PA-41494
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
Report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
(the Ombudsman) to
Dr Richard Taylor MP
of the results of an investigation into a complaint made against Jobcentre Plus
and the Independent Case Examiner by
Mr Mark New Dealer
Kidderminster
Worcestershire
The complaint
1. Mr New Dealer complained that Pertemps People Development Group Ltd
(Pertemps) provided an inadequate service when delivering the New Deal 25 Plus
programme on behalf of Jobcentre Plus. Mr New Dealer said that instead of Pertemps
finding him an electrical installation placement he was sent to clean dirty fridges
and was used as cheap labour to cover holiday leave. Mr New Dealer considered that his
employment prospects were damaged as a result, as he was not able to gain the
experience he had been promised.
2. Mr New Dealer also complained that Pertemps and Jobcentre Plus did not provide
him with adequate responses to his enquiries and complaints and that a Pertemps
Deputy Manager spoke to him in a rude manner.
3. Mr New Dealer wanted an explanation and apology if the service provided by
Pertemps on behalf of Jobcentre Plus fell short of required standards.
4. Mr New Dealer was dissatisfied with the investigation by the Independent Case
Examiner as he considered that their investigation was not robust and did not take
him any further forward in receiving the explanation he sought.
The provisional decision
5. For reasons that I will go on to explain, I did not find any evidence of
maladministration by Pertemps People Development Group Ltd, Jobcentre Plus or
the Independent Case Examiner and I do not uphold Mr New Dealer’s complaint.
1
The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and role
6. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (the 1967 Act) provides that the
Ombudsman’s role is to investigate action taken by or on behalf of bodies within
jurisdiction in the exercise of their administrative functions. Complaints are referred
to the Ombudsman by a Member of the House of Commons on behalf of a member of
the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of
maladministration in connection with the actions taken.
7. The Ombudsman’s approach when conducting an investigation is to consider
whether there is evidence to show that maladministration has occurred that has led
to an injustice that has yet to be remedied. If there is an unremedied injustice, the
Ombudsman will recommend that the public body in question provides the
complainant with an appropriate remedy (in line with her Principles for Remedy).
8. When deciding whether the Ombudsman should investigate any individual
complaint we have to satisfy ourselves first that the body or bodies complained
about are within our jurisdiction. Such bodies are generally listed in Schedules 2 and
4 to the 1967 Act, although the Ombudsman can also investigate actions taken by
another party acting on behalf of a body in jurisdiction. Secondly we must also be
satisfied that that the actions complained about were taken in the exercise of that
body’s administrative functions and are not matters that the Ombudsman is
precluded from investigating by the terms of Schedule 3 to the 1967 Act, which lists
administrative matters over which we have no jurisdiction. Jobcentre Plus is within
the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is an executive agency of the Department
for Work and Pensions and that department is listed in schedule 2 to the 1967 Act. In
the context of Mr New Dealer’s complaint, Pertemps is within the Ombudsman’s
jurisdiction because they were carrying out administrative functions on behalf of
Jobcentre Plus.
Basis for the Ombudsman’s determination of the complaint
9. In simple terms, when determining complaints that injustice has been
sustained in consequence of maladministration, the Ombudsman generally begins by
comparing what actually happened with what should have happened.
So, in addition to establishing the facts that are relevant to the complaint, we
10.
also need to establish a clear understanding of the standards, both of general
application and which are specific to the circumstances of the case, which applied at
the time the events complained about occurred, and which governed the exercise of
the administrative functions of those bodies whose actions are the subject of the
complaint. We call this establishing the overall standard.
11. The overall standard has two components: the general standard which is
derived from general principles of good administration and, where applicable, of
public law; and the specific standard which is derived from the legal, policy and
administrative framework and the professional standards relevant to the events in
question.
2
12. Having established the overall standard we then assess the facts in accordance
with the standard. Specifically, we assess whether or not an act or omission on the
part of the body complained about constitutes a departure from the applicable
standard. If so, we then assess whether, in all the circumstances, that act or
omission falls so far short of the applicable standard as to constitute
maladministration. The overall standard which I have applied to this investigation is
set out in the Ombudsman’s Principles below.
The general standard – the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Principles
13. In February 2009 the Ombudsman republished her Principles of Good
Administration, Principles of Good Complaint Handling and Principles for Remedy.
These are broad statements of what she considers public bodies should do to deliver
good administration and customer service, and how to respond when things go
wrong. The same six key Principles apply to each of the three documents. These six
Principles are:
Getting it right
•
Being customer focused
•
Being open and accountable
•
Acting fairly and proportionately
•
Putting things right
•
Seeking continuous improvement
•
14. I have taken these Principles into account in my consideration of Mr New Dealer’s
complaint. The Principles particularly relevant to Mr New Dealer’s complaint are getting
it right which entails, among other things, that public bodies should follow their own
policy and procedural guidance, and being open and accountable, which entails,
among other things, that information should be handled as openly as the law allows.
The specific standard – legislative and administrative background
15. New Deal 25 Plus is a Jobcentre Plus programme for the longer term
unemployed. The programme is designed to help people obtain sustainable work and
provide, where necessary, help and support to improve a person’s employability.
New Deal 25 Plus consists of three stages:
1. Gateway
2. Intensive Activity Period
3. Follow-through
The Gateway stage gives participants support and advice on how to search for
16.
jobs and the resources available. Following the Gateway stage, participants
3
complete a mandatory 13 week Intensive Activity Period.1 During this period a new
Jobseekers Agreement is completed and the participant’s job goals are determined.
Work placements are a main part of this stage. During this stage participants may
obtain employment, or improve their employability by increasing skills and gaining a
work reference. The Follow-through stage is the final stage of the programme. Job
searching is conducted daily and this stage can last from six to thirteen weeks.
17. Pertemps is contracted by Jobcentre Plus to deliver various New Deal 25 Plus
provisions, including the Intensive Activity Period, in the Marches district. This
district includes Kidderminster where Mr New Dealer lived at the time. The contract
between Jobcentre Plus and Pertemps outlines the responsibilities and expectations
of both parties in delivering New Deal 25 Plus. Schedule Four of the contract states;
“The Provider shall work with Jobcentre Plus to establish and maintain
an effective and beneficial working relationship to ensure the Contract
is delivered to at least the minