(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Many New Deal providers are using a whole range of fraudulent techniques to receive money unlawfully from the Government. The Government generally isn’t interested in knowing about these techniques, they only recognise the fraud that is forging employer signatures.
Exiting fraud
“Exiting” fraud is taking advantage of the system, receiving money by deception.
This is a major overlooked fraud technique. How New Deal works is, providers are guaranteed money for the full 13 week course once a participant has been signed up to it and this is paid regardless whether you are there 5 minutes or 13 weeks. The only way they don’t receive this amount is when the New Deal participant exceed their absences.
Some people are genuinely “exited” for misconduct but this is rather rare.
The three types of exiting fraud we know of are:
- Dismissal of difficult clients – Those who require the most help and support, New Deal is promised by Jobcentre Plus to be an opportunity to get that support. New Deal providers are typically understaffed therefore the clients who require a bit of one-to-one support seriously drain the resources. Dismissing these clients simply make their job easier. It is not right but Jobcentre Plus indirectly endorses this.
- Dismissal of the least likely to succeed – Most providers are overcrowded with New Deal participants. The only way to ease overcrowding considering a new batch of New Deal participants will begin the following week, is to dismiss people to make room. Using prejudice, there are two types of people: those who are likely to succeed thus likely to gain them an Job Outcome bonus, and those who seem unlikely (provider still receives the full 13 week money anyway).
- Dismissal of those almost exceeding absences – New Deal participants are entitled to a certain amount of absences (which excludes authorised leave for job interviews). To the provider this is a concern, if it is exceeded they can lost a significant chunk of their projected revenue.
This is known as exiting fraud, clicking the link will provide more information on it.
False declaration and misguidance fraud
False declaration and misguidance fraud is used with most the techniques on this page.
It is when the participant is dismissed (or exited) for certain purposes, and verbally told one incorrect reason, while on the written version (the dismissal form the participant doesn’t get to see) a false version of events or false allegations are made with the intention of disabling the participant to be able to fairly appeal (they would obviously appeal against the wrong reasons which they were told and have a zero chance of winning the appeal) and likely to get sanctioned for it, with the intention that the New Deal participant doesn’t come back to the course (even though many do for “balance of time”).
This cheeky act is fraudulent because:
- It lies to Jobcentre Plus, an executive agency of the DWP who funds them, for the intention of getting the full 13 weeks money when they are only entitled to a proportionate amount up to the number of weeks the participant was able to attend before being dismissed.
- It misleads Jobcentre Plus into imposing unlawful sanctions on participants, who were acting on the trust of the partnership between themselves and the New Deal provider whereas the Jobcentre Plus relies on the statements signed being the honest statement of events.
- The New Deal provider has to provide additional documentation in response to questions asked by the Decision Maker at the Jobcentre BDC, these obviously are more lies signed to support the initial lie.
Leeching fraud
“Leeching fraud” involves taking advantage of the New Deal providers powers to dismiss a client, forcing them to enter an agreement where the participant subsequently gives permission for them to contact any future employers.
The Job Outcome bonuses are intended as an award for finding participants employment. Using these agreements to get employers to sign documentation where the provider claims they helped the ex- New Deal participant get the job when it was actually secured after the New Deal course is a severe fraudulent activity.
This is known as leeching fraud, clicking the link will provide more information on it.
Misrepresentation fraud
“Misrepresentation fraud” is when a New Deal provider either deliberately delivers a service significantly different to that stated at the start during the tendering process or by incompetence provides a course which varies a lot to the initial specification.
An example of this would be claiming they would have between 3-4 qualified staff helping New Deal participants but only having one paid member of staff operating the whole building with another volunteer. Another would be claiming they will have enough computers for participants to share by a 1:4 ratio using a rota system while the reality is more than 10 people sharing a computer.
These claims make up part of the contract and they are required to abide by it, should they breach it they could have their contract terminated, not that the DWP ever would.
This is known as misrepresentation fraud, clicking the link will provide more information on it.
Penciling fraud
“Penciling fraud” is when the provider fills in paperwork with a pencil, getting the participant to sign, then changing the content to anything other than agreed.
This is known as penciling fraud, clicking the link will provide more information on it.
Pre-signing fraud
“Pre-signing fraud” has two variants. The first is regarding getting participants to sign forms before they are filled in or fully completed for the intention in bypassing the problem of the client refusing to sign due to obvious false statements, and the second is requiring a signature specimen and using the “windowing” fraud technique below.
This is known as pre-signing fraud, clicking the link will provide more information on it.
Time sheet fraud
“Time sheet fraud” is one of the most common. It has numerous variants such as the following:
- False hours declarations – Very popular, sticking down full hours and going home early on a regular basis.
- False code declarations – Some providers will tell participants to use code P instead of J
Windowing fraud
“Windowing fraud” has two variants, one is natural and the other is artificial.
Both involve photocopying a document to get a signature from (avoiding indentation marks from the pressure of the pen) and placing the photocopy on the light source, sticking a form over the photocopy, the light will allow the photocopy content to be shown through and then the signature gets traced.
Natural
Holding the documents up to a window (how it got its name) allowing natural light to show up the photocopy underneath.
Artificial
Instead of the above original technique, in the evenings, on cloudy days etc. using a overhead projector or light box as the light source.
This is known as windowing fraud, clicking the link will provide more information on it.
If you know of any of these techniques being used: report it!
