Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To think my relative should complain about this job centre adviser?

60 replies

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 21:46

I am asking this on behalf of said family member who is very upset and is at a loss as to what to do. Tbh I don't really know what to do either, I think it might be worth it to complain but am not really sure if we're overreacting.

Basically up until recently she has worked full time. The company she works for is having financial difficulty right now and everyone's hours have been cut, including hers and she now only works 4-8 hours a week which is obviously not enough to live on. So she has applied for job seekers allowance.

She had an interview at the job centre about a month ago and was told she had to sign up for universal job match however she was told that she didn't have to allow them access. So she signed up but didn't allow them access. Two weeks ago she went to sign on and was seen by a different member of staff who told her that she'd try to view her universal job match account but she hadn't allowed them access. Again she was told this was fine and she didn't have to.

Fast forward ahead to yesterday when she went to sign on again. She said that she arrived ten minutes early but was kept waiting for 40 minutes. Then two members of staff approached her (again two different ones to the ones she had seen previously) and they told her as she hadn't allowed them access she would have to log on to a computer now and she them her account. One of them then wandered off and the other tried to log her on.

However as she didn't have her log in details, the adviser who had wandered off then came back over, asking if there was a problem. Relative then explained that she didn't have her log in details as she wasn't aware she would need them.

At this point she says the adviser then turned really nasty and told her that she wouldn't allow her to sign on as she couldn't give them access. She was then told that she would have to go home and allow them access and come back later. However she had to go to work later but when she explained this her adviser then started interrogating her about that, saying she thought she only worked one day a week, she should bring her rota in from work to prove she's telling the truth, etc.

The adviser then made an appointment for her to come back on Monday to sign but before she left apparently told her that she just allow her access like everyone else has to do.

Anyway said friend is very upset and said she felt really got it and felt like the adviser was accusing her of being a liar and treated her like shit on the bottom of her shoe. She now doesn't want to go back and wants to try and live off her 4-8 hours a week wage (and I have no idea how this is even possible).

WIBU to complain? Both about this adviser and the fact she has been told contradictory things?

OP posts:

Charis1 · 20/06/2015 22:17

It's silly not to allow access to universal job match. It just obstructive and uncooperative. She has to prove every job she has applied for anyway, why would she not do it just by allowing access? And it is equally clear that she needs to provide proof of the hours he is working, and her pay. It sounds like she is either trying to hide something, or just hasn't thought things through and is making heavy weather of the whole process.

ilovesooty · 20/06/2015 22:18

Fair enough Jengnr and I've worked with some advisors who operated as you do. I've also experienced on behalf of my clients many who've been threatened with sanctions for not setting up UJM accounts and using them to evidence compliance.

Jengnr · 20/06/2015 22:19

And that definitely ought to be complained about.

The first ones were right, she doesn't have to allow access, it's just easier if she does so people put pressure on.

If she had other evidence of jobsearch she should complain about being made to come back. Get her to ask to see the manager on Monday because delaying signing will delay her payment through no fault of her own.

Jengnr · 20/06/2015 22:20

That's why the complaints need to be made Ilovesooty because they aren't enforceable and people need to learn that. I hate bully boy tactics, you catch more flies with honey and vinegar imo.

Jengnr · 20/06/2015 22:21

*THAN vinegar. :)

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 22:23

Read the thread Charis1. She has no problem with allowing them access to her account and she has done so now! That is not the issue.

She has also taken in proof of how much she is earning by sending her payslips in. Which she says were photocopied and sent to head office.

Again that is not the issue. It was the way she was spoken to like she was a piece of crap and interrogated like she was lying.

Surely the advisers can just explain these things nicely and explain why they are this way? There's no need to act like a twat.

OP posts:

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 22:24

Ha ha it's okay sharon .

OP posts:

Charis1 · 20/06/2015 22:25

I read the thread, for weeks she hasn't allowed access! ridiculous! She attended without her log in details! I'm surprised she didn't run into trouble earlier.

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 22:25

I mean is it wrong to expect people to treat other people with respect? If someone doesn't understand something or is doing something wrong then you explain nicely. You don't have to be nasty, surely?

