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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)