× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

UC and Universal Jobmatch - ‘you must register’

 1 2 > 

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Via a FoI request I have obtained a screen-shot of the UC online claim page that tells claimants that in order to prepare for their UC interview:

You must:

Make sure you have the right documents to take with you

Register on Universal Jobmatch

Update your CV using Universal Jobmatch

Start keeping a record of everything you do to find work

- I have queried the ‘must’ in relation to registering with UJ and using UJ to update CVs. That makes it sound compulsory. I’ve asked for the Regs that make it compulsory and/or forbid any other form of job search or CV preparation.

 

 

Pete C
forum member

Pete at CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 556

Joined: 18 June 2010

Not really a UC matter but I have recently had an enquiry about the same subject from a gent who was applying for JSA while his ESA Recon was going on. As I understand it he was told by JC+ that he had to set up an email address and when he said he didn’t have computer and did not want to use one they seem to have said that he couldn’t therefore have any JSA. As far as I can see there is nothing in the JSA regs that says that someone has to look for work in any specific way, the regs only give examples of what sort of things should be done, not how the person should do them. I’m rather concerned about the position that digital is the only way, it isn’t particularly cheap to get a laptop and an internet subscription and many people are either scared, unable or unwilling to use computers.  It seems an active discrimination if they were automatically excluded from JSA or UC because of this

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

I have a client on a JSA sanction for not checking his UJ. He has no home internet and is reliant on local librarby and People Plus office. At the time in question he was on a 9-5 work placement which meant he was unable to access computer facilities because the offices he uses were closed by the time he left work.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

DWP reply to further query and my further reply:

ME:
The page states that in order to prepare for an interview, the claimant ‘must’ register with
Universal Jobmatch and update their CV using universal Jobmatch.
This implies that these actions are compulsory and that alternative job-search and CV
preparation are excluded.
I would be obliged if you could quote the relevant Regulations that make these actions
compulsory and which exclude alternatives.


DWP:
Section 16 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 specifies what the Secretary of State (SoS) may require a claimant to do as work preparation activities when they fall under section 21 of that Act (claimants subject to work preparation requirements). That is, they are in the:
• All Work Related Requirement Activity Group or
• Work Preparation Group.

The SoS may require the claimant to undertake any activity that will, in the opinion of the SoS, make it more likely that the claimant will find work, more work or better work.
A claimant is notified of these requirements on their Claimant Commitment, as required by section 24 of the Act, and the consequences of failing to undertake the actions are detailed in section 27 (other sanctions) and the UC regulations 2013 (regulation 104).
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely,
DWP Strategy FoI Team
Dear DWP Strategy Freedom of Information,

ME:Thank you for your reply.

I cannot say that it satisfies me at all - I don’t think that the Regulations quoted can justify compulsion to sign up to Universal Jobmatch as a step of what is the initial application for UC.

At this point the claimant is surely not in any work-related group, and they do not have a Claimant Commitment. When the CC is discussed, they at least have the chance to object if the action they are being asked to take is not reasonable in their case. This step allows no such objection.

Surely the application for UC should say that it is advisable to start recording job-search activities and should make suggestions, not push people in one direction; at the moment it makes Universal Jobmatch the only route (apparently) allowed, and that is surely not correct.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

The latest, set out below.: as far as I can see this is a completely unhelpful answer as they are addressing requiring someone to sign up to UJM when seen by a work coach - I am referring to the online claim which railroads people in to using UJM as soon as they have completed the UC claim. I don’t think the Regs allow for this. Thoughts?

I am writing in response to your review request received on 14 October 2015. An internal
review has been carried out by someone of a senior grade to the person who dealt with your original request. I am now in a position to respond to you. In your review request you said:

“I cannot say that it satisfies me at all - I don’t think that the Regulations quoted can justify
compulsion to sign up to Universal Jobmatch as a step of what is the initial application for UC.

At this point the claimant is surely not in any work-related group, and they do not have a
Claimant Commitment. When the CC is discussed, they at least have the chance to object if
the action they are being asked to take is not reasonable in their case. This step allows no such objection.

Surely the application for UC should say that it is advisable to start recording job-search
activities and should make suggestions, not push people in one direction; at the moment it makes Universal Jobmatch the only route (apparently) allowed, and that is surely not correct.”

