Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Return to sender
by Judd09 Today at 12:42 pm

» 2 New letters received from DCA acting as agents on behalf of client- Please Advise
by Emilybm Today at 11:40 am

» Final Notice - Bailiff
by daveiron Today at 11:17 am

» 5G AND it's implications | WOW it is scary and can't be allowed
by Lopsum Today at 5:19 am

» Legal advice, from a court?
by assassin Today at 1:31 am

» 5G Freedom of Information requests
by daveiron Yesterday at 8:37 pm

» Reality chat , every wednesday at 8pm (ish)
by Society of the Spectacle Yesterday at 7:12 pm

» New to forum
by assassin Yesterday at 6:46 pm

» Cbd Oil
by MFisc Yesterday at 11:58 am

» Attacked, Assaulted & Kidnapped for taking guess who.
by daveiron Yesterday at 9:07 am

» sar
by assassin Yesterday at 1:28 am

» 24 Storey Tower on Fire in Kensington - dies
by Awoken2 Yesterday at 12:32 am

» disbanded court system
by freeland Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:18 pm

» sol excalibre with cookiemonster
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:59 pm

» Social Media Alternatives: with Ray Vahey
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:16 pm

» School Strikes
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:11 pm

» NIP - speeding with photo evidence
by itheman Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:27 pm

» The Good Old British Bobby...
by itheman Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:55 pm

» Cabot- is there a realistic chance to fight them?
by annap Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:49 pm

» Clarity and History - Common Law vs Statutes | Banking Fraud | Words | Magna Carta
by itheman Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:10 pm

» E on Lowells advice
by ohthejoys Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:44 pm

» Drydensfairfax Soliciitors - Statute Barred?
by waylander62 Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:19 am

» Richplanet Premier
by daveiron Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:44 am

» Trainee benifit clerk jailed.
by assassin Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:45 am

» CABOT filed CCJ application despite 3-letter process
by waylander62 Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:31 pm

» Emma's Westminster Hall bailiffs speech 09 01 2019
by Kestrel Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:37 am

» Conditional Acceptance and Remain in Honour, Counterclaim...but when?
by itheman Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:10 pm

» Liability Order in Respect of Council Tax....
by itheman Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:56 pm

» Mexican Scientists Find a CURE for HPV
by Kestrel Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:09 pm

» Intrum Finance letter advice please.
by Ithesoul Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:20 pm

» old married name on debt purchase letter
by Ausk Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:32 am

» Debt Collectors
by waylander62 Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:22 am

» More Disinformation
by assassin Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:25 am

» notice of assignment
by FURBY Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:37 pm

» 3 letter process
by projectzoo Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:24 pm

» More Smart Meter - The New Scam
by daveiron Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:44 pm

» Latest from CrimeBodge
by Kestrel Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:32 pm

» Ccj help
by daveiron Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:14 pm

» Types of Baliffs
by assassin Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:15 am

» Merligen investments Ltd: Moriarty law
by waylander62 Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:14 pm

» Repeat after me "Britain is not a police state" - honest....
by daveiron Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:14 am

» Moriarty Law
by petesomething Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:44 pm

» GOODF ebook
by unlimuni Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:23 pm

» AA loan
by Mrblue2017 Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:33 am

» Ceylon on debts, courts & corruption
by Mrblue2017 Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:27 pm

» fiduciary responsibility
by assassin Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:35 pm

» how long can you hold your breath?
by LionsShare Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:19 pm

Moon phases

DWP Dealing with Jobcentres

Go down

DWP Dealing with Jobcentres

Post by 123 on Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:44 am

[This guide was originally posted by forum member assassin on the previous forum and reposted here with his consent - please address any questions regarding the content to him]

DWP Dealing with Jobcentres

Part 1 - Their Tactics
Info - This information applies England and Wales, in the UK only!

If you are reading this and not living in the UK, please click on your flag at the top of the page
Please don't be overwhelmed with the amount of information -
please use simply as a reference

Before reading this section you may want to look our Contract Law page, as the first thing to understand about the DWP is the fact that everything they do is based on contract law which in England and Wales is English Contract Law. This has been supplemented by another set of contract law called European Contract Protocols (ECP) which is European law and has been ratified into all EU member states legislation.
Everything is based upon something called a Jobseekers Agreement and we need to fully understand what this is, an agreement is a set of binding promises of two or more parties, an agreement doesn’t have 'a consideration' but a contract does. When an agreement is 'legally enforced' it becomes a contract and contract legislation applies to it; and the DWP bring charges against many claimants which are well documented so there’s no dispute about it being a contract.
If you take a look at any case where a claimant has been taken to court concerning benefits fraud the actual charge is 'breach of contract' so more proof if it were needed. Now we have established it as a contract and bound by contract law we can move forwards.
When you undertake any dealings with the DWP you have to record them, it’s vital, they record you and all your information to create something called 'the private record of the parties' and it is this they use against you. Basically they are creating a record of documented evidence and this will be put in a paper format if necessary as paperwork wins court cases, nothing else; so you need to counter this with your own evidence. If you audio record which you’re legally entitled to do then nobody can refute they have said something or made a misleading claim as you have the evidence, but here is the first hurdle, they don’t like you recording as they know there staff aren’t experts in contract law and only work to a prescribed script.
They use misleading terms and make misleading statements to give you the impression they have power and authority over you when they don’t; and to employ a tactic called 'railroading' which is to use carefully constructed phrases to give you the impression you have no choice but to comply when you don’t have to and have a choice.
Next we need to quell most of their tactics and this is surprisingly easy to do but to do this you need to have a copy of your contract (Jobseekers agreement) and understand the conditions laid down within it as these are the contract conditions. In addition to this you need to have ONLY the terms and conditions in force at the time you signed your contract as only these apply and this is backed and bound by a legal precedent made by Lord Denning.
From this point on we must fully understand what they are saying, so listen carefully to what they say and how they say it, one word different means they are saying something totally different from what you think they are saying.
Now they begin their tactics and they do this by assessing you and seeing what they can get away with to formulate their strategy to try to trick you, so never answer back, listen very carefully, and never lose your temper and shout at them, they expect you to lose your temper. You need to get them to put everything in writing and for them as an individual to sign it with a real pen and not a digital signature, now the game begins.
They begin by asking you about your job search and what you have done, this gives them a stepping stone to claim you haven’t done enough and this is the start of them retrospectively and unilaterally applying contractual conditions.
Retrospectively applying legislation is when legislation is introduced after you signed your contract and they try to apply it to you when it doesn’t apply; remember only the terms and conditions in force at the time of signing apply.
Unilaterally applying contractual conditions means one party is trying to introduce conditions into a contract, they cannot do this as for any change to a contract to be lawful you have to sign either a 'variation' or enter a new contract.
They will try and use this to report you for sanction and now you need to be careful as the play on words really begins; to continue we need to refer back to Contract Law and another of Lord Denning’s legal precedents. For one party to try to nullify a contract; and that’s what they’re trying to do to force you to sign a new contract; they have to PROVE non-performance by you.
Remember, the Jobcentre staff are lazy and don’t understand contract law and always apply the latest terms and conditions to a claimant instead of the correct earlier terms and conditions, which were in force when you signed your contract and apply to you.
Non-performance is where one party fails to undertake a contractual obligation and this is currently defined as a 'significant obligation' which would have an impact on the performance of the contract detrimental to the other party or parties.
Unless they PROVE non-performance they cannot even report you for sanction as the report will be both illegal and unlawful but this never stops them.
Now they try to obfuscate and confuse the issue by obscuring the fact they have unilaterally and retrospectively applied contractual conditions to your contract and they are trying to report you for not acting under these new conditions which don’t apply. It’s all about applying deceit and stress, to force you to consent by signing a new contract.
Now you have to establish why they are trying to report you and you have to inform them they have unilaterally and retrospectively applied contractual conditions and that they are threatening to report you under conditions which don’t apply, now they have no excuse.
Next you MUST ask what their foundation evidence is for a report for sanction, normally they will say something along the lines of 'in my opinion' and you must get them to say this, if they don’t then ask 'is this your opinion?'. Remember you are recording this conversation and this admittance gives you vital evidence.
Lord Denning set a legal precedent in which he stated 'opinion is mere puff' and continued by saying 'nobody can retrospectively or unilaterally apply contractual conditions, only the terms and conditions in force at the time of signing apply' which covers this entire issue.
Take careful note of what is happening here, they try to force later legislation onto you which you know wasn’t in force at the time you signed your contract and try to sanction you under this inapplicable legislation so always be wary of this trap as it has implications.

