this country with the delivery of my correspondence and there were attempts to involve me in forced labour. Both the former and the letter constitute violation of Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 4.3, 8.1. The facts referred also indicate that some other organizations colluded with the Department for Work and Pensions in executing psychological war and taking extrajudicial actions against me, including employment of criminal elements, which were employed on a number of occasions earlier, and the relevant information can be provided on request. In the view of above I have reasonable concerns that I can be exterminated in this country by extrajudicial means.
To conclude the letter, may I ask your advise as to how I may resolve the following practical issues.
1. How can I get a response to my letter addressed to Mrs Isabelle Morton which poses a number of questions as to the legal basis of Kentish Town Jobcenter’s treatment of my case? May I remind you, that i) the Jobcentre did not responded to my oral questions; ii) the Jobcenter claims that the letter containing the questions was not received by the Center; iii) the appeal lodged by myself in person to the Center was "not received" by the Center.
2. As the date of the hearing of my case for judicial review at Administrative Court is still not determined, how may I know for how long should I wait before the hearing will take place?
3. Who and how can help the Kentish Town Jobcenter to trace my appeal? In this respect, could you please help the Department for Work and Pensions develop procedures which would assure the safety of documents submitted to the Department?
4. How can I get qualified legal help for submitting a case for damages against the Department for Work and Pensions?
5. I have reasons to believe that I was disqualified from getting jobseeker's allowance illegally as a matter of revenge from some people acting in this country both overtly and covertly. Let us suppose that the reasons are justified. As my case reveals, to prove that I am right it may either take indefinite time or turn out to be impossible even in theory. Hence, the victim of organised governmental harassment can be reduced to a state of animal or eliminated altogether well before the illegal activities of the government can be exposed. What course of actions would you advise for a person in such a situation to survive in the UK?
Finally, you may have noticed by now that my account of the events indicate that there exists in some official circles in the UK a culture of ignoring the letters or the requests for legitimate information whenever it suits the officials’ interests. A number of instances to support the claim were laid down above, further ones are available on request. In this respect may I also hope that my remarks as to the operation of democratic institutions in the UK might be useful in your activities as a Member of Parliament to improve the service provided by these institutions, proper functioning of which might significantly contribute to the effective solving of many urgent problems which this country faces. It is unlikely that the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham exposed in his ‘Panopticum’ will remain effective for long.
Sincerely yours,
Alexander Sobko
Attachments.
1. The letter dated as 22nd February 2008 from Mrs A Barnatt with the doubts as to sufficiency of my activities to find work (p.1)
2.A letter dated as 4 March 2008 bfrom London DMA (pp.2-4)
3.A letter dated as 14 March 2008 from Kentish Town Jobcenter disqualifying me from getting JSA at all (pp.5-7).
4.A letter dated as 25.03.08 from A4e (p.8).
5. My claim for judicial review (pp.9-16).
6.Benficiary Declaration Form (p.17)
7.Decision of the Court as to my application for Interim Relief (p.18)
8.Notice to Quit from Barbican YMCA (p.19)
9. A letter dated as 12 may 2008 from Kentish Town Jobcenter informing me as to the closure of my claim for JSA (pp.20-21)
10.Appeal aginst the decision to close my claim (pp.22-24)
11. My letter to Mrs Morton with the questions as to the meaning of Kentish Town activities and their legal bases (pp.25-34)
12. A letter to Kentish Town Jobcenter of 09 May 2008, not received (p.35); certificate of posting (p.40).
13.The letters from Royal Mail (pp.36,37)
14.The letters from IEEE (pp.38,39).
15.The letters asking for legal assistance (pp.41-49).
London,
18 July 2008
Mr Mark Field, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Sir,
Writing this letter is induced by my concern with , firstly, the aberrations in the working of the Department for Works and Pensions that produced degrading, illegal and irrational treatment of myself in violation of Articles 3, 4.3 and 8.1 of Human Rights Act, 1998, and, secondly, with the relations of the said aberrations to the basic tenets of civil life in this country altogether.
As to the former, the summary of material facts is as follows ( in the brackets the number of a relevant page in the attached bundle of documents is indicated).
In January 2008 as a participant of New Deal option at Kentish Town Jobcenter I was ordered to attend a programme at an organisation called A4e to increase my employability. On the second day of the programme I was requested to sign the Beneficiary Form (p.17) which I refused on the basis of the entries of the form being semantically diffused. The situation had been repeated several times after that, and on February 22nd a doubt has arisen that I may have not taken sufficient or appropriate steps to find job (p.1). After an investigation of the matter the doubt evaporated, but on 14th March 2008 I was informed by Kentish Town Jobcenter that they would not pay me jobseeker’s allowance from 15th March 2008 as I had not attended the programme at A4e (pp.5-7). Moreover, the Kentish Town jobcenter states that I will never get jobseekers allowance in the UK altogether (see underlined on p.5, mark 4). The absence of logic in the Jobcenter's decision is clear from the fact that in one of their letters to me they explicitly admitted that I had attended the programme (see underlined on p.3), whereas in other letters (p.5, marks 1-3) they claim that I had not. The decision, in my view, is bluntly illegal and prejudiced, and I submitted the case for judicial review to the Administrative Court on 01 May 2008 (pp.9-16). My application for interim relief (pp.15-16) was turned down by a judge on the basis of being not ‘appropriate’: in the judge's view, I should have lodged an appeal instead (p.18). The date of the hearing itself is not determined yet.
Since that decision I continued signing on while being an object of harassment and intimidation initiated by the Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus resulting in that on 12 May 2008 I was informed by the said center that my claim would be closed altogether from 19th of April 2008 as I allegedly did not attend to sign my declaration (pp.20-21). As the decision of the center was based on bluntly falsified facts, I appealed on 16 May 2008 by submitting the application to the said center in person (pp.22-24). As no reply to my appeal had been received by 13 June 2008, I called the jobcenter and Glasgo information center to find out the status of my appeal. In reply, I was told that there was no trace of my appeal being received!
I was making the enquiry as to the status of my appeal from the premises of a Jobcenter at Denmark Street , and I asked the staff to send my completed appeal form to the Kentish Town Jobcenter by fax again. This was done, but no receipt was issued to me on the basis of the fax machine being not able to do this. By now, no reply from Kentish Town has been received. Meanwhile, I noticed the increase of some activities around me which can be called covert psychological intimidation, and on 28 June 2008 at 11.55 pm near the Tesco superstore premises at Charing Cross, I was assaulted by two youngsters in a manner which suggests it being staged on purpose. The case was reported to the police, no response being obtained by now.
There is one more important fact illuminating the manner how Kentish Town jobcenter operates. On a number of occasions I tried to find out the legal basis of the Jobcenters actions, and I was not able to get it from the staff in oral form. Finally, I submitted a letter to the Center which I posted by recorded mail on 28th May 2008 (pp.25-34). As no reply to the letter had been received, I asked the Center for explanation during the above mentioned telephone call on 13th June 2008. As it was the case with my appeal handed in person at this very Center my letter sent by recorded mail had not been received by Kentish Town Jobcenter as well. On top of that, I was told that there is no evidence of receiving a letter (p.35) which I posted to Kentish Town Jobcenter by ordinary mail, certificate of posting being issued (p.40). Therefore, on three occasions Kentish Town Jobcenter claimed that there was no trace of documents submitted to them , no matter sent by post or delivered in person.
Three further facts I would like to submit to your attendance.
Firstly, before mailing the letter dated as 28 May 2008 I had attended on the same day the City Citizens Advice Bureau to seek an advise as to how should I send a letter to Kentish Town Jobcenter to be sure that the letter would reach the destination. The reason why I was seeking this advise was that my letter to the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (the IEEE), USA, containing my membership fees and renewal form had not been received by the IEEE (p.39) despite being mailed by 'signed for' International Mail Service provided by Royal Mail and despite being accounted for as delivered by the Royal Mail. Further enquires and correspondence with the Royal Mail to get a name of the person who signed for the delivery failed to shed any light on the matter (p..37), and presently I prepare a legal case against the Royal Mail to recover damages. The advisor advised me to think whether I should send the letter altogether, and if I decide to do so to send it by recorded delivery which I did. Upon some consideration, the advisor told me that the best way would be to send a letter by fax, but I was not able to afford it , though it was done later without any effect. Hence, my precautions proved to be justified.
Secondly, my appeal to Kentish Town Jobcenter was received by a person whom I never seen at the Center. This person stamped and dated the copy of appeal form but refused to sign it.
Thirdly, my attempt to have the legal bases of the Center’s actions towards me elucidated failed, and the way how it failed is conspicuous. Thus, when I asked for oral clarification by the manager, I was told that I would need an appointment which would arrive by post. No letter with the appointment details has ever been received. My attempts to talk to the New Deal manager or to an advisor on duty were ignored altogether upon my expressed desire to make audio records of our conversations. My calls to Glasgo Customer Service failed altogether as I each time I was referred back to the jobcenter. Finally, my letters sent either by ordinary mail or by recorded delivery were not received by the Jobcenter as my personal delivery of appeal was not also. It is a bit awkward, isn't it?
Now let me pass on to the issues of political significance. They are as follows.
Firstly, I found that factually the Kentish Town Jobcenter is beyond effective control which is available for their ‘customers’. Particulars on which this claim is based you can find in the text of my letter of 28th May 2008 to the Center which copy you will find attached (pp.25-34). In general, my numerous calls to Glasgo Customer Center were absolutely useless as all my questions and complains were ignored and I was advised to resolve all problems within the Kentish Town Jobcenter. The website of the Department for Work and Pensions provides no way to address the questions also. There are two ways to challenge the actions of a Jobcenter in this country, first one being via court system, second via appeal procedure. The court system seems to be not sympathetic to the litigant as my application for interim relief was declined by a judge of the High Court as inappropriate. In my application for interim relief I indicated that I have no means to support myself and that I faced eviction from the Barbican YMCA were I was dwelling. The decision of the judge in fact raises the question of the standards which govern the judges of the High Court in taking their decisions, and you may find it of interest, as I did, to explore this subject further on taking into account other decisions of the judge. The problem is even more troubling as the referral of the judge to the appeal system is not helpful in view of the fact that Kentish Town Jobcenter had not received my appeal submitted to the Center by myself in person, and I subsequently have had no response to my appeal from 16th May 2008. There are two explanations to the chains of events displayed above. The first is that the functioning of the UK’s political system requires further close scrutiny as to its efficiency, corruptibility and ethical basis of its guiding principles. The second is that my particular case is an exception, and I am just a target of some forces in this country which are beyond the democratic control. In this relation, I would be pleased if the identity of the person whom I handed over my appeal at the Kentish Town Jobcenter was established as there are many indications that I am a targeted person in the UK, but presently I do not want to dwell on the issue to save your time.
Secondly, I found that there are no effective means in the United Kingdom to get legal information on which the Jobcenters Plus operate. Thus, during the evolution of the above described case I started to doubt that the actions undertaken by the Center are legally substantiated as I found many indications in the secondary legal literature in support of my suspicion. My attempts to find references to the primary legal sources failed as the answers to the legal questions which I sought I was not able to get neither from City Citizen's Advice Bureau, nor from Mary Ward Legal Advice Center, nor from RCJ Advice Center. My approach to a couple of private legal firms yielded no result also (pp..45,46). Moreover, some advisors at the City Citizen’s Advice Center clearly disapproved my suing the Department for Work and Pensions. Also , my question to the latter advisor as to whether there exists a sure way to get legal advice in the UK from a qualified solicitor the answer was in negative. Therefore, I was effectively prevented from getting basic legal information in the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, it seems to me that there are some problems with the exercise of democracy in the High Court. Thus, application for remedies at the Administrative Court requires reference to the law which was allegedly violated by a respondent, and three copies of the full texts of corresponding legal texts are required to be attached to the claim. In my circumstances it is impossible as, firstly, it proved to be impossible to find legal references themselves, and , secondly, if I would be successful, it would amount to many hundreds , if not thousands, of pages, with corresponding expenses beyond the capacity of a person with no income. Therefore, the British Judicial system is not available for everybody even in theory, and, consequently, is not democratic.
Fourthly, in the United Kingdom there is no mechanism which would provide anybody seeking work with a job. In fact, this is a basic tenet of bazaar economics, but my experience with applying for a position of Senior Lecturer in Physics at South Bank University in Autumn 2007 says that there are no provisions in the English legal system which would assure that those people get job who are the most fit to do it – in other words, the labour bazaar in the UK seems to be imperfect. Moreover, there is no means for the applicant to get any information as to the process of selection. Thus, in my case, despite the employer initially clearly manifested an interest in my proposals with respect how the job required could be done and urged me to file an application for the position, subsequently no response was obtained to my application. My subsequent letters to the human resources department of the University and to the Chancellor of the University requesting information as to how the vacancy was filled were just ignored. This case perceived on the background provided by the evolution of my described relations with Kentish Town Jobcenter indicates that in the UK there exists a room for operation of routines which allow anybody who is perceived as troublemaker being thrown on the street, reduced to the state of animal by destroying one’s human capital and left without any warranty of physical survival.
In this respect, the system of Jobscenters plus is formal and not effective. Last time I was getting Jobseekers allowance for more than eighteen months, and during this time I was asking my advisors to assist me with tuition fees for a postgraduate course which would substantially enhance my chances to find the work appropriate to my education and experience. I was replied that there is no such opportunity. Nevertheless, as I remember, such opportunity existed in the middle of 1990th, and the abolition of this scheme was politically unjustified decision and contributed to the fact that, as my experience says, the jobcentres may contribute to the process of throwing the person on the street by pretending that they aim at helping people to find work. To illustrate this statememnt, let me refer to my personal experience which is as follows. In January 2008 I submitted an abstract of the paper to the IEEE International Conference on the Education in Engineering 2008, which was accepted. The paper itself was due by the end of April 2008. Because of the Kentish Town Jobcenter’s illegal and irrational activities which were allegedly to provide me with unspecified "experience", I was left without means to exist and found myself involved in useless activities trying to find out an exit from the clasps of the Jobcenter and its accomplices. In result, I did submit the paper, but it was not sufficiently well deliberated to be accepted for presentation and publication. Consequently , I lost a valuable opportunity to attend the International Conference where my chances to meet a potential employer were much high than at the premises of Kentish Town Jobcenter. Upon having overviewed my experience, I have impression that Jobcenters in this country treat their customers as slaves whose disobedience should be punished by application of measures including extrajudicial ones. Moreover, I hold the view that even though the Kentish Town Jobcenter is staffed mainly by people with humanistic views, there are number of people who seem to acquire their professional experience in institutions with totalitarian tradition. To find support to this statement, please read attentively my letter of 28 May 2008 to Mrs Morton (pp.25-34).
From 16 March 2008 I reduced my consumption to the level of just above physical survival relying on irregular borrowing and donations from the people who know me, and this way of life is highly adverse to my health and damaging for my professional qualifications and to the integrity of my personality. I also received a number of letters from Barbican YMCA threatening me with eviction as I am not able to compensate the difference between my Housing benefit and the actual rent. Besides, the Department for Work and Pensions’ campaign of harassment and intimidation has adversely affected and continues to affect my chances to find work.
To sum up, the essence of this letter is that there is an abundant evidence of me being treated unfairly and with prejudice by Department for Work and pensions, and the manner of the treatment amounts to the level when it can be called degrading. Also, there is clear intervention of some forces acting in this country with the delivery of my correspondence and there were attempts to involve me in forced labour. Both the former and the letter constitute violation of Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 4.3, 8.1. The facts referred also indicate that some other organizations colluded with the Department for Work and Pensions in executing psychological war and taking extrajudicial actions against me, including employment of criminal elements, which were employed on a number of occasions earlier, and the relevant information can be provided on request. In the view of above I have reasonable concerns that I can be exterminated in this country by extrajudicial means.
To conclude the letter, may I ask your advise as to how I may resolve the following practical issues.
1. How can I get a response to my letter addressed to Mrs Isabelle Morton which poses a number of questions as to the legal basis of Kentish Town Jobcenter’s treatment of my case? May I remind you, that i) the Jobcentre did not responded to my oral questions; ii) the Jobcenter claims that the letter containing the questions was not received by the Center; iii) the appeal lodged by myself in person to the Center was "not received" by the Center.
2. As the date of the hearing of my case for judicial review at Administrative Court is still not determined, how may I know for how long should I wait before the hearing will take place?
3. Who and how can help the Kentish Town Jobcenter to trace my appeal? In this respect, could you please help the Department for Work and Pensions develop procedures which would assure the safety of documents submitted to the Department?
4. How can I get qualified legal help for submitting a case for damages against the Department for Work and Pensions?
5. I have reasons to believe that I was disqualified from getting jobseeker's allowance illegally as a matter of revenge from some people acting in this country both overtly and covertly. Let us suppose that the reasons are justified. As my case reveals, to prove that I am right it may either take indefinite time or turn out to be impossible even in theory. Hence, the victim of organised governmental harassment can be reduced to a state of animal or eliminated altogether well before the illegal activities of the government can be exposed. What course of actions would you advise for a person in such a situation to survive in the UK?
Finally, you may have noticed by now that my account of the events indicate that there exists in some official circles in the UK a culture of ignoring the letters or the requests for legitimate information whenever it suits the officials’ interests. A number of instances to support the claim were laid down above, further ones are available on request. In this respect may I also hope that my remarks as to the operation of democratic institutions in the UK might be useful in your activities as a Member of Parliament to improve the service provided by these institutions, proper functioning of which might significantly contribute to the effective solving of many urgent problems which this country faces. It is unlikely that the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham exposed in his ‘Panopticum’ will remain effective for long.
Sincerely yours,
Alexander Sobko
Attachments.
1. The letter dated as 22nd February 2008 from Mrs A Barnatt with the doubts as to sufficiency of my activities to find work (p.1)
2.A letter dated as 4 March 2008 bfrom London DMA (pp.2-4)
3.A letter dated as 14 March 2008 from Kentish Town Jobcenter disqualifying me from getting JSA at all (pp.5-7).
4.A letter dated as 25.03.08 from A4e (p.8).
5. My claim for judicial review (pp.9-16).
6.Benficiary Declaration Form (p.17)
7.Decision of the Court as to my application for Interim Relief (p.18)
8.Notice to Quit from Barbican YMCA (p.19)
9. A letter dated as 12 may 2008 from Kentish Town Jobcenter informing me as to the closure of my claim for JSA (pp.20-21)
10.Appeal aginst the decision to close my claim (pp.22-24)
11. My letter to Mrs Morton with the questions as to the meaning of Kentish Town activities and their legal bases (pp.25-34)
12. A letter to Kentish Town Jobcenter of 09 May 2008, not received (p.35); certificate of posting (p.40).
13.The letters from Royal Mail (pp.36,37)
14.The letters from IEEE (pp.38,39).
15.The letters asking for legal assistance (pp.41-49).
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Modern British Democracy and Slavery. Case Study 1: Employment, State and Extrajudicial Persecutions
Case Study 1.
This letter was forwarded to Kentish Town Jobcenter by registered mail but it failed to reach its destination because of covert reasons.
20 May 2008
Kentish Town Jobcenter
Central London District
PO Box 10
Glasgow G4 0WY
Dear Mrs Morton,
On 24nd of April 2008 I submitted a claim to the Administrative Court Office against the Department for Work and Pensions to review your decision to stop paying me JSA from 15th of March 2008. As the treatment which I received from the Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus and from the London DMA Office since 28th of January 2008 have adversely affected my psychological health, decreased my chances to find work, produced degrading impact on my personality and undermined my confidence in the rationality and legality of how the British government operates, I intend to start legal action against the Department for Work and Pensions to claim damages on the grounds of irrationality, illegality, negligence and breaching Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 . This letter is a pre-action stage of my claim which I undertake in line with requirements of Reg.54 CPR. In this respect I would like to have the following questions answered.