As a result of this review, I can advise that I find the original decision to be partly correct. Your
request for review is therefore partially upheld. The reasoning behind this decision is as
follows:

You asked for the Regulations which allow DWP to require someone claiming Universal Credit to register with Universal Jobmatch. This request is exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act because the Regulations are reasonably accessible to you, as they are already in the public domain. However, to be helpful to you, the respondent provided you with the information which allows mandatory registration with Universal Jobmatch.

In relation to the questions you pose as part of your request for internal review, the Freedom of Information Act gives any person legal right of access to any and all recorded information which is held by a public authority. The Act does not require the Department to provide opinions or explanations, generate answers to questions, or create or obtain information it does not hold. In cases where a person asks a question, rather than requests recorded information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best answers the question. Once the public authority has provided the recorded information, it has met its obligations under the Act; interpretation of the information provided is left to the requestor.

In cases where a customer does ask a question, rather than request recorded information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best answers the question. Once the public authority has provided the recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it has met its obligations under the Act.
Following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested as part of the internal review is not held.

In order to be helpful, I will explain the circumstances in which a Universal Credit claimant may be required to register with Universal Jobmatch.
For those claimants who are expected to look for work, Universal Jobmatch is a good way of searching, applying for and being matched to suitable jobs. The Work Services Coach (WSC) will take into account all of the claimant’s circumstances to determine if it is reasonable to expect them to create a profile and CV in Universal Jobmatch. When considering the claimant’s circumstances, the WSC establishes if they’re not reasonably able to use the service, for example:
• the claimant has a learning or other health-related condition
• their second language is English
• they lack literacy and/or numeracy skills
• they have no reasonable access to their own computer/device (for example, because
they do not readily have access to such a device and they cannot access an alternative
internet access device in their area)

The WSC explores all available access options before deciding that a claimant should not be required to use on-line work search. For example, taking into account whether the claimant can reasonably access a DWP Internet Access Device (IAD). Where it is considered reasonable but the claimant will not do so willingly, the WSC may require the claimant to create a profile and public CV in Universal Jobmatch. This requirement will be recorded in the Claimant Commitment.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number
above.
Yours sincerely,
DWP Strategy FoI Team

barbs1000
forum member

Hertfordshire Money Advice Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 33

Joined: 31 January 2014

Andy, saw a demo of a digital claim at an event yesterday and there was no mention of registering with job match (unless it was in the small print of the screen agreeing to a claimant commitmentwhich we didnt get a detailed look at). Has your FOI request made them think again?

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Hi - I shouldn’t think so for a minute! The offending part is after the claimant has submitted the UC claim, a page in itself, advising the the claimant what to do next and saying they must register with UJM - not that it may be a good idea, but that they must. I think DWP’s reply above does not answer the question as it diverts the subject to what happens when the claimant sees a Work Coach, and that is not my point of course.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I wonder about an FOI asking about the number of vacancies filled from adverts on UJM? If they hold that data then it would cast light on whether it does enhance prospects of work in all cases. If they do not then they have no evidence base for claiming it as an activity that must be undertaken for the reasons described above.

My guess is that, as this is a government interested in cost cutting and shrinking government is that they absolutely won’t have that data. 

My understanding is that UJM and all this nonsense simply gives JC+ staff the easiest way to deduce whether someone has fulfilled their quota.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

A further thought on this. I just looked at UJM’s jobs for today’s date. They consist in the vast majority of jobs originally advertised on other job-search sites. There seems to be very little content that is not lifted from someone else. So what is UJM for?

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

It’s advantage is who runs it and the ability to monitor that, albeit with some chicanery around asking people for their logins etc. If I sign up for one of the other agencies that’s all well and good but their staff are not familair with them all and could easily misunderstand what has and has not been done. It would also require some rigour on the part of the claimant and their adviser. Nobody wants that, apparently!

Is that tactful enough?

One of the terrifying things with UJM is the lack of transparency over things like cookies and monitoring etc. So, not only can DWP see what I’ve applied for they can potentially see where I was when I applied for it and so on. They can also potentially see what else I was doing at the time. Nobody seems to be asking that question as yet?

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1995

Joined: 16 June 2010

There was a big piece of research about two years which looked at state-run job search services across Europe.

It found that in every country they were rated very poorly by both employers and jobseekers. This was largely because employers didn’t put decent jobs on them because they didn’t have the quality of jobseekers that were wanted and jobseekers rated them poorly because the quality of jobs was very low.

That translated into the only users being there because they had to be.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

reply to my latest FoI sally; note that they cannot require people to sign up for UJM at the point of claim, and yet they are doing so.

Dear Andrew Dutton,
I am writing in response to your review request received on 23 November 2015. An internal review has been carried out by someone of a senior grade to the person who dealt with your original request. I am now in a position to respond to you. In your review request you said:

“You have directed your points to the stage at which the claimant sees a Work Coach. I am saying that you are effectively forcing UC claimants to go to UJM at the point of claim BEFORE they see a Work Coach. I do not think that Regulations exist requiring this to be done. If they exist, please direct me to them. UJM seems mainly to recycle job listings from other websites and has little content of its own. It has received an award as the worst job listings site on the web. Claimants would be far better served by being given a list of the available sites to choose from. To oblige claimants to go to UJM as their first port of call seems to do very little to help them.”

As a result of this review I find that the original decision was not correct and as such your request for review is upheld.

I confirm that the Department holds no recorded information to answer your request. The reasoning behind this is that legislation, including Regulations, do not require a claimant to register with Universal Jobmatch at the point of making a claim for Universal Credit.

However, to be helpful the respondent did provide you with information that set out the
circumstances under which a Universal Credit claimant may be required to register with
Universal Jobmatch. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the
Freedom of Information regime.

Your request makes a series of statements that invites the Department to enter into a
discussion with you about a policy matter which would require new information to be
generated. As the information you seek is not held by the Department we will not be
processing this aspect of your request further. (....)

juliedbradford
forum member

Bradford CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 3

Joined: 10 June 2014

I have a JSA client who has been sanctioned after being told that it was “mandatory” to register on Universal Jobmatch even though she challenged this with the “Work Coach” downloading legislation which was ignored.  My client refused on the grounds of the fact it is an unsafe system and issues relating to civil rights. 

If it is not mandatory and it seems it is not, but people are still being sanctioned for refusing even as in the case of my client who provided plenty of evidence of what she was doing to find work, when is something going to be done to ensure that the JCP staff understand that claimants have rights in this respect.  Surely no one without consent should have to put information about them self on any internet based site?


Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

I think someone can be mandated to use UJM via a Jobseeker’s Direction, but the Direction has to be reasonable. I can’t see that a specific demand to use UJM can be reasonable, as the site is so poor and its rivals so much better.

The claimant can’t be forced to allow JC+ access to their UJM account but cases are popping up where staff are still demanding this in spite of guidance telling them they can’t..

I have been seen a couple of cases in which claimants were sanctioned for not applying for posts advertised on UJM but JC+ was completely unable to produce the alleged adverts as evidence.

I think sanctions generally are being imposed often for very tenuous reasons (almost as if there are JC+ targets, but of course there aren’t) and DWP is relying upon people not challenging the decision, or on them giving up on any challenge because the process is so opaque and drawn-out. Sanctions decisions that I have seen contain no details at all, no statement of facts, no background, just a bald statement that the claimant has failed to be available (or whatever) and that is it.

I suspect this will worsen under UC.

I pointed out to DWP (point ignored) that in 2013 UJM won the one-off ‘Wooden NORA’ as the worst job-search site on the web, and that it has a generally abysmal reputation.

It will be interesting to watch what happens when the UJM contract comes to an end next year. Will it be quietly dropped?

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Point of interest: I’ve looked up today’s jobs on UJM. The vast majority are from ‘CV Library’, which is a job-search web site.

UJM has little or no content of its own; it is redundant.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Follow-up exercise: today there are 40 pages of jobs - the vast majority are culled from ‘Workcircle’ - a jobs web site.  I’m getting cases of sanctions for not using UJM - but if the content is all on other sites, as long as the claimant has checked other sites and recorded their searches, surely this renders UJM useless and any JC+ demands that claimants should use it are completely unreasonable?

Carol Laidlaw
forum member

Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 68

Joined: 20 June 2013

Most of these questions can be answered by looking at the Boycott Workfare website and the Whatdotheyknow website, which publishes answers to previous FoI requests, including ones relating to the DWP and benefits. I was at a welfare rights meeting in Manchester last year, at which we had two senior DWP officials who confirmed that registering for UJM is not compulsory under any benefit regulations, and job centre staff have no right to insist on being given access to any claimant’s UJM account. They could not explain why so many job centre staff then do this! Myself, I advise clients who are about to sign on for JSA or UC that they should not allow access to their UJM account because it is not compulsory and without it, the job centre staff have to take their word for it that they have done the 35 hours work search (a piece of pure harassment, it takes 21-24 hours per week to cover all possible job search activities, depending on number of vacancies, length of the person spec and application form, and whether you get offered any interviews that week. I should know.) I also advise them to register for two or three other, better websites in addition and insist these are included in the jobseekers agreement or claimant commitment, because UJM is so dire. I have noticed it regularly advertises jobs but gives no information on how to actually apply, or directs you to go to the website it pinched the advert from in the first place! But it has been some time since I have seen any UJM adverts that clearly involve money laundering or becoming a James Bond-style government assassin, so maybe UJM is improving?

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/Account/StandardsOfBehaviour.aspx

“10. Viruses, hacking and other offences.

10.1 Our Site must not be misused by knowingly introducing viruses, trojans, worms, logic bombs or other material which is malicious or technologically harmful. Attempts should not be made to gain unauthorised access to our Site, the server on which our Site is stored or any server, computer or database connected to our Site. Our Site must not be attacked via a denial-of-service attack or a distributed denial-of-service attack.

10.2 By acting contrary to the above, you would commit a criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. We will report any such breach to the relevant law enforcement authorities and we will co-operate with those authorities by disclosing your identity to them.”

Anyone seen a single accusation of a criminal offence? Any of the commonly reported breaches reported?

 

Martin Williams
forum member

Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London

Send message

Total Posts: 769

Joined: 16 June 2010

One other nice point about allowing them to access your UJM account is that when you fail to sign on and fail to make contact within 5 days, then the end date is set by (for JSA purposes) Reg 26 JSA Regs.

Simplifying, it is the earlier of:

1. Day on which you should have signed on; or

2. Last day in respect of which you have given evidence that the conditions are met (eg proved actively seeking work etc).

Arguably, your UJM account provides such evidence and so your JSA should only end from the date you failed to sign on.

—————
On another note, I have come across claimants with learning difficulties whose jobsearch was being done by a 13 year old.

On yet another note, I can’t really see that for most claimants then using UJM is actually taking the steps which are most likely to lead to them obtaining employment (ie they could more usefully do something else and hence arguably wouldn’t count as actively seeking work).

But none of this seems to trouble your average DM.

Carol Laidlaw
forum member

Oldham Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 68

Joined: 20 June 2013

Mike Hughes - 04 February 2016 02:51 PM

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/Account/StandardsOfBehaviour.aspx

“10. Viruses, hacking and other offences.

10.1 Our Site must not be misused by knowingly introducing viruses, trojans, worms, logic bombs or other material which is malicious or technologically harmful. Attempts should not be made to gain unauthorised access to our Site, the server on which our Site is stored or any server, computer or database connected to our Site. Our Site must not be attacked via a denial-of-service attack or a distributed denial-of-service attack.

10.2 By acting contrary to the above, you would commit a criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. We will report any such breach to the relevant law enforcement authorities and we will co-operate with those authorities by disclosing your identity to them.”

Anyone seen a single accusation of a criminal offence? Any of the commonly reported breaches reported?

I have not heard about any breaches such as you describe here. I think the main problem with UJM is that the DWP makes it easy for employers to post vacancies on it, their stated intention was to attract as many as possible. But in doing so, they made it too easy to post vacancies with inadequate details and for pranksters to post fake adverts. They don’t seem to have monitored it closely enough either, thus allowing employers to place adverts for jobs in the sex industry (lap dancers, for instance), which is against job centre policy. I have myself come across a suspicious advert a couple of years ago, which required the applicant to collect cash from a premises they were directed to, put it into their own bank account for a certain number of days, then draw it out and take it to another premises they were directed to. Their pay would be ten per cent of the cash so delivered. If that wasn’t another spoof advert, then it sounded like a money laundering scheme. No, I didn’t report it. I didn’t think the job centre would be interested.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Whilst I believe UJM has the capacity for employers to post jobs onto it I think for the most part it is simply using a spider/crawler etc. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/spider) to harvest from a specified set of web sites. It only harvests what it sees. One would like to think that somewhere there was a human being filtering this stuff to ensure, as you say, that it doesn’t breach anything JC+ policy wise but, in effect, the DWP press office do that job and only when there has been some media involvement.

Little merit in reporting breaches etc. to your local JC+ as they won’t be interested but also lack the capacity to do anything about it (unless of course it were to transpire that it was someone in the local office who had posted something dodgy up).

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Update - 40 pages of jobs today, mostly from ‘Workcircle’ and a handful of other job websites. There are possibly fewer than 5 actual employers posting today . The spider/crawler thing appears to be about right.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

This was in the Mirror a couple of days ago:

Research shown to the Mirror suggests inappropriate or badly-written ads are still slipping through the net ...

A string of estate agent jobs in Dubai on the site claimed to be within 20 miles of Birkenhead ... 4,700 miles away.

Another ad, posted last week and left up until yesterday, wanted truck drivers “ASAP” for the six weeks leading up to Christmas ...

Cafe,s including in Bromley, Kent, and Burnley, Lancashire, advertised jobs starting at £5 an hour. That is despite 18-year-olds, the youngest people who can claim jobseeker’s allowance, having a minimum wage of £5.30

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dwps-universal-jobmatch-site-advertising-7404134

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Random check today - 40 pages of jobs, virtually none that are unique to UJM in any way, the vast majority skimmed from:

UK Recruitment
Thistle Recruitment
Workcircle

and a few from Monster UK, who run…. Universal Jobmatch!!!

Other than as a means of monitoring claimants so that they may more easily be sanctioned, what actual function does this site have….?

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I’m beginning to think you’re just looking for a job Andrew 😊

Anyway, I think you may have answered your own question. Monitor -> sanction. Tell MPs “we have knowledge and control” when they have neither.

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Annnnd today’s random check..it’s chiefly stuff lifted from ‘Workcircle’ and Monster.

And (pace Mike!) I still can’t find a job - it sure as heck it won’t be with the DWP if their spybots have been looking at this thread

This does concern me gravely; I’m seeing an increasing number of sanctions for not using UJM, but it for all DWP’s claims it is a system singularly bereft of merit.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

If you were a jobseeker/claimant they’d just say you haven’t been looking frequently enough 😊

Andrew Dutton
forum member

Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1955

Joined: 12 October 2012

Dear Mr Dutton,
 
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 09/05/2016.
You asked: -
 
“… how many job vacancies advertised on Universal Jobmatch in the last 12
months have been posted directly to UJM by employers, rather than being
vacancies gathered by UJM from other sites.”

And,
 
“What is the method used for gathering vacancies from other sites? Are
they checked in any way before being placed on UJM?”

Within our records it is not possible to distinguish between users who
register to upload vacancies to Universal Jobmatch, as all users are
considered to be an employer (please note, this covers employers,
employment agencies and jobs board). As such, the Department does not hold
the information you have requested.
 
Universal Jobmatch was designed to be used by employers and jobseekers on
a self-service basis. DWP does not use Universal Jobmatch to gather
vacancies from other jobsites, employers are required to register through
the Government Gateway in order to place job adverts on Universal
Jobmatch.
 
While Universal Jobmatch is a self-service job posting and matching
service, all employers are subject to a number of checks, before their
vacancies are advertised. Further checks are conducted on individual job
adverts.
 
Alongside this, DWP has a robust complaints process in place to ensure
that jobs advertised through Universal Jobmatch are investigated. Users of
the site are also able to use the ‘Report this Job’ function. Where
appropriate, depending on the outcome of the investigation, service to the
employer may be permanently withdrawn.  Should service be removed, action
will be taken as appropriate to help ensure that this employer cannot use
the Universal Jobmatch service in the future.
 
If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the
reference number above.
 
 
Yours,
 
DWP Central FOI

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

If I’ve understood that correctly then they’re saying that they don’t crawl the net for jobs at all but employers have to register and upload their own jobs. Any failure to pull jobs down etc. is thus on the employer excepting the fact that DWP check employers as they register; do spot checks on individual jobs and check anything reported.

So, the next step would perhaps be to ask

- whether all employers are checked as they register.
- the numbers of jobs subject to random checks over the past x years and outcomes.
- the number of reports and outcomes.

Checks of the above sort could, if actually checks in any meaningful sense, only be done by human beings so there must be a staff resource dedicated to “this sort of thing” to paraphrase Father Ted. If there is a staff resource then it could surely not exist without its worth being measured.

Answers to the above should be most revealing on the “whether DWP give a damn” ometer!

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Universal Jobmatch website down at the moment and apparently not been working for the weekend.

Universal Jobmatch

Be prepared for the sanctions decisions in their thousands for not doing enough to seek work…..