OP posts:

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 22:29

Charis1 clearly you haven't read the thread. Again, she was told that she didn't have to allow them access and it wouldn't be a problem if she didn't. She was just told as long as she printed her evidence out it would be fine (which she did).

If you'd bothered to read the thread you would see that she doesn't have a problem with allowing them access and has done so now.

OP posts:

Charis1 · 20/06/2015 22:32

i have read the thread, she was acting lie a complete doughnut, I don't know what she thought was going to happen...... Still, glad she has given access now.

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 22:33

Just to clarify she did have a printout of her job application on universal job match so I don't know why they couldn't just look at that? Surely they'd be the same?

OP posts:

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 22:38

Charis1, again she was told that she didn't have to allow access and was told it wouldn't matter if she didn't. As long as she took printouts of her history (which she did) it would be fine. What part of that don't you understand?

She has been signing on for less than a month and this is the first time she's ever had to claim so I'll apologise on her behalf for not knowing everything about JSA . I mean, how stupid of her to take the advice of the previous two advisers who told her she didn't have to allow access .

OP posts:

Loletta · 20/06/2015 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 22:50

I also think you're missing the point a bit Charis. She's not upset about the fact she had to provide access or provide evidence, she was upset about both being giving conflicting information from different advisers and how the adviser spoke to her.

All she had to do was do something like Loletta suggested.

OP posts:

StrawberryCheese · 20/06/2015 22:56

I was only told that I had to tick a box on the website to allow the advisors access to my account about 4 weeks after it being set up. Wouldn't have known I needed to do it before then as they never mentioned it. I have been given conflicting information too, it seems that each advisor have their own way of doing things.

I sympathise with your relative though, I've never been expected to log on to the website whilst there and I wouldn't have had my login details either if this had happened. I would put in a complaint.

beavington · 20/06/2015 22:57

charis it is clear from the OP that the claimant believed that print offs and a completed paper diary would be satisfactory evidence as that was what she was advised on two occasions.

Why don't you expand on how she was behaving like a complete donut?

FrizzyPig · 20/06/2015 22:58

Please complain about the way she was spoken to.

I doubt it would have any effect as it seems like being an absolute pig is one of the essential qualities of a job centre employee.

But you never know, someone somewhere might care enough to train their staff to treat the people they deal with like actual human beings.

I think they treat people this way on purpose so that they stop claiming and unemployment figures go down.

MayPolist · 20/06/2015 23:02

oh come on Op, drop the pretence.It is you!! First you say it's a family member , and then you say it's a friend!!

Original poster

ThisIsAPissTake · 20/06/2015 23:07

Nope, not me. I have a full time job and am not at risk of losing it or having my hours reduced any time soon (touch wood).

She's my cousin but we've always been close. So I guess she's both my relative and my friend?

OP posts:

PeppermintCrayon · 22/06/2015 08:57

She should have had her login details.

I get why she's upset but there needs to be some lowering of expectations sadly. Conflicting advice from DWP workers isn't exactly unusual.

wigglylines · 22/06/2015 09:04

The way they are treating her is sadly pretty normal now and is a ploy to get her to sign off. If she does she us doing what they want.

I am not being paranoid here - there was a whistle blower recently who said under the new government is that staff are rewarded for sanctioning people (cutting off their money because they haven't complied with conditions) and that a culture exists of setting people up to fail and tricking them into impossible positions so they will get sanctioned.

eg giving written tasks to dyslexic people as part of their job search, changing appointment dates and sending letters out about the change that were too late, sanctioning people for missing signing on when they had already told them they were at an interview, or a funeral.

I will try to find the link.

Jengnr · 22/06/2015 09:09

Staff aren't rewarded for any of that stuff wigglylines. It's bollocks.

There is a lot of pressure to send things to decision makers however and some people just enjoy it.

Jengnr · 22/06/2015 09:11

Rewarding staff would go against the entire ethos of this government. We're treated with almost as much contempt as the customers.

wigglylines · 22/06/2015 09:11

Here's the link about whistleblowing. Sorry rewarded was indeed the wrong word, typing in a hurry. What I should have said is the whistleblowers are saying there are targets and people are being grossly unfairly treated. See the link below for examples.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/01/jobcentres-tricking-people-benefit-sanctions

Flip

1 2 3