1. Having completed Gateway stage of the New Deal 25+, I was informed that I have to take part in the ND IAP Work experience option to start on 28th of January 2008 at A4e premises. On what legal basis the decision to request me taking part in the above option was taken?
1(a). Are there other options available within ND IAP scheme, and, if "yes", does the legislation permits a jobseeker to choose what option to take?
1(b). If the answer on the question 1(a) is in affirmative, why no such a choice was suggested to me?
1(c). I was told by a number of the New Deal advisors that my participation in the above option is mandatory, and this is also stated in the paper which requested me to take part in the option threatening me with the sanctions provided by the Jobseekers Act 1995, section 19.5(b). Is there any other legislation which regulates whether a New Deal participant aged 50+ is
obliged to take part in the option?
1(d). Does all Jobseekers who were unemployed for more than 18 month are obliged to take part in the New Deal provisions?
1(e). If the reply to the question 1(d) is in negative, what are the criteria for selecting the jobseekers for the participation in the New Deal scheme at all?
1(f). If there is no such criteria, how my education, work experience, the type of work I am looking for and other particulars relevant to my application for the jobseekers allowance were taken into consideration when the decisions to prescribe me participation in (a) the New Deal scheme and (b) in the IAP work experience option were made?
1(g). What experience does the decision maker believe I am lacking which prevents me from getting the job I am looking for, and on what basis?
1(h) What sort of experience the decision maker believes would increase my chances to find the job I am looking for, and why during the 18 th months span of time preceding the New Deal and during the Gateway period the necessity of getting this experience was never revealed to me?
1(j) What are the objective data or statistics which contributed to the formation of the decision maker's believe that the required experience would positively affect my chances to find job? Namely, can you provide me with the statistical data showing what percent of the jobseekers with the education and work experience similar to those of myself and looking for a similar job were successful in finding employment having acquired experience similar to that the decision maker believed would be beneficial for me?
1(k). Is the ND IAP Work experience option which I was ordered to participate in a part of the New Deal Pilot for 25+ scheme ?
1(k)(i). If 'yes', is Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus serving the area listed in the Schedule of the Pilot designated areas for the span of time relevant to the case under consideration?
1(k)(ii). If 'yes', could you please refer me to the primary legislation which confers the status mentioned in the 1(k)(i) to Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus?
2. I attended the premises of A4e on 28th of January 2008 as requested and signed the form stating that I started the provision as prescribed. On 29th of January 2008 during my interview with the A4e advisor, I was requested to sign the Beneficiary Declaration form, but I refused to do so. As a result , I was requested to come back to the Jobcenter Plus and give the reasons as to my alleged failing to attend place on my employment programme. The reasons were provided on the spot. The same situation took place on a number of occasions after that. On 26th of February 2008, on 4th of March 2008 and on 10th of April 2008 I received unsigned letters from certain Mrs Campbell from London DMA office requesting me to answer in full to all questions pointed overleaf to help decide my claim for Jobseeker's Allowance and National Insurance credits. In this respect, could you be so kind as to answer the questions as follows.
2(a). The A4e is a private commercial organisation. On what legal or administrative basis repeated attempts were undertaken and psychological preasure was applied to force me to sign the Beneficiary Declaration form?
2(a)(i). Is the request to sign the form by a the jobseeker imposed on the initiative of JobcenterPlus or approved by the Jobcenter Plus?
2(a).(ii). On what legal basis not signing the form was equated with 'failing to attend place on employment programme'?
2(b). On the basis of the Freedom of Information Act, could you provide me with the copy of all documents determining the relations between the A4e and the Department for Work and Pensions, in particular those ones which determine the legal status of the Beneficiary Declaration form?
2(c). Beneficiary Declaration Form displays the sign of the European Union and mentions European Social Fund. Therefore, the form is related to the funding provided by the European Union.
2(c)(i). If the answer on the question 2(a)(i) is in positive, could you answer the questions as follows, please.
2(c)(i)(i). Is the request to sign the form anyhow related to getting payment from the European Social Security Fund?
2(c)(i)(ii). Why the Decision Maker believes that my serving as a Guinea Pig for the purpose of 'collating managerial information' would be beneficial for increasing my chances to find work?
2(c)(i)(iii). Why the Decision Maker believes that my serving as a Guinea Pig for the purpose of 'evaluation of the programme'
would be beneficial for increasing my chances to find work?
2(c)(i)(iv). How my personal details 'being passed to Jobcenter Plus, stored on a database, and shared with legitimate organisations would improve my employability?
2(c)(i)(v). What personal details the Jobcenter Plus would need to be passed from the A4e and how those details would be used to improve my employability if during 18 months of my signing with Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus absolutely no attempts were made to help me with finding job apart of the request to sign and provide details as to how my job search is going on?
2(c)(i)(vi). How the form takes into account the requests of the Data Protection Act of 1998 for personal information to be adequiat, relevant and not excessive?
2(c)(i)(vii). As A4e is a commercial organisation, why do you believe that the information sought would not be used to increase the A4E's revenues?
2(c)(ii). If the answer on the question 2(a)(i) is in negative, could you answer the questions as follows, please.
2(c)(ii)(i). On what legal basis the A4e mentions Jobcenter Plus as a envisaged user of my personal information?
2(c)(ii)(i). Why not signing the Beneficiary Declaration Form resulted in the Decision maker arriving at the decision that I failed to take my place at the employment programme?
3. On 18th of February 2008 I was ordered by the employment officer to attend Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus for daily signing.
3(a). Could you please give the reference to the primary legislation which guided the decision maker in arriving at the decision?
3(b). What the decision maker was purporting to achieve by requesting me to sign daily?
3(c). Every day during my daily signing period I was handed in a paper called 'Appointment Details' which stated that Appointment Type was ND25+ Subsequent Gateway Interview. The interview to be held on 27.03.08 was scheduled to last from 15.40 to 15.45. In this respect, could you please refer me to the primary legislation which regulates the purpose, content, frequency and the procedure of the ND 25+ Subsequent Gateway Interviews?
3(d). Is there any difference in substance from the point of view of primary legislation between the interviews attended by the claimant in his capacity of a jobseeker and that of the participant of the ND programme?
4. On 21 st of February on having signed I requested the adviser to pay my travel expenses. The request was turned down on the basis that as a participant of the New Deal programme I was entitled to the discounted travelling in London.
4(a). Could you please give the reference to the primary legislation which giuded the advisor in taking the above decision?
5. On 22nd of February, that is on the fourth day of my daily signing period I was handed in a paper which stated that 'a doubt has arisen on your claim for Jobseeker's allowance as it appears that from Saturday 9th of February 2008 you may not have taken sufficient or appropriate steps to find work'.
5(a). Could you please indicate what particular reasons induced the decision maker to initiate the enquiry?