Under contract law you can enter a contract by something called 'ACTION' and this is another crafty trick they employ. They tell you many weeks before you are going to be asked to sign a new contract that new conditions are applicable, or try to force you to act under newer conditions not in your contract. A simple example may be that you have to undertake three actions PER WEEK and they try the play on words and tell you that you have to take three actions per day. If you comply with this request/demand you enter a contract by 'action' which is by your own actions of compliance with conditions which don’t apply to you, and you give them the evidence in your job search. They may say 'our terms have changed' or 'new legislation has come into force' or 'its new policy' or even 'we have changed the way we work' and in each case it’s wrong, they change their conditions or policies then simply don’t comply as they don’t apply to you.
If they try to use this tactic then inform them you are on an older contract and why aren’t they aware of this as they are looking at a computer monitor with your information on, if they respond it will be with “oh, sorry I haven’t looked at it” which shows incompetence. Remember you have this recorded. To understand this we have to understand that every time they have a policy or legislation change they train their staff in this and the staff apply this to every claimant, basically one size fits all and this is the newer terms and conditions which don’t apply to you.
From here they will try many tricks and I will go through some of the more popular ones used:
The Government has changed the law?
Fine, so what? They can change the law as many times as they like as only the terms and conditions in force at the time of signing apply.
We have changed our policy/policies?
Great, your policies are yours and apply only to you; you have admitted it’s your policy and it’s nothing to do with me, I am NOT employed by the DWP.
How do you expect us to pay you?
That’s not my problem; If you change your system then it’s up to you to make provisions to ensure you pay us who are on the older contracts and not my responsibility to change my contract to satisfy you.
I will report you for sanction for not complying with my request?
Fine, you are obviously aware that a request is just that; a request, a request which I can refuse. So what you are saying is that if don’t comply with something I have no obligation to comply with, you will report me for sanction, have you PROVEN non-performance yet.
We are reviewing your Jobseekers Agreement
Fine, review away as much as you like but remember I won’t be signing any new contract or variation.It’s in any contract they use that they can undertake a review at any time so let them review it, it doesn’t mean you have to accept their findings or agree to any changes they try to make.
One of their normal tricks is to ask you what you do for your job search if you are on an older contract and as you are speaking they add this to your Jobseekers agreement on their computer, anyone else looking at this will accept it as your in force agreement and try to work to them and enforce them against you even though they are not in force. They also use this updated information against you which we will see later on.
Their other trick is to print this off and try to get you to sign it, they will come up with their well scripted 'you already do it so it doesn’t make a difference to you' trick, but it does and they know it. If you sign the new contract then you also consent to the newer terms and conditions which are much more stringent and gives them considerably more power and control over you and their aim is to get you to accept the new contract solely for the newer and more stringent conditions which they can use against you.
If you refuse to comply they begin interrogating you and ask their carefully scripted questions, never fall into the trap of playing this game, if you don’t want to answer a question then say 'no comment' and don’t reply.
They will persist and if they do then ask them if they are deaf or just plain thick, you have already responded with 'no comment' and ask them if you are obliged to answer their questions and they will always say 'yes'. Just respond with 'so my right to remain silent doesn’t apply then'. and watch them squirm.
If they say no or you don’t have this right then ask them to provide proof of claim as your right to remain silent is an inalienable right which cannot be removed and is in force under the Constitution of England and they cannot remove it. They have also made a false claim as to law without any legal training which is false representation.
They now move onto 'double speak' and the current in vogue terminology and a prime example is 'you are not adhering to the conditionality of your Jobseekers Agreement' so ignore their claims or simply state 'is conditionality in my terms and conditions'. If we look up the term 'conditionality' it states:
1. Imposing, containing, subject to, or depending on a condition or conditions; not absolute; made or allowed on certain terms:
Conditional acceptance.
If we dissect this we see its double speak and nothing else; they cannot impose any conditions not contained in your contract upon you, none of your contractual conditions are containing or subject to anything, they are specific and clearly defined. It clearly states they are not absolute whereas your contractual conditions are absolute through being clearly defined, and nothing in your contract is allowed or disallowed on any certain terms.
Always be aware of their double speak and play on words as I have actually witnessed them making up words which don’t exist in any dictionary and I have access to many dictionaries. They also state gobbledegook such as you aren’t complying with the spirit of the contract, really? As long as you don’t breach the stipulated terms within your contract then they have nothing and can do nothing.
Now they will try and crank it up a little and often they are very irate by this stage and get very stroppy and try a couple of big hitting tricks such as the 'jobseekers direction' or my favourite 'mandating you' to do something.
Let’s revert back to the contract law section which you should have already read; it says:
Nobody can be forced into signing any contract
For a contract to be valid it must be entered into freely and without any threats, harassment, or distress to create something called true consent or a meeting of the minds, only when true consent is given does a contract become valid. ECL and ECP place great emphasis on true consent and fairness, along with the English courts as, until someone truly consents there can be no valid contract.
Let’s be very clear on this point; you cannot be threatened or forced into signing any contract and a jobseekers direction is just that, threats; they will threaten to stop your benefits and report you for sanction, or both. Jobseekers directions are solely based upon an advisers opinion so once again ask the question!
Am I in breach of the terms and conditions in force at the time I signed by contract?
If the answer is no or they fail to answer then press them hard and ask.
Is this based upon your opinion?
If they answer yes or fail to answer, then they are struggling.
Why are you acting under unilaterally and retrospectively applied contractual conditions?
By this stage they are flustered and usually struggling as most of them won’t understand what you are talking about.
Tell them there is no mention of a jobseekers direction in your contract, therefore it has no validity other than being an informal request and a request can be denied and you are denying it. They will come back with some answer and when they do tell them you are demanding to know if they can prove non-performance and until they do prove non-performance they cannot do anything.
Mandates are another matter and under contract law they are defined as “a judicial order or command” which means the order or command is one made by either a court or a judge and these are easily dealt with.
Ask who issued the mandate and the usual response is “I am issuing it” which means the adviser is issuing the mandate; or “I have the authority of the DWP to issue a mandate” and they blather on about Acts and Statutes, now let’s be very clear on this point.
ONLY A COURT OR JUDGE CAN ISSUE A MANDATE – by their very own admission they are claiming either a DWP employee OR the DWP are issuing a mandate, or giving a judicial order or command.
Neither the DWP or their employees are a court or a Judge so they are making some blatantly misleading claims and claiming to be a court of law or a Judge, both are serious offences as impersonating a court or Judge carries harsh sentences.
Now you need to ask the serious questions:
I now require the original sealed court document signed by the court representative or Judge presiding in the case, I require you to produce this immediately.
Of course they cannot provide such a document as it doesn’t exist.
If they don’t produce the court order (which they can’t) then you ask them which court heard the case, what date the case was heard, and which judge presided over the case. You need to follow this up with why didn’t either the DWP or the court inform you of this hearing so you could attend and provide a defence as you are legally entitled to, and this is a very serious matter which you intend following up with the court.
At this point they will try to drop the mandate angle or deflect the conversation away from the issue, don’t let them; persist with asking the questions above and tell them you want this document producing or are they simply lying to you. Inform them that if they don’t produce this sealed original court document with a true wet signature immediately or admit to lying you will be going straight to the Police to report this matter to them as either they (the adviser) is lying and impersonating a court, or they are committing fraud. Inform them that you need the requested information so you can contact the court directly and you need the case number from the original court document so when you contact the issuing court you can get it set aside.
If they admit to lying then remind them they are committing fraud and any contract you may sign is now a void contract and its terms and conditions are invalid.
Now watch the mandate angle disappear quicker
than money in a betting shop
One recent tactic I have seen used is particularly nasty and designed as a last resort to apply as much psychological pressure onto you is the false sanction and this works thus:
Advisors will tell you (verbally) they are reporting you for sanction, yet you will receive no paperwork stating they are reporting you for sanction which is automatically a breach of their procedures as they are obliged to issue this at the time of threatening to report you for sanction by printing it off and handing it to you. You go in to sign on and your advisor informs you that you have been sanctioned (again verbally) and you pursue it by asking them when and why, and why you haven’t had any paperwork confirming this. They will claim a senior member of staff in the office has issued a sanction and will refuse to name them or the reasons for the sanction, and then they move to the next stage which is pure trickery.
They then get an alleged manager to speak to you and he/she refuses to answer any questions and pleads ignorance as to why you have been sanctioned and they parrot the one line “you will have to wait for the letter which will explain it all” and play dumb. They then state that you will have to wait for the letter explaining it all to arrive as they know nothing about it. They usually make numerous apologies and claim they will chase up the letter on your behalf but this is just psychological bluff and bluster.
Note the contradiction here, they have allegedly reported you for sanction yet they know nothing about it even though all their computers are connected to their database which gives instant updates, yet they plead ignorance. They then thrust a piece of paper under your nose and tell you that to reinstate your benefits you have to sign it; NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SIGN THIS PIECE OF PAPER AS THIS IS A BLANK FORM CALLED A VARIATION TO CONTRACT.
The trick is simple, you haven’t actually been sanctioned and they merely tell you that you have been sanctioned to get you to accept the fact you have been sanctioned, they then try to trap you into a contract “by action” by you thinking you have been sanctioned. This is a double edged sword, on one hand by accepting you have been sanctioned you are trapped into a contract “by action” or by getting you to sign the blank form which they later fill in after you leave. If you accept the fact you have been sanctioned you will receive a letter from them informing you that you have been sanctioned.
YOU MUST VERBALLY REBUT ANY CLAIMS OF SANCTION IMMEDIATELY, you then follow this up with a formal letter of complaint which also contains a written rebuttal and do this the same day, you take a witness along and hand it in personally and film it if possible. Always number your correspondence both on your complaint and on the outside of the envelope and get a receipt containing this number, also photograph the envelope to show this number is present.
This type of action is high risk by Jobcentre staff and any high risk strategies they employ always leave a high degree of evidence which is irrefutable and implicates all the staff involved and usually the Jobcentre manager/ess. Brilliant evidence for you.
Important Rules
1 It’s a contract so don’t get hung up on the play on words between contract and agreement as theytry to play these tricks, always refer to it as 'the contract'
2 Only the terms & conditions in force at the time of signing your contract applyanything introducedAFTER you signed your contract does NOT apply to you
3 If they cannot PROVE non-performance then everything is based on their opinion and opinion is invalid for reporting someone for sanction
4 Listen very carefully to what they say and never argue or shout back about their rules & regulations& statutes, stick to what your contract and nothing else
5 Stick solely to the contract, they cannot force you to do anything else
Jobseekers Directions and mandates are invalid, their opinions are invalid,
and remember a contract is only valid if you truly consent to it.

Go to DWP Page 2 for Dealing with JobCentres - Our Tactics

Part 2 - Our Tactics

Info - This information applies England and Wales, in the UK only!
If you are reading this and not living in the UK, please click on your flag at the top of the page
Please don't be overwhelmed with the amount of information -
please use simply as a reference

Having looked at their tactics in Part 1 we need to look in detail at how this works to our advantage; and how we use it.
I will reiterate that this section needs reading in conjunction with the contract law section as this is crucial to understanding what to do and how to do it. We will bring together their tricks, tactics, contract law, and other legislation and guidelines which apply, as and when required as everything they do is bound only by contract law.
Void Contracts
Void contracts are a contract which doesn’t apply as the way it is entered into means there was no “meeting of the minds” which means no contract even though you have signed one. With a void contract neither party can enforce any conditions within that contract, so let’s look at how a contract may be void.
Most commonly it is through misrepresentation and this is easily proven, any false statement of fact made by any Jobcentre advisor renders a contract void, and they use a lot of misleading and false representations. Most common are:
You have to sign the new contract

We can revoke your old contract at any time

If you don’t sign we will stop your money

If you don’t sign we will/can report you for sanction

We can mandate you to sign a new contract

We can issue a Jobseekers Direction to force you to sign a new contract

There will be many others used depending upon the advisor you see

We already know that nobody can be forced into signing any contract and this alone excludes many of the above reasons or false claims they make towards you. You don’t have to sign any contract, they cannot revoke your contract unless they can prove non-performance, they cannot stop your money for refusing to sign a contract, and they cannot report you for sanction, mandate, or use a Jobseekers Direction to force you to sign a new contract; it’s illegal and unlawful and if you are pressured into signing it’s a void contract.
Misrepresentation also has a sinister side which is illegal and this is where any action they take causes you loss or puts you at risk of a loss and if we use the Fraud Act 2006 it states:
Fraud Act 2006 - Click on Sections to view them
England, Wales and Northern Ireland only
Section 1 - Fraud Section 2 - Fraud by false representation
You have to sign the new contract.
You We can revoke your old contract at any time.
You If you don’t sign we will/can report you for sanction.
You We can mandate you to sign a new contract.
You We can issue a Jobseekers Direction to force you to sign a new contract.
You The law has changed and you have to comply.
As these are all untrue and misleading and any of them could lead to a loss, or expose you to a risk of loss then we have a criminal case of fraud. In addition to this any Jobcentre advisor should be adequately trained and competent enough to know what is untrue or misleading. After all it’s their job; and they have a duty of care towards you and the DWP has a duty of care to ensure staff are adequately trained, so no excuses are acceptable without the DWP incriminating themselves.
Section 3 - Fraud by failing to disclose information
There is a considerable amount of information that they are legally bound to disclose, one being their full names; but they only ever wear name tags with their first name on and claim “it’s DWP policy not to disclose our full names” but their policies are theirs, not yours. No company policy overrides law and you are not bound by their policies.
They intend to make a gain for themselves (the DWP for whom they are agents) and to cause you a loss through stopping benefits; or exposing you to the risk of loss by reporting you for sanction.
Section 4 - Fraud by abuse of position
Currently the DWP is classed as the Civil Service directly answerable to a Ministerial department headed by the Minister for Work and Pensions and their conduct is directly governed by something called CIVIL SERVICE VALUES which is a statutory document. All employees are contractually bound to this document through their contract of employment. This means that as employees of the civil service they have to be open and honest, maintain the respect of the public, and comply with the law.
A full copy of this document will be enclosed at the end of this section.
As they have a fiduciary duty to act within the law which means they hold a position of trust, and by acting dishonestly they can make a gain for another (the DWP) and expose you to a loss or the risk of loss through false representation leading to a loss of benefits or sanctions.
Section 5 - “Gain” and “loss” Section 6 - Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds Section 7 - Making or supplying articles for use in frauds Section 8 - “Article”
If you inform them that what they are doing is breaking contract law and committing fraud, and they still proceed they will create several documents used in the commission of fraud in both written and electronic form. They may choose to try to alter your JSAg by asking you what you do to find work on their computers, electronic form. They may send you a letter stating you are being reported for sanction even though they cannot prove non-performance, written form.
In either case they have created documents to assist, or be used in the commission of fraud.
If we take a look at what the DWP have already put into the public domain they have publicly stated:
Any Jobseekers agreement can remain in force indefinitely
Nobody is obliged to sign any contract
Claimants cannot be forced into signing any contract
Proof if it were needed that the DWP know contract law.
Two types of misrepresentation apply, one is “fraud in the factum” and the other is “fraud in Inducement” and we have to understand the differences. Fraud in the Factum focuses on the issue of the party knowing they were entering a contract; as the DWP call it an agreement it can be argued that a party thought they weren’t entering a contract which means the contract is automatically void as there is no meeting of the minds. Fraud in Inducement focuses on fraudulent misrepresentations to induce someone into a contract they normally wouldn’t sign if they knew the truth and the misrepresentation becomes a material fact in the inducement. This is heavily used by the DWP employees to force you to sign a contract and the commonly used term is “if you don’t sign the contract we cannot pay you” as this is incorrect and a material fact.
Mistakes are commonly made and where a mistake is made it is classified under three broad headings which are Common Mistakes, Mutual Mistakes, and Unilateral mistakes.
Common Mistake is where both/all parties to the contract are under the same belief of the facts and hold the same opinion as to the mistake and are not really applicable to the DWP contracts.
Mutual Mistake is where both/all parties make the same mistake, but their views and understanding fundamentally differ as to the terms in the contract and their meanings and this is relevant to DWP contracts. Ask several DWP advisors the exact same question and they all give different answers as this is their interpretation; so if you and your DWP advisor know the same mistake has been made and differ in interpretation and understanding of what the facts are you have mutual mistake.
Unilateral Mistake is where one party is mistaken as to the terms of a contract and generally any court would try to uphold the contractual obligations and conditions unless the party NOT making the mistake tries to take advantage of the mistake for their benefit. Unilateral mistakes are commonly made by the DWP advisor when they try to be clever and use their play on words to try to outwit someone they think they are intellectually superior to.
Info - Mistakes are important to us because they are the way the DWP tries to cover itself from anything they or their employees do wrong, basically it is the one step kop out by them. It works simply by admitting a mistake has been made and apologising profusely and it is usually done by a Jobcentre manager, normally verbally apologising and sometimes apologising in writing. When an apology is made it rings alarm bells as normally they won’t admit liability so the first question is “WHY” have they apologised?
Normally it will be in the hope that a claimant will accept the apology and drop whatever action they may bring, or more usually it is because there are far more serious issues they have uncovered and they hope by apologising you will drop the issue and not look into what the more serious breaches are. So the first action when receiving an apology either verbally or in writing is to investigate what they are trying to cover up; normally it is a multitude of things which lead to a void contract and they don’t want you finding these things and voiding the contract.
Mistakes in isolation are not a reason for voiding a contract; but where a Mutual Mistake is made and you and the DWP advisor have a different understanding of to the meanings of the mistake; then we can raise the issue of it being a significant issue which would have an impact on the contract. If it is a significant issue then it is a reason for a void contract and DWP staff usually begin their play on words, this is solely to obfuscate and confuse the issue and this is where your audio recording pays dividends because when the advisor is challenged they often lie or simply claim they cannot remember and this forces a claimant into a situation of “it’s your word against mine”. This creates a grey area and a grey area needs avoiding and clarification, if you went to court then who would the court believe? It’s always the DWP. It is crucial to avoid all grey areas and to be exact in what you do and say, and what your advisor does and says, and an audio recording provides irrefutable proof of what is actually said.
To understand the significance of their use of language we can look at examples for clarification.
An advisor may say “in my opinion, or it is my understanding that, or from what I believe”, or anything similar is simply stating their interpretation, opinion, or beliefs as to a fact being true and mitigating themselves and the DWP as they are not actually stating fact. Always be aware of any statement they make which includes these terms, or they begin with stating these terms at the beginning of a conversation, particularly if they know you are recording them, they are merely trying the trick of using your recording of a conversation to mitigate themselves.
If they state “you have to do, or it’s in your Jobseekers Agreement, or it’s our policy, or anything similar then they are stating something as fact, notice the subtlety they use in their play on words.
Where they state something as their opinion or claim they are not sure then you have only one response:
I need you to clarify the exact meaning in writing and signed by YOU with a true wet signature and not a printed signature.
As we can see, they try to create a grey area as they can lie in any action, if they state something as fact and it comes back against them then they could simply claim “I stated it was only my opinion or I wasn’t sure” and it’s up to you to prove they lied and your recording does that. Eliminate any grey areas and only deal in fact.
Duress and Undue Influence used to mean a threat of harm along the lines of “we will kill you if you don’t sign”, but as law evolves it means many different things and backed with considerable legal precedent.
Now it can be any number of threats or other combinations of actions designed to force you into signing a contract against your will; and now it is defined as:
One person or organisation making a threat to compel a manifestation of seeming ascent by another person without real violation.
To put this into context we can look at section 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 which states:
(a)extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b)include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property).

