Meeting with a compliance officer

It's been quite a while since my last post mainly because of flooding, I was without the internet for months but still had to pay for the bloody thing. I went back to the place regularly after the flooding to pick up my mail. One day I picked it up and noticed a letter from the DWP that was the first one I opened when I got back to the temporary accommodation, it was to attend their office for a bloody compliance interview, just a few days later, the wankers.
I could have cancelled but decided to try and make it there for the time on the letter 10am. I walked through the door at 10.02am and was told I had to go upstairs, I was absolutely knackered from getting there so I asked if there was a lift and they said no so I went up the stairs very slowly taking about 10 minutes to climb the 20 steps only for them to tell me it was downstairs I needed to be. I swore saying another fucking fuck up by the DWP and their Nazi's. The person stood there open mouthed and some security guard came up and said something I don't remember what but I had a right go at him before he backed down.
When I eventually got to see the compliance officer a good 25 to 30 minutes had passed and I wasn't in the mood for any shit from them.

He went through some crap them proceeded to say that between certain dates I had more than permitted in the bank. I proceeded to tell him that all I ever read on any crap they sent me was the appointment time or the amount of that years increase as that was always on the first page and any other pages were filed in the bin with the envelope. It was then that my phone wrung and I cancelled the call, at this point he must have suspected I was recording the interview because he turned all nice, like butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. Too late I had been recording before I got in the building for him to act all nice now. 

He proceeded to ask more questions and just got the same answers until I got fed up and shouted I have fucking answered that 3 times all fucking ready at which point he said he was just going to write his statement then read it back to me, he did just that but read it as he wrote it and I pulled him up a few times and made him put in the part about not knowing about the £6000 lower limit and skim reading for appointment dates and times or how much they had increased it that year. After he wrote it he asked me to sign it and I did putting 3 dots before my signature meaning it was signed under duress. I wonder why the DWP haven't got back to me yet maybe they know the three dots and are going to leave me alone, we will just have to wait and see has he said it would be 2 months before I heard and that time has passed. 
Come to think of it the cunt kept my appointment letter, never mind I can just ask for a copy if I need it I know how to ask them for stuff.

POLICE HARRASMENT

Tonight I answered the door because I thought my son had gone out without his keys only it wasn't him it was the police they wanted to come in and speak to me about an incident that happened weeks ago so I told the officer no and shut the door. The officer did not leave he kept knocking on the door and going to the communal flats entrance and pressing the buzzer, I just let the dogs bark because if I went to the door  again I would have killed him.
I consider the continuous knocking at the door  and ringing of the communal buzzer to be harassment because has soon as I declined the officers actions which was if he could come in so I asked what for then when he said I refused him entry because as soon as you let them in they have the power to arrest you, I know the dirty tricks they use and would advise anyone who opens the door to a police officer who asks if they can come in to ask why and what they want.
The think he had come about was something that happened about 6 weeks ago, and as soon as I closed the door on him he should have left not continually knock and ring the communal buzzer for 15 to 20 minutes in an attempt to get me back to the door.
As far as I remember the incident involved an altercation with another resident and dogs, the person made out I assaulted them, but that was after they made a remark about a disability so I have a counter claim of a disability hate crime been committed against me.
Along with the alleged assault was the point of not picking up after the dogs, one which will strongly be contested if it is pushed and the best of the lot is that they gave a list of streets that dogs must be kept on a lead and none of the areas I take the dogs is listed so I will ask any court to point out the streets on the list that relate to where I take the dogs and state that any area not on the list is not included and as a point of law cannot then be said to include surrounding areas, and if they then try and say such I will prosecute them the closest they get to the streets they are walked is around 200 to 300 meters from my home as none of the streets around my home are on the list, I know people will say dogs should be on a lead but it is like finding a loophole and using it and I believe I have found such a loophole that the council cannot get out of.

It will take amendments to by laws to put it right and until then I walk the dogs how I see fit.
I only made one mistake in that I didn't get the officers name and number but may put in a complaint against the police as by OFFICER OR OFFICERS UNKNOWN because once I refused them access they shouldn't have continued to knock at the door or ring the communal buzzer, knowing I wasn't going to answer the door.

Before I finish I will say I take medication that if provoked by anybody I do react and only today I had a go at someone who mentioned dogs on leads I got right in his face before he backed down. I nearly went to the door after 10 minutes or so and hit the officer but felt that knackered that I didn't otherwise there would have been an officer down.

FOI sanctions for not applying for enough jobs

In a twist of fate the DWP are reluctant to say how many jobs a claimant has to apply for so as not to be referred for a sanction. They decided to reply by saying the following

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 August 2015. I apologise for the delay in replying to you. You asked:   
Could you please provide me with the minimum number of jobs a claimant has to apply for in a 7 day period to avoid the risk of been referred for a sanction. 
It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in relation to issues/policies under question.  
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. Interpretation of any information provided is left to the requestor. 
We have understood your question to relate to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to whom the Jobseekers Act 1995 and Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 apply. As there is no legal requirement for JSA claimants to apply for a minimum number of jobs each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists. However, to be helpful you may find the following explanation useful about the entitlement condition for JSA claimants to actively seek work. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the Freedom of Information regime. 
In order to qualify for JSA, a person must be actively seeking work in each week of their claim. This means they are generally expected to do all they reasonably can each week to give them the best prospects of securing employment. The actions that it would be reasonable for the claimant to take will be personalised and tailored to the individual and will be specified on their JSA Claimant Commitment. 
Evidence shows that claimants who engage in active, effective and persistent jobsearch activity are more likely to find work quickly compared to those that don’t. Therefore, the expectation is that for most JSA claimants, looking for work will be a full time job in itself. Claimants are expected to spend several hours each day
looking for work, taking into account any restrictions applied to their availability. However, there is no `set’ time that a person must be engaged in looking for work whilst claiming JSA, rather it is a legal requirement for them to do all that is reasonable for them to do each week. 
If you have any queries about this letter please contact us quoting the reference number above.    Yours sincerely,   
DWP Central FoI Team  


They are clearly trying to say they are not an advice service, when they use so many varied reasons for applying a sanction, one of their excuses is not applying for enough jobs, all that was wanted was a clear guideline on how many jobs a person has to apply for between each signing on period, be it one a day or one per week.
The advisers clearly seem to think that it can vary from day to day and may refer a claimant for a sanction because they only applied for one job per week, while another adviser may refer a claimant for a sanction because they applied for five or ten jobs per week and simply say they are not doing enough to find work. I would have gone further on the request and asked then what details they refer to a decision maker with regards to a sanction referral, do they just put not applying for enough jobs when they refer it to a decision maker or do they actually say the claimant has applied for X number of jobs, something I think they do is the not applying for enough jobs and leave out any figures.

The DWP or JC+ should clearly have it in their rules that a person agrees to apply for a minimum of X job(s) per week and this should be information that can be freely given out to anybody who asks, but it appears the DWP are using the NOT AN INFORMATION SERVICE card to avoid giving out any official, or unofficial, directions of how many jobs a claimant has to apply for. It is my opinion they are lower than a rattlesnakes balls.

Pulling products and contracts

Tesco are pulling products off shelves their latest is Carlsberg lager they are soon going to be left with very few if any branded products. They have pulled products like schweppes, Ribena, just what is this organisation up too? It is my opinion that they will eventually get rid of just about every brand product and go down the ALDI/LIDL route, stocking the shelves with mainly own brand products from their value to the speciality range. They will try and squeeze the brand suppliers out of business, just like they did to local shops.

If the customers let them do this and brand names disappear from shelves then that will be it for the brand names and eventually Tesco, if they are allowed to get away with it, they are hoping to get the product from the makers at cost, or less,  if they don't comply then they are, IMHO, refusing to stock them.
They are effectively holding suppliers to ransom, telling them how much they want and how much they will pay then charging the customers top price, it is time the supermarkets were made to display how much they paid the manufacturer per unit, be it a can or tin, the only way suppliers can compete with demands from supermarkets is to pay the producers less per unit, just like they've done with milk, they pay less but expect the customer to pay the same or more. It's the same with other supermarkets with their 3 for £10 offers they still cost £10, take the cost of mince as an example the first time I bought it you 800g now you get 600g, that's 25% less for the same price and it's the same with all 3 for £10 offers meat cut thinner and less weight but the same number of items in the box but they weigh less.

Once one supermarket does it the others follow, it's the customers who hold the power when shopping not the supermarket, think about it for a minute, if you don't shop there they don't make the money and stuff is reduced because they cannot sell it.
The one thing that any supermarket hates is to see a potential customer go into the store and leave without making a purchase! They wiped out most of the local stores now they want to wipe out the branded product makers, well maybe not wipe them out, but hit them so hard they have no option but to get out by selling to the supermarkets at a low price, then after a while you see a store full of own brand products that creep up in price until they are charging the price that the brand product supplier wanted to charge in the first place. It's called wiping out the competition, they either submit and take the loss or go bust and the supermarket steps in and buys it for virtually nothing and uses the recipe to improve their own products. Once they have removed the competition they go on to increase the prices has they now hold the monopoly they have in all effect removed the premium brand suppliers and can steadily raise their own brand prices and the losers in all this are the low paid and benefit claimants who cannot afford the increased prices.

Scams pulled by supermarkets

I have just come back from shopping and noticed a special offer on a cleaning product, the product was FLASH MULTI SURFACE CONCENTRATED CLEANER 400ml the original price was £2.05, but reduced to 96p.
There was two fragrances on the shelf CRISP LEMON and BLOSSOM & BREEZE I put the blossom & breeze into my basket and continued on round the corner where it was noticed that only the LEMON was 96p all the others were reduced to £1.17, 21p more and the original price for the other fragrances were marked at a full price of £2.49 (£1.17 reduced price).
I have known supermarkets reduce one product while at the same time increasing the same product because it is in a different container, or having the same product on sale at two different prices in the same store, how they do that when they use a bar-code is beyond me.
I wonder how many people just saw the 96p and thought they had the option of two fragrances when on closer inspection of the label it stated CRISP LEMON was the only fragrance on offer at 96p and all the others were 21p dearer. How many didn't even check the receipt after paying for the BLOSSOM & BREEZE fragrance, thinking they would be paying 96p but in fact paid £1.17.
Maybe this was a one off by an employee who just wanted to get the product on the shelf, but in my opinion it was a deliberate ploy to mislead the customer into thinking both the fragrances were on offer at 96p as the customer normally only sees the price not that it relates to just one fragrance.
I emailed the CEO of Morrison's to tell him exactly what I thought, lets see if he replies personally of sends it down the chain for one of his customer service staff to deal with.

Just over 2 years ago

Just over 2 years ago I picked an argument with the DWP, one they had no chance of winning.
They sent me an ESA50 (Employment And Support Allowance) form at the end of April 2013 but I had to hand I had a copy of the previous ESA72 which stated on page to that THEY WOULD CONTACT ME AGAIN ON OR AFTER a time in June, around the 20th, so I sent the ESA50 back blank along with a copy of the second page of the ESA72, and a letter of complaint, then 48 hours later I emailed the DWP with a letter of complaint and a copy of page 2 of the ESA72. About 2 weeks later received a letter from the DWP saying they had told ATOS to issue another ESA50, by the time it turned up I had all my answers written and all the supporting evidence prepared, I waited until they sent the reminder letter after 3 weeks to call them and say I needed more time, all delaying tactics as everything had been sitting ready to go for over two weeks, they gave another 14 days, taking the contact after over the date for returning the ESA50.

After I sent the ESA50 back I then got a letter off the DWP saying that they issued the ESA50 around 2 months before the date on the ESA72 so that the person would have an assessment on or about the date on the ESA72.
I did an email to the DWP saying that they were full of bullshit and I would go to court and page 2 of the ESA72 would be the only evidence I would produce. around the 30th July I got a ESA72 from the DWP saying they had placed me in WRAG, again, and page 2 said the same thing, WE WILL CONTACT YOU AGAIN ON OR AFTER 25/7/15 there was, of course the standard bullshit of they could contact sooner, so I sent another email to the DWP saying as the original ESA50 was received at the end of April please supply copy's of the evidence you had to contact me 2 months before the contact on or after date on the original ESA72 and I sent it as a subject access request, after 45 days I sent another email with the subject heading NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROSECUTE They replied to that within 4 days stating they could not find any evidence to send that would be necessary for me to be contacted sooner than the contact on or after date on the ESA72.
I intended to do a freedom of information request for a copy of the ESA72 in 2013 but totally forgot, when I did put in the request it was late 2014 and they had changed the ESA72 and removed the section about contacting ON OR AFTER, it is my opinion that after my threats to the DWP they shit a ton of bricks and reworded the ESA72 from April 2014. 

There are still signs on ESA85 reports that they are abusing their power and contacting some people early, and that is the ESA85 saying A RETURN TO WORK IN THE LONGER TERM IS NOT ADVISABLE, that normally means 2 years of ESA so even though an ESA72 doesn't state a contact date people on ESA could email the DWP and say that they have read the ESA85 and it advises THAT A RETURN TO WORK IN THE LONGER TERM IS NOT ADVISABLE so as according to their rules the LONGER TERM is usually 2 years you expect a reply of 2 years from the date on the ESA85 that the DWP decision maker has agreed with and you do not expect to be contacted until 2 years after the date on the report.

At the moment the DWP & MAXIMUS are in meltdown and assessment can be delayed by 12 months, or longer, I was looking forward to sending them another blank ESA50 and copy of the ESA 72 but my contact ON OR AFTER DATE has passed so I now leave it up to those with CONTACT ON OR AFTER DATES, which if I am right, could go into 2017, or at least the end of March 2016  to take what action they believe is right for them. 

The above story was told to me by another person, who said I could print it if I changed it to as if it was me that had gone through it so any DWP Muppet who thinks they can harass me by this been posted think again because it's not me personally who told this I am just the storyteller not the person who made the DWP and all the top Muppets shit bricks!   