5(b)(i). During my many years long experience of claiming Jobseeker's Allowance the above doubt had never arisen before 22nd of February 2008. Is there any link between my refusal to sign the Beneficiary Declaration form at A4e premises and the arousal of the doubt in issue?
5(b)(ii). Can you show any reasons why I should not consider the arousal of the above doubt as an act of revenge for me persistently refusing to sign the Beneficiary form?
6. On 22nd of February 2008 I filled in the form referred to in the entry 5 above giving full explanation of my efforts to find work during the period in question. During the process of filling the form in at the desk of the adviser who was Mr Lloyd at that day, I was psychologically pressurised by intervention of the advisor who demanded my form where I was writing down my activities during the signing period for copying saying at the same time that I should not fill in my report those details which the latter form contained as it would be copied anyway and demanded me to change place. As I continued the process of filling in, the original form was grasped from the table and on my effort to get it back I was told not even to attamp it as I would regrett it. Hence, I requested to see the manager which was refused. I descended to the ground floor to seek advice with the information desk. Mrs Gloria attended to my account of what happened, called somewhere on telephone and directed me to wait for the letter with the appointment details to arrive not undertaking any actions till then, the relevant record being made on the computer. As the letter had not arrived by Friday, 29th of February 2008, I visited the jobcenter and was told to come for signing on 07th of March 2008. On 07th of March 2008 I was requested to explain why I failed to attend the A4e on 25th of February, and I produced the explanation required.
6.1. Could you be so kind as to explain why the letter with the appointment to see the manager of the New Deal department was not sent to me?
7. On 31st of March 2008 I attended A4e premises where I was directed to go back to the Kentish Jobcenter on the spot. Having arrived at the jobcenter at 11 a.m. I was allocated an interview with Mrs Lyn. At the start of the interview I produced a audio recording equipment and asked the permission to to make audio record of the interview which was not granted on the basis that it was to be private. As As I did not have intention to converse with Mrs Lyn privately, I ignored her request to stop recording. In her turn, Mrs Lyn declared that nobody would talk to me at the center, stopped conversing with me without giving any instruction as to the date of my next signing. She just ignored me. I went to the ground floor asking for advice which was not given. Then I called to the Jobcenter's Plus Customer Service and explained the situation to Mrs Lisa. During the conversation I was told that there were no indication on the computert that I was on New Deal programme at all. The call to Glasgo had not produced any result either as I was directed back to the kentish town jobcenter. I had nothing to do but to leave the jobcenter expecting that the instructions would arrive by post. As by Friday , 4th April 2008 no letter arrived from the jobcenter, at 1.20 p.m. I called the jobcenter to ask what is going on. During the conversation with Mr Carl I was told that I had had to sign at 11 am that day, and that I had to come to the jobcenter as soon as possible to sign at Desk 2 on the ground floor. Having arrived by around 2 pm at the desk 2, I handed my book to an adviser who looked at the computer screen and asked me to wait for a couple of minutes. Then she went to look for my file. after returning back, she told me that I should go to the second floor, to the New Deal office. In this respect, may I ask you to reply the following questions:
7.1. Why there exist discrepancy between the records held on computer database and actual state of matters related to my case?
7.2. In view of the discrepancy I referred to in 7.1, what legislation and what regulations determine whether I actually was or was not placed on the New Deal option?
7.3. What legislation regulates using audio recording equipment during the interviews conducted by the employment officers with jobseekers?
7.4. Why I did not get the letter with appointment to see the manager which Mrs Gloria had referred to?
8.Why the letter which I received from the London DMA office dated as 16th April 2008 was not signed whereas a signature was requested from me?
8.1. All letters which I received from London DMA, namely dated as 26 February, 3d of March, 4th of March, 10th of April, 16th of April 2008 were not signed whereas they requested my signature. Should I understand that this state of matters is created on purpose to show superiority of the London DMA in respect to my person and to produce a subtle degrading effect on my personality?
8.1(i).What are the reasons for the letter dated as 16th of April 2008 from London DMA office having reference number which is invalid and for the letter being not signed ?
8.1(ii). Is the letter referred to in the section 8.1(i) genuine or it is a forgery and a part of a psychological war waged against me by Kentish Town jobcenter or by other organization which masterminded the jobcenter's actions against me?
8.2. The letter referred to in section 8.1(i) posed a question which I already replied on the 7th of March 2008. Therefore, I may conclude that my answer was not read by London DMA. Should I understand that posing the same question without reading the answers is a deliberately designed method of interrogation aiming at psychological breakdown of the victim?
9. The policy of asking the same question without reading the answers to them is also evident in other letters produced by London DMA. Thus, in my report presented on 29th January 2008 I explaind my motives which compelled me to turn down the offer to sign the Beneficiary Declaration. I have never received any response to my accont for the reasons, but I received the order to produce the same account in the letter dated as 4th March 2008. Did you ever read my answers?
10. As by Tuesday, 8th of April 2008, I had not received my JSA due, I called Glasgo Benefit Center at 13.00 to find out what went wrong. I was told tat my benefit was stopped. I have not received any notification about this as it turned out that the relevant letter was sent to a wrong address, and it finally reached me by 22d of April 2008. After my call top Glasgow, I telephoned to the Kentish Town an spoken to Mrs Marian. During the conversation, I asked Mrs Marian for the reasons of my benefit cancellation and sending it to a wrong address. Mrs Marian started to ask me persistently to repeat what I was saying. When I asked why was that, she told that she did not understand my English. When in reply I remarked this was probably because English is not her mother tongue, I was asked why I was so rude. Just before my conversation with Mrs Marian, I had been conversing over telephone with a number of people, par instance, from Glasgo Benefit Center, from the Institute of Engineering and Technology, and from the Law Express Ltd and in person with a number of people at Totenham Court jobcente without any difficulty. In this respect I should note that it was not on one occasion when staff of Kentish Town jobcenter responded to the question which they did not like by asking: 'Why you are so rude?'
10.1(i). Does the policy of replying 'Why are you so rude?' to the unfavoured questions form a part of the psychological machinery available to the Kentish Town jobcenter's staff to manage jobseekers?
10.1(ii). Is the policy of repeated questioning and 'not understanding' a part of the psychological training of the staff also?
10.1.(iii). In respect with the questions 10.1(i) - 10.1(iii), where were the staff trained to use the tools?
10.2(i). The decision to disqualify me from receiving JSA was taken on 14 March 2008. I attended the Center on 26 March, 31 March and 4 April 2008, but I was never informed as to the decision taken. Can you give the reasons for that?
10.2(ii). The letter informing me of the decision taken was directed to the wrong address, whereas all letters which requested explanations and posed questions wre addressed to my valid address. How you could explain the fact of sending the letter with an important decision to a wrong address?
10.3. On Tuesday, 6th of March 2008, I received a letter dated as 22 April 2008 where the jobcenter informed me that i am disqualified from receiving JSA with effect from 12 April 2008. The letter again was sent to a wrong address.
10.3(i). What is the reason for ten days delay between issuing the letter and the date when sanctions were due to be in effect?
10.3(ii). What is the reason for directing the letter again to a wrong address, as it has already been done with the letter dated 14th March 2008?
10.4(i). As the time span for appealing against the jobcenter’s decision is established to be one month time since the date when the letter was issued, should I undestand that repeatedly sending the letters with jobcenter’s decisions to a wrong address is indicative of the decision makers intention to deprive me from lodging an appeal against the decision?
10.4(ii). Should I interpret repeated sending of the decisions to a wrong address as an indication of the biased attitude of the decision maker towards my person and as an indication of the unfair treatment which I received from the decision maker?
10.4(iii). Should I understand that so frivolous handling of my case by the jobcenter's staff with respect to informing me about disqualifying me for JSA is indicative of the case being staged on purpose?
10.4(iv). If the answer to the question 10.3(iii) is in positive, what are your reasons to believe that I could have got fair treatment of my appeal had I chosen to appeal against your decision instead of filing the case with the Administrative Court of Justice?
11. The letter dated as 14 march 2008 informed me of being disqualified for the purpose of receiving JSA altogether from 15 march 2008. Nevertheless, i received a letter dated as 16 April 2008 from London DMA requesting me to explain why I failed to attend the new Deal provision on 25 January 2008. Why the action of imposing the sanctions was taken without the DMA receiving all relevant information, as the letter indicates?
12. The letter dated as 14 march 2008 disqualified me from getting JSA on the basis of my alleged failure ‘to attend a place on an employment programme’. Nevertheless, in the letter dated as 4 March 2008 from London DMA office, I was asked: ‘...why you would refuse to sign the form and agree to the compulsory nature of the programme when you have already accepted this by attending the programme on 28.01.08’.
Could you please explain, why, for one purpose, I am treated as a person who attended the employment programme and, for another one, as a person who failed to attend an employment programme?
12.1. Do you agree that the sanctions imposed on me in the letter dated as 14 March 2008 are based on the fact for which there is no evidence?
12.2. Do you agree that the actions of Kentish town jobcenter which imposed sanctions upon me are illegal and irrational?
12.3. Do you agree that Kentish Town jobcenter subjected me to a specially designed by professionals psychological covert operation to degrade me and to inflict damages to my personality?
12.4. If the answer to the question 12.3 is in positive, who guided the Jobcenter in the conducting the psychological operation against me?
13. Could you please explain how statistics about long term unemployed is collated at the Jobcenter?
13.1. Could you please indicate how participation in the New Deal Employment scheme affects the above statistics? In particular, if a person starts A4e provision, is he or she still included in the statistical data on long term unemployed in the same manner as it was the case before he or she started the provision?
Sincerely yours
Alexander Sobko
This letter was forwarded to Kentish Town Jobcenter by registered mail but it failed to reach its destination because of covert reasons.
20 May 2008
Kentish Town Jobcenter
Central London District
PO Box 10
Glasgow G4 0WY
Dear Mrs Morton,
On 24nd of April 2008 I submitted a claim to the Administrative Court Office against the Department for Work and Pensions to review your decision to stop paying me JSA from 15th of March 2008. As the treatment which I received from the Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus and from the London DMA Office since 28th of January 2008 have adversely affected my psychological health, decreased my chances to find work, produced degrading impact on my personality and undermined my confidence in the rationality and legality of how the British government operates, I intend to start legal action against the Department for Work and Pensions to claim damages on the grounds of irrationality, illegality, negligence and breaching Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 . This letter is a pre-action stage of my claim which I undertake in line with requirements of Reg.54 CPR. In this respect I would like to have the following questions answered.
1. Having completed Gateway stage of the New Deal 25+, I was informed that I have to take part in the ND IAP Work experience option to start on 28th of January 2008 at A4e premises. On what legal basis the decision to request me taking part in the above option was taken?
1(a). Are there other options available within ND IAP scheme, and, if "yes", does the legislation permits a jobseeker to choose what option to take?
1(b). If the answer on the question 1(a) is in affirmative, why no such a choice was suggested to me?
1(c). I was told by a number of the New Deal advisors that my participation in the above option is mandatory, and this is also stated in the paper which requested me to take part in the option threatening me with the sanctions provided by the Jobseekers Act 1995, section 19.5(b). Is there any other legislation which regulates whether a New Deal participant aged 50+ is
obliged to take part in the option?
1(d). Does all Jobseekers who were unemployed for more than 18 month are obliged to take part in the New Deal provisions?
1(e). If the reply to the question 1(d) is in negative, what are the criteria for selecting the jobseekers for the participation in the New Deal scheme at all?
1(f). If there is no such criteria, how my education, work experience, the type of work I am looking for and other particulars relevant to my application for the jobseekers allowance were taken into consideration when the decisions to prescribe me participation in (a) the New Deal scheme and (b) in the IAP work experience option were made?
1(g). What experience does the decision maker believe I am lacking which prevents me from getting the job I am looking for, and on what basis?
1(h) What sort of experience the decision maker believes would increase my chances to find the job I am looking for, and why during the 18 th months span of time preceding the New Deal and during the Gateway period the necessity of getting this experience was never revealed to me?
1(j) What are the objective data or statistics which contributed to the formation of the decision maker's believe that the required experience would positively affect my chances to find job? Namely, can you provide me with the statistical data showing what percent of the jobseekers with the education and work experience similar to those of myself and looking for a similar job were successful in finding employment having acquired experience similar to that the decision maker believed would be beneficial for me?
1(k). Is the ND IAP Work experience option which I was ordered to participate in a part of the New Deal Pilot for 25+ scheme ?
1(k)(i). If 'yes', is Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus serving the area listed in the Schedule of the Pilot designated areas for the span of time relevant to the case under consideration?
1(k)(ii). If 'yes', could you please refer me to the primary legislation which confers the status mentioned in the 1(k)(i) to Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus?
2. I attended the premises of A4e on 28th of January 2008 as requested and signed the form stating that I started the provision as prescribed. On 29th of January 2008 during my interview with the A4e advisor, I was requested to sign the Beneficiary Declaration form, but I refused to do so. As a result , I was requested to come back to the Jobcenter Plus and give the reasons as to my alleged failing to attend place on my employment programme. The reasons were provided on the spot. The same situation took place on a number of occasions after that. On 26th of February 2008, on 4th of March 2008 and on 10th of April 2008 I received unsigned letters from certain Mrs Campbell from London DMA office requesting me to answer in full to all questions pointed overleaf to help decide my claim for Jobseeker's Allowance and National Insurance credits. In this respect, could you be so kind as to answer the questions as follows.
2(a). The A4e is a private commercial organisation. On what legal or administrative basis repeated attempts were undertaken and psychological preasure was applied to force me to sign the Beneficiary Declaration form?
2(a)(i). Is the request to sign the form by a the jobseeker imposed on the initiative of JobcenterPlus or approved by the Jobcenter Plus?
2(a).(ii). On what legal basis not signing the form was equated with 'failing to attend place on employment programme'?
2(b). On the basis of the Freedom of Information Act, could you provide me with the copy of all documents determining the relations between the A4e and the Department for Work and Pensions, in particular those ones which determine the legal status of the Beneficiary Declaration form?
2(c). Beneficiary Declaration Form displays the sign of the European Union and mentions European Social Fund. Therefore, the form is related to the funding provided by the European Union.
2(c)(i). If the answer on the question 2(a)(i) is in positive, could you answer the questions as follows, please.
2(c)(i)(i). Is the request to sign the form anyhow related to getting payment from the European Social Security Fund?
2(c)(i)(ii). Why the Decision Maker believes that my serving as a Guinea Pig for the purpose of 'collating managerial information' would be beneficial for increasing my chances to find work?
2(c)(i)(iii). Why the Decision Maker believes that my serving as a Guinea Pig for the purpose of 'evaluation of the programme'
would be beneficial for increasing my chances to find work?
2(c)(i)(iv). How my personal details 'being passed to Jobcenter Plus, stored on a database, and shared with legitimate organisations would improve my employability?
2(c)(i)(v). What personal details the Jobcenter Plus would need to be passed from the A4e and how those details would be used to improve my employability if during 18 months of my signing with Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus absolutely no attempts were made to help me with finding job apart of the request to sign and provide details as to how my job search is going on?
2(c)(i)(vi). How the form takes into account the requests of the Data Protection Act of 1998 for personal information to be adequiat, relevant and not excessive?
2(c)(i)(vii). As A4e is a commercial organisation, why do you believe that the information sought would not be used to increase the A4E's revenues?
2(c)(ii). If the answer on the question 2(a)(i) is in negative, could you answer the questions as follows, please.
2(c)(ii)(i). On what legal basis the A4e mentions Jobcenter Plus as a envisaged user of my personal information?
2(c)(ii)(i). Why not signing the Beneficiary Declaration Form resulted in the Decision maker arriving at the decision that I failed to take my place at the employment programme?
3. On 18th of February 2008 I was ordered by the employment officer to attend Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus for daily signing.
3(a). Could you please give the reference to the primary legislation which guided the decision maker in arriving at the decision?
3(b). What the decision maker was purporting to achieve by requesting me to sign daily?
3(c). Every day during my daily signing period I was handed in a paper called 'Appointment Details' which stated that Appointment Type was ND25+ Subsequent Gateway Interview. The interview to be held on 27.03.08 was scheduled to last from 15.40 to 15.45. In this respect, could you please refer me to the primary legislation which regulates the purpose, content, frequency and the procedure of the ND 25+ Subsequent Gateway Interviews?
3(d). Is there any difference in substance from the point of view of primary legislation between the interviews attended by the claimant in his capacity of a jobseeker and that of the participant of the ND programme?
4. On 21 st of February on having signed I requested the adviser to pay my travel expenses. The request was turned down on the basis that as a participant of the New Deal programme I was entitled to the discounted travelling in London.
4(a). Could you please give the reference to the primary legislation which giuded the advisor in taking the above decision?
5. On 22nd of February, that is on the fourth day of my daily signing period I was handed in a paper which stated that 'a doubt has arisen on your claim for Jobseeker's allowance as it appears that from Saturday 9th of February 2008 you may not have taken sufficient or appropriate steps to find work'.
5(a). Could you please indicate what particular reasons induced the decision maker to initiate the enquiry?
5(b)(i). During my many years long experience of claiming Jobseeker's Allowance the above doubt had never arisen before 22nd of February 2008. Is there any link between my refusal to sign the Beneficiary Declaration form at A4e premises and the arousal of the doubt in issue?
5(b)(ii). Can you show any reasons why I should not consider the arousal of the above doubt as an act of revenge for me persistently refusing to sign the Beneficiary form?
6. On 22nd of February 2008 I filled in the form referred to in the entry 5 above giving full explanation of my efforts to find work during the period in question. During the process of filling the form in at the desk of the adviser who was Mr Lloyd at that day, I was psychologically pressurised by intervention of the advisor who demanded my form where I was writing down my activities during the signing period for copying saying at the same time that I should not fill in my report those details which the latter form contained as it would be copied anyway and demanded me to change place. As I continued the process of filling in, the original form was grasped from the table and on my effort to get it back I was told not even to attamp it as I would regrett it. Hence, I requested to see the manager which was refused. I descended to the ground floor to seek advice with the information desk. Mrs Gloria attended to my account of what happened, called somewhere on telephone and directed me to wait for the letter with the appointment details to arrive not undertaking any actions till then, the relevant record being made on the computer. As the letter had not arrived by Friday, 29th of February 2008, I visited the jobcenter and was told to come for signing on 07th of March 2008. On 07th of March 2008 I was requested to explain why I failed to attend the A4e on 25th of February, and I produced the explanation required.
6.1. Could you be so kind as to explain why the letter with the appointment to see the manager of the New Deal department was not sent to me?
7. On 31st of March 2008 I attended A4e premises where I was directed to go back to the Kentish Jobcenter on the spot. Having arrived at the jobcenter at 11 a.m. I was allocated an interview with Mrs Lyn. At the start of the interview I produced a audio recording equipment and asked the permission to to make audio record of the interview which was not granted on the basis that it was to be private. As As I did not have intention to converse with Mrs Lyn privately, I ignored her request to stop recording. In her turn, Mrs Lyn declared that nobody would talk to me at the center, stopped conversing with me without giving any instruction as to the date of my next signing. She just ignored me. I went to the ground floor asking for advice which was not given. Then I called to the Jobcenter's Plus Customer Service and explained the situation to Mrs Lisa. During the conversation I was told that there were no indication on the computert that I was on New Deal programme at all. The call to Glasgo had not produced any result either as I was directed back to the kentish town jobcenter. I had nothing to do but to leave the jobcenter expecting that the instructions would arrive by post. As by Friday , 4th April 2008 no letter arrived from the jobcenter, at 1.20 p.m. I called the jobcenter to ask what is going on. During the conversation with Mr Carl I was told that I had had to sign at 11 am that day, and that I had to come to the jobcenter as soon as possible to sign at Desk 2 on the ground floor. Having arrived by around 2 pm at the desk 2, I handed my book to an adviser who looked at the computer screen and asked me to wait for a couple of minutes. Then she went to look for my file. after returning back, she told me that I should go to the second floor, to the New Deal office. In this respect, may I ask you to reply the following questions:
7.1. Why there exist discrepancy between the records held on computer database and actual state of matters related to my case?
7.2. In view of the discrepancy I referred to in 7.1, what legislation and what regulations determine whether I actually was or was not placed on the New Deal option?
7.3. What legislation regulates using audio recording equipment during the interviews conducted by the employment officers with jobseekers?
7.4. Why I did not get the letter with appointment to see the manager which Mrs Gloria had referred to?
8.Why the letter which I received from the London DMA office dated as 16th April 2008 was not signed whereas a signature was requested from me?
8.1. All letters which I received from London DMA, namely dated as 26 February, 3d of March, 4th of March, 10th of April, 16th of April 2008 were not signed whereas they requested my signature. Should I understand that this state of matters is created on purpose to show superiority of the London DMA in respect to my person and to produce a subtle degrading effect on my personality?
8.1(i).What are the reasons for the letter dated as 16th of April 2008 from London DMA office having reference number which is invalid and for the letter being not signed ?
8.1(ii). Is the letter referred to in the section 8.1(i) genuine or it is a forgery and a part of a psychological war waged against me by Kentish Town jobcenter or by other organization which masterminded the jobcenter's actions against me?
8.2. The letter referred to in section 8.1(i) posed a question which I already replied on the 7th of March 2008. Therefore, I may conclude that my answer was not read by London DMA. Should I understand that posing the same question without reading the answers is a deliberately designed method of interrogation aiming at psychological breakdown of the victim?
9. The policy of asking the same question without reading the answers to them is also evident in other letters produced by London DMA. Thus, in my report presented on 29th January 2008 I explaind my motives which compelled me to turn down the offer to sign the Beneficiary Declaration. I have never received any response to my accont for the reasons, but I received the order to produce the same account in the letter dated as 4th March 2008. Did you ever read my answers?
10. As by Tuesday, 8th of April 2008, I had not received my JSA due, I called Glasgo Benefit Center at 13.00 to find out what went wrong. I was told tat my benefit was stopped. I have not received any notification about this as it turned out that the relevant letter was sent to a wrong address, and it finally reached me by 22d of April 2008. After my call top Glasgow, I telephoned to the Kentish Town an spoken to Mrs Marian. During the conversation, I asked Mrs Marian for the reasons of my benefit cancellation and sending it to a wrong address. Mrs Marian started to ask me persistently to repeat what I was saying. When I asked why was that, she told that she did not understand my English. When in reply I remarked this was probably because English is not her mother tongue, I was asked why I was so rude. Just before my conversation with Mrs Marian, I had been conversing over telephone with a number of people, par instance, from Glasgo Benefit Center, from the Institute of Engineering and Technology, and from the Law Express Ltd and in person with a number of people at Totenham Court jobcente without any difficulty. In this respect I should note that it was not on one occasion when staff of Kentish Town jobcenter responded to the question which they did not like by asking: 'Why you are so rude?'
10.1(i). Does the policy of replying 'Why are you so rude?' to the unfavoured questions form a part of the psychological machinery available to the Kentish Town jobcenter's staff to manage jobseekers?
10.1(ii). Is the policy of repeated questioning and 'not understanding' a part of the psychological training of the staff also?
10.1.(iii). In respect with the questions 10.1(i) - 10.1(iii), where were the staff trained to use the tools?
10.2(i). The decision to disqualify me from receiving JSA was taken on 14 March 2008. I attended the Center on 26 March, 31 March and 4 April 2008, but I was never informed as to the decision taken. Can you give the reasons for that?
10.2(ii). The letter informing me of the decision taken was directed to the wrong address, whereas all letters which requested explanations and posed questions wre addressed to my valid address. How you could explain the fact of sending the letter with an important decision to a wrong address?
10.3. On Tuesday, 6th of March 2008, I received a letter dated as 22 April 2008 where the jobcenter informed me that i am disqualified from receiving JSA with effect from 12 April 2008. The letter again was sent to a wrong address.
10.3(i). What is the reason for ten days delay between issuing the letter and the date when sanctions were due to be in effect?
10.3(ii). What is the reason for directing the letter again to a wrong address, as it has already been done with the letter dated 14th March 2008?
10.4(i). As the time span for appealing against the jobcenter’s decision is established to be one month time since the date when the letter was issued, should I undestand that repeatedly sending the letters with jobcenter’s decisions to a wrong address is indicative of the decision makers intention to deprive me from lodging an appeal against the decision?
10.4(ii). Should I interpret repeated sending of the decisions to a wrong address as an indication of the biased attitude of the decision maker towards my person and as an indication of the unfair treatment which I received from the decision maker?
10.4(iii). Should I understand that so frivolous handling of my case by the jobcenter's staff with respect to informing me about disqualifying me for JSA is indicative of the case being staged on purpose?
10.4(iv). If the answer to the question 10.3(iii) is in positive, what are your reasons to believe that I could have got fair treatment of my appeal had I chosen to appeal against your decision instead of filing the case with the Administrative Court of Justice?
11. The letter dated as 14 march 2008 informed me of being disqualified for the purpose of receiving JSA altogether from 15 march 2008. Nevertheless, i received a letter dated as 16 April 2008 from London DMA requesting me to explain why I failed to attend the new Deal provision on 25 January 2008. Why the action of imposing the sanctions was taken without the DMA receiving all relevant information, as the letter indicates?
12. The letter dated as 14 march 2008 disqualified me from getting JSA on the basis of my alleged failure ‘to attend a place on an employment programme’. Nevertheless, in the letter dated as 4 March 2008 from London DMA office, I was asked: ‘...why you would refuse to sign the form and agree to the compulsory nature of the programme when you have already accepted this by attending the programme on 28.01.08’.
Could you please explain, why, for one purpose, I am treated as a person who attended the employment programme and, for another one, as a person who failed to attend an employment programme?
12.1. Do you agree that the sanctions imposed on me in the letter dated as 14 March 2008 are based on the fact for which there is no evidence?
12.2. Do you agree that the actions of Kentish town jobcenter which imposed sanctions upon me are illegal and irrational?
12.3. Do you agree that Kentish Town jobcenter subjected me to a specially designed by professionals psychological covert operation to degrade me and to inflict damages to my personality?
12.4. If the answer to the question 12.3 is in positive, who guided the Jobcenter in the conducting the psychological operation against me?
13. Could you please explain how statistics about long term unemployed is collated at the Jobcenter?
13.1. Could you please indicate how participation in the New Deal Employment scheme affects the above statistics? In particular, if a person starts A4e provision, is he or she still included in the statistical data on long term unemployed in the same manner as it was the case before he or she started the provision?
Sincerely yours
Alexander Sobko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)