This means that if any threat is made which causes you any loss then you have them under duress and for breach of contract and fraud under the Fraud Act which is now a criminal offence, they have broken the law. This gives considerable power to you and such issues have to be used against them.
If they begin by stating you have to do something such as signing a new contract, you refuse, they claim they can stop your money or you won’t receive your money if you don’t sign, then follow this up with a Jobseekers Direction or Mandate then we have clear proof of duress. Basically it is a number of steps to apply pressure to you to sign and can be any number of things not necessarily listed in the above example.
Undue influence is where someone holds a position of power over someone and this may include a court, Government Departments, Police, and involves that person or organisation using this position of power, or perceived power to their advantage and your disadvantage. It also includes parties with a special relationship which is generally where there is one party in a position of trust and the party in a position of trust abuses or takes advantage of this position of trust to their benefit and your detriment.
As a Government Department answerable to a Government Minister the DWP and its staff hold such positions as they are bound to act lawfully by their own codes of conduct contained in the Civil Service Values which is part of their contract of employment.
Undue influence is an “Equitable Doctrine” which is a complex subject actually called an equitable doctrine of laches and for our purposes we can simplify it somewhat to an equitable doctrine means where there is no common law remedy a court will decide. In broad terms equity is termed as fairness and where one party hasn’t acted fairly the other party wins as both the plaintiff (the benefit claimant) and the defendant (the DWP) must conform to a doctrine of “clean hands”. This is reiterated in all contract legislation through a legal maxim called fairness which is best summed up by European Contract Protocols:

Article 1.201 (ex art. 1.106) - Good Faith and Fair Dealing
1 Each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing

2 The parties may not exclude or limit this duty

While this may be an abbreviated form of English Contract Law it is concise and tells us all we need to know, they must act in good faith and fair dealing and they cannot limit or exclude this duty, and it applies to prove all their tactics are in breach of contract law and are void
Now we have a void contract and a void contract as a contract which never came into existence, if it never came into existence it doesn’t apply, if it doesn’t apply then neither party can act under the conditions contained within it.
Voidability should not be confused with a void contract and a voidable contract means it can simply be voided by one or all parties at any time. Any contract is a voidable contract as any contract breach which is deemed as significant, or any breach of contract makes the contract voidable. One other way of declaring a voidable contract is when one party becomes, or is made aware of the true facts such as those reading this article, and they realise they entered into a void contract through the actions of another (DWP employees) and realise the contract is void and also voidable. When someone becomes aware of such facts and realises the contract they entered is void they can then act to make it a voidable contract by voiding it.

Dismiss Your Contract
Dismissing your contract is called rescission or rescinding a contract and is as easy as sending a formal legal notice (included at the end) and stating the reasons you are applying rescission; always keep it simple to avoid them having grey areas to attack.
Highlight your reasons in a similar manner too:
A DWP advisor made false representations (note plural here)

A DWP advisor breached the contractual obligations, hence non-performance by the DWP

A DWP advisor acted solely on their opinion and not facts or available evidence

A DWP advisor acted solely on their opinion and not facts or available evidence

A DWP advisor tried to act under unilaterally and retrospectively applied conditions which are not contained within the current contract and are therefore not applicable