Summary of links contained in above New Deal Scandal post
Related posts
- New Deal Scandal & Welfare Reform: network snippet
- New Deal should be subjected to a Serious Fraud Office inquiry
- A4e to lose Flexible New Deal contract for fraud: other training providers also under investigation
- New Deal fraud: Concerns rise as news spreads
- Working Links: no longer under investigation
- Emma Harrison declines interview request
connect2employment, challenger house, london e1 1ee
dear job-diary (entry: 27.06.09)
you’d better believe it. i’m four weeks into a mandatory new deal course run by ‘working links’, the government-dependent employment agency (shares owned 25/25/25/25 by cap gemini, mission australia, manpower and the shareholder executive, which is a branch of the government). this company would not survive without the lucrative new deal contracts which the jobcentre habitually slips its way – in other words, the government, through its bank-corrupt economic policies, create raw unemployed material for ‘working links’ to process into piles of stinking cash for themselves. ‘working links’ helps the government create the false impression that claimants of jobseeker’s allowance are signing-off from the unemployment register when, in fact, many are being demeaned by senseless seminars and hopeless jobsearch regimes. gone are the days when a stretch on new deal might contain the delights of an enticing web-design or other information-tecnology oriented course (contracted-out to a specially-tailored training provider), now we have the new-generation ‘in-house’ working-linctus medication of motivational party-games, psychobubble and squeaky-clean presentation, all washed down with a hunt-the-pin-job-in-a-besieged-labour-market-competion – where the winner earns the right to pin his hopes on the arse-end of 3 million unemployed. but beware if you are computer-illiterate, because, one-third of the way through this mental endurance-test, i am still helping co-students set up e-mail addresses and perform basic word-processing tasks – the tutors, of course, being too busy checking time-sheets and attendance-registers to assist with such banalities. we were initially threatened with the prospect of instantaneous work-placements, the fundamental raison d’être of this 13-week outward-bound extravaganza, however most of us are yet to be placed and remain under strict surveillance ‘in the ward’ – a special-forces job-ferret was deployed amongst us for one afternoon, but sadly failed to budge the blockage in the system and so, along with the two newly-inducted groups which succeeded us, we are now playing musical-chairs around twelve fun-censored computers which disallow access to facebook, myspace, guido fawkes, iain dale, blogspot etc, but strangely allow access to labourhome…in short, if more of us are not placed in voluntary, enforced or other types of unpaid and soulless graft in the very near future, ‘working links’ will be obliged to build a brand new warehouse in which to hide us all. i just thank my lucky stars that my arithmetic is not up to scratch for the ethical operations of ladbrokes – a firm into which ‘working links’ is most keen to shovel people. many of the tutors are under the illusion that clients would be flocking to this course, even if attendance were not mandatory for the receipt of one’s fortnightly dole-that-is-not-dole-cheque, but i sincerely doubt this…in fact, tutors spend a disproportionate amount of their time checking up on attendance and demanding written-proof for periods of absence – lateness being punishable by a judgment of ‘half-day unauthorized absence’, an over-abundance of which would result in the loss of benefits…sorry ‘training allowance’. unfortunately, my tutor, a mr robin morris, became so obsessed with time-keeping that he recently threatened us with the loss of one unauthorized life for any arrival after 09.30hrs, no matter what the problems we encountered with transport – and as a consequence, my time-sheet read a clean 09.30hrs for every single day, except for occasions where bob crow granted extraordinary dispensation, of course…but despite mr morris not being our tutor for the first week, tube strikes in the second, him being on holiday in hungary for the third week, my superhuman efforts in the fourth week, and never actually noting any specific morning when he saw me slope in at an immoral hour, he nevertheless deemed my punctuality as incompatible with my written record…according to his general observation…and refused to sign my time-sheet…i was duly escorted into a room where i found myself alone save for the company of himself and his line-manager, a certain paul crookendale, and they both proceeded to insult my integrity for a full hour (16.30 – 17.30hrs), after which i pointed out that it was they that were receiving the extremely generous salaries for bullying the unemployed…and all thanks to the tax-payer.
i’m ‘in’ for administration by the way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ps:
to be fair, we were once permitted to enter a time on our attendance-sheet (16.30hrs) which was incompatible with our time of departure (15.00hrs), but this was because it was friday afternoon and the staff all wanted to get off down to the pub to celebrate someone leaving the office…
other gripes:
we were forced to fight for the right to use a proper gents/ladies toilet rather than use one disabled facility between the multitude of clients, whilst the staff have toilets for their exclusive use…
clients are not permitted to use the staff kitchen and are provided with one kettle which can only be placed on and plugged into the floor…bit dangerous…like all the other trailing wires in the premises…tea bags and coffee stocks have not been replenished since the second week…coffee from the reception-desk is now rationed to 2 cups a day per client…
i believe that ‘working links’ are paid £3000 per client, a sum which they receive ‘up-front’ – regardless of whether the client finds employment, does not find empoyment, or bails out of the course through boredom. if these facts are inaccurate i will be happy to stand corrected.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
helpful tip as regards windowing fraud
dont sign your name the same way twice vary it that way you can if shown a document with your signature say thats not the way i sign my name then ask for an bit of paper and a pen and sign your name different to that on the form
this will get them blustery because you then say looks like someone has forged my signature can i have that form please as i would like to report it to the police to investigate
this will take the wind out of their sails
Like or Dislike:
0 
0