 

The Budget 8/7/15

THE BUDGET, JULY 2015

“Taken together, all the welfare reforms I’ve announced will save £12 billion by 2019/20 and will be legislated for in the year ahead, starting in the ‘Welfare Reform and Work Bill’ that will be published tomorrow.”
SOCIAL HOUSING
Rents in social housing sector to be reduced by 1% a year for the next four years.
Social housing tenants who earn more than £40,000 in London or £30,000 outside london will be forced to pay the market rent for their home.
TAX CREDITS
Income threshold at which tax credits start to be withdrawn to be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850. The taper rate will be raised to 48%. Income rise disregard will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500.
Support from tax credits and universal credit will be limited to two children. Families who have a third or subsequent child after 2017 will not receive additional payments for that child.
'Similar changes' to be made for housing benefit.
Tax credit spending will be returned to 2007/08 levels in real terms.
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS CAP
The household benefit cap will be lowered from £26,000 nationally to £23,000 in London and £20,000 in the rest of the UK. The DWP’s very conservative estimate is that an additional 90,000 households will be hit and that an additional 40,000 children will be forced into poverty as a result. Many families are likely to face eviction.
SUPPORT FOR MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
Support for mortgage interest payments changes from a benefit to a loan
WORKING AGE BENEFITS
Working age benefits to be frozen for 4 years. PIP, DLA and ESA support group excluded from freeze.
ESA
ESA Work-related activity group . For future claimants only, ESA WRAG will be paid at same rate as JSA.  Osborne says:
"No current claimants will be affected by this change"
BENEFIT CUTS
Osborne says:
“The welfare system should always support the elderly, the vulnerable and disabled people.”
“We will not tax or means-test disability benefits.”
“Those who can work will be expected to look for work and take it when it is offered.The best route out of poverty is work.”
“For those aged 18-21 we’re introducing a new youth obligation that says they must either earn or learn.”
“We’re also abolishing the automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18-21 year olds. There will be exceptions made for vulnerable people and other hard cases.”
INHERITANCE TAX
No inheritance tax on the first £1 million.  Not something that will affect many of our members, but they will be paying for it from benefits cuts.
STUDENT MAINTENANCE GRANTS
Maintenance grants for students whose families are on low incomes will be scrapped from 2016/17 yearand replaced by loans.
EXTENT OF CUTS
Osborne says £17bn of savings will be announced today, out of £37bn needed. £12bn will come from benefits cuts and £5bn from tackling tax avoidance.
PRE-BUDGET SPECULATION
Benefits and Work will be keeping you posted about budget measures most likely to affect our members.
At the moment, there is speculation that:

• The £12 billion in cuts will be spread over three years instead of two. £8 billion will be cut by 2017/18 and a further £4 billion by 2018/19.
• The household benefit cap will be lowered from £26,000 nationally to £23,000 in London and £20,000 in the rest of the UK. The DWP’s very conservative estimate is that an additional 90,000 households will be hit and that an additional 40,000 children will be forced into poverty as a result. Many families are likely to face eviction.
• Tax credits for people in work will be cut, possibly by cutting the amount of tax credits paid to families with more than two children.
• Social housing tenants who earn more than £40,000 in London or £30,000 outside london will be forced to pay the market rent for their home.
• Tenants will be obliged to pay the first 10% of their housing benefit themselves.
• Maintenance grants for students whose families are on low incomes will be scrapped and replaced by loans.
• Personal independence payment (PIP) and disability living allowance (DLA) will be subject to income tax.
• The work-related activity component of employment and support allowance (ESA) will be abolished, meaning a cut of £29.05 a week for claimants in the work-related activity group.

A true Victorian budget by Osborne, benefits capped to £23,000, £20,000 outside London, ESA Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) dropped to JSA rate for new claimants from April 2016, student grants to be replaced by loans. Only 2 benefits will escape the freeze ESA (SG), DLA/PIP. 
So there you have it rents going up council tax up but your benefits frozen for 4 years as the freeze is likely to start from next year that will see the them up to the election they are going to lose, but not give people a rise for 4 years. But as the amount they say they give you states it's the least you can get by on, within 4 years people will be living in poverty, if not by next April. By 2020 those on JSA will be in poverty relying on food banks
Next April we see those who need support because they cannot work will get just JSA rates if they pass the assessment phase and are placed in WRAG, I personally have been told I should be in the support group but thought what's the point when the assessment phase of ESA meant the amount I got jumped to over £131 overnight then to nearly £160 a week when I got full ESA in 2010, the £5+ seemed just not worth it, in 5 years 5 months I have had just 2 Work Focused Interviews (WFI'S), I don't count the one I had on 27/7/12 that turned into a maternity benefits claim for my daughter, because the person I was supposed to see had a family emergency.