You get the picture? Always avoid waffle and the “he said, she said” situations or go into pages of detail about “an advisor named Joe said he could stop my money on Tuesday the 5th of this month” and another advisor named Jane reported me for sanction. They know all this from their files and records, dismiss the grey areas and focus fully on facts and nothing but fact and give them no ammunition to come back at you with their misinformation, opinions, or fraudulent claims.
Tip - I always follow this with an official complaint and this is for good reason, if you rescind a contract for non-performance on the part of the DWP or show it’s a void contract and you also complain about their staff and their actions it carries more weight legally. Do they want to go to court? Is it worth the cost financially and through implications of going to court? And what if they lose? They lose and the floodgates open. In most instances they will try to fob you off with overturning a sanction decision and apologising with a multitude of excuses, but why?
Your record of the parties and nothing more
While ever you stick to the facts and pure contract law you give them little to nothing to come back at you with other than lies, false representation, or duress. I even put the complaint in a separate envelope and hand deliver them with whoever I am representing at that time to the Jobcentre with the claimant so I can add an Affidavit of Truth to his/her private record of the parties. Let them claim it wasn’t delivered, or that they weren’t aware of it; you have the evidence it was delivered and their incompetence and ineptitude is their failing and there problem, not yours, and you will not be held liable for their ineptitude.
If they do come back at you then it’s usually with bluff and bluster to try to open a dialogue in writing using very carefully scripted letters designed to induce you into arguing to create grey areas which they can exploit. If you do get such a letter then it will usually quote acts and statutes and the good old Social Security Act 1998, and Jobseekers Act 1995, and Jobseekers Allowance regulations 1996 are the most commonly used.
But, hang on a minute? If the contract is a void contract or a rescinded contract then none of them apply so simply respond in writing informing them they cannot act under any void contract so none of what they have sent you applies.
I also send them a claimant’s fee schedule at this point so if they see you aren’t falling for their deception you have the option of getting them into a contract through inaction or action and they owe you (the claimant) money which can be submitted through the usual channels for a judgement which you can enforce.
They usually try to follow this up with a meeting in a closed room when you go to sign on again, if they try this tactic then ask why you weren’t notified in writing of this meeting; if they try bluffing their way through it then never enter such a meeting as it is always to your disadvantage. Simply inform them you require written notification and an exact appointment date and time so you can arrange for representation, usually they never bother again. If they do then remind them that a fee schedule is in force and if you attend they will be liable for “your fees” under the fee schedule and any costs associated with your representative, now it tends to go away quicker than a pig with a straw up its arse.
They may try to get you to come in for weekly or even daily signings, if they try this then ask them to provide “proof of claim” by showing you where this is stated in your contract; they cannot do this and try to bluff their way through again, don’t fall for it. If they show you the contract you have rescinded (and they always will) then put them on the spot and ask why they are trying to apply legislation which doesn’t apply to you, and that a fee schedule is in place.
You could do what I once did, I attended such a meeting as a claimant’s representative and gave them my fee schedule, when they saw my fees they cringed as it was carefully worded and by accepting the document they agreed to MY terms and conditions. As they had read it they had accepted it and they weren’t going to be liable for my costs.
On another occasion I agreed to represent someone and we went into contract negotiations, we used a clause in his fee schedule which stated “and costs of representation from any other party at their rates and charges” and they actually paid me in cash, so it worked for me.
Info - When you rescind any contract you must clearly state which contract you are rescinding and the reasons why; there is no limit on the number of contracts you can rescind and this gives you a choice. You can rescind just your current contract and go back to your previous contract and the terms and conditions at the time you signed that, or you can rescind them all and revert back to the original contract you signed along with the terms and conditions in force at the time you signed it.
Never forget to put the wording “and the terms and conditions in force at the time I signed that contract” so there is no grey area or dispute

Last edited by 123 on Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 18
Join date : 2018-04-21

Back to top Go down

Re: DWP Dealing with Jobcentres

Post by pieintheskywhenIdie on Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:42 am

@123 wrote:If you take a look at any case where a claimant has been taken to court concerning benefits fraud the actual charge is 'breach of contract' so more proof if it were needed.
I've known cases where the charge was fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.   I suppose it may depend on the actual case.   Where you've seen "breach of contract" in court, was that a civil case?

Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 70
Join date : 2017-03-20

Back to top Go down

Re: DWP Dealing with Jobcentres

Post by 123 on Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:25 pm

@pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:I've known cases where the charge was fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.   I suppose it may depend on the actual case.   Where you've seen "breach of contract" in court, was that a civil case?

Please note my annotation at the top of this posting - I'm not the author of this (by now slightly older) guide from the previous forum - I've only reposted it here for informational purposes. Please address any questions regarding the content to assassin.

Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 18
Join date : 2018-04-21

Back to top Go down

Re: DWP Dealing with Jobcentres

Post by assassin on Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:35 am

@pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:
@123 wrote:If you take a look at any case where a claimant has been taken to court concerning benefits fraud the actual charge is 'breach of contract' so more proof if it were needed.
I've known cases where the charge was fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.   I suppose it may depend on the actual case.   Where you've seen "breach of contract" in court, was that a civil case?

A breach of contract can simply be a civil matter, but if it also breaches the fraud act 2006 it can also become a criminal matter and the only real difference is "intent" and yes you see civil cases in court as magistrates courts switch jurisdictions and this is a common trick they try.

If a benefit claimant blatently lies in any disclosure then this could be a criminal matter also.

Posts : 1777
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: DWP Dealing with Jobcentres

Post by Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum