Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Work Programme provider contact with Support Group clients
We managed to get a client with mental health problems into the Support Group from the WRAG recently. Whilst in the WRAG he was under a Work Programme Provider and having to meet with them as requested. Now that he is in the Support Group they are saying that they no longer have to call him in for meetings but they are ‘under a contractual obligation’ to maintain contact with the client and as such are telephoning him every 2 weeks. He has indicated he does not want the calls. Is there such a requirement?
Hope someone can clarify the situation. Many thanks.
I was told by Ingeus that there is nothing stopping anyone who is in the support group from actually looking for work, and this is borne out by the fact that we have permitted work available for folk in SG without it affecting ESA.
I was also told that once the DWP have referred a WRAG client then the work provider has a duty to “help” that person back into work, even if they get put in the support group at a later date, although compliance is voluntary.
This “Support” is available for 2 years
Same as Work focussed interviews being mandatory for carers on income support i suppose, even though no actual work related activity can be imposed.
This government is fanatical and obsessive about work. work for the sake of it. Hard working this or that, just for the sake of it. This is reflected in their welfare reform unfortunately.
In this particular case I believe that they can continue to call the client every 2 weeks, however if this is causing a deterioration of health his CPN or GP can write a letter telling the work provider to desist. That can do the trick.
If, however he / she just finds the calls annoying then i believe they still have the right to keep contacting your client for 2 years since referral
Now that he is in the Support Group they are saying that they no longer have to call him in for meetings but they are ‘under a contractual obligation’ to maintain contact with the client and as such are telephoning him every 2 weeks. He has indicated he does not want the calls. Is there such a requirement?
Hope someone can clarify the situation. Many thanks.
So the attitude is that any song and dance they put in a contract has some legal basis they are compelled to act on.
ESA Reg 62 allows SSWP to contract out the functions of Reg 54 (1). Reg 54 (1) says SSWP ‘may require a claimant who satisfies the requirements in paragraph (2) to take part in one or more work-focussed interviews’ but Reg 54 (2) (b) exempts those in the SG.
They cannot ‘require’ those in SG to engage in WFI’s but can’t see that anything in regs explicitly forbids them doing WFI’s with claimants in SG. I’ve had this issue with a claimant in SG who told the provider they didn’t want any WFIs. I rang the provider and told them it was harassment and asked the claimant to monitor the situation. As far as I’m aware they stopped.
I think the rationale behind these would be better served with WFHRAs but the WFHRA regs were revoked in 2011. I think those in SG were not required to do WFHRAs anyway but would make more sense to offer claimants in SG these than to harass with WFIs.
I tried to reply comprehensively earlier but the post didn’t post again.
Your client is ‘locked into’ the work programme for 104weeks and the WPP is obliged to offer support by the terms of the contract.
There’s tension between the WP and the legislation IMO as they don’t neatly fit into each other.
The contract notes that clients may move out of the area, move groups (JSA/WRAG/SG) or be detained at HM’s pleasure - The requirement of the WPP to Support in these circumstances is in the contract.
As is the requirement to modify how the WPP meets the contract.
There is a complaints process - you could go gung ho and lawyer up or telephone/write to the WPP and explain what the issues are.
One result I had was - that the WPP leaves the client (in SG) with minimal contact (you call us - we won’t call you) with an agreed date to complete a final exit interview/telephone call (104th week.) Subject to any CoC’s.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-programme-dwp-provider-guidance
My view is that initially a person in the support group should be offered work-related activity on a voluntary basis, as that has always been the policy intention.
However where a SG claimant has expressly asked not to be contacted further, a WRA provider is at risk of breaching the criminal law by continuing to do so (Roberts v Bank of Scotland) depending on the frequency of contact and the content of the calls. Any purported contractual duty to do so is irrelevant in terms of affecting the claimant’s rights, and would probably be unenforceable. Event if the calls do not amount to an offence, they might be ultra vires the Secretary of State’s powers if a SG claimant has refused an initial offer to participate - again a contract with a third party provider has no relevance to this.
My view is that initially a person in the support group should be offered work-related activity on a voluntary basis, as that has always been the policy intention.
However where a SG claimant has expressly asked not to be contacted further, a WRA provider is at risk of breaching the criminal law by continuing to do so (Roberts v Bank of Scotland) depending on the frequency of contact and the content of the calls. Any purported contractual duty to do so is irrelevant in terms of affecting the claimant’s rights, and would probably be unenforceable. Event if the calls do not amount to an offence, they might be ultra vires the Secretary of State’s powers if a SG claimant has refused an initial offer to participate - again a contract with a third party provider has no relevance to this.
Any tips on a method of resolving the problems?
Only what you already suggested I’m afraid.
you could go gung ho and lawyer up
I am a firm believer that the more people that do this, the quicker this ridiculous, discriminatory, punitve scheme will be replaced.
It’s also a good way of making sure WPPs play ball with you… Trust me, I know ;)
Block the telephone number?!
Reading through the poor factual content I think this case is either placement into the WP and repeated contact by the WPP or if it was ATOS, repeated contact to reassess.
Hard to explain how this could have gone so wrong for so long.
Had this last year; my client went from WRAG to SG by MR but was receiving daily requests to engage . He yelled at the advisor who stated “we have to invite you in” so I wrote a letter;
“I write on behalf of my client to request that you desist from all forms of contact including telephone, post, text message and email.
XXXXX was placed into the Support Group with a prognosis of 2 years from 201. He is not required to undertake work-related activity.
I today called the ESA Benefit Enquiry Line regarding this issue; they advised me that WPP should telephone the DWP to verify XXXXX ESA Support Group award.
I enclose the email which XXXX sent me, which should indicate the level of distress that your repeated contact is causing him.”
(The email was a rant from client about how it reminded him he can’t work etc)
CC’d the benefit centre and the WPP in. We received an apology and no further contact.
Reading through the poor factual content I think this case is either placement into the WP and repeated contact by the WPP or if it was ATOS, repeated contact to reassess.
Hard to explain how this could have gone so wrong for so long.
ATOS haven’t got any Work Programme contracts so they must have been trying to get her in to a WCA. Shame that nobody thought to send in a med10; that would have sorted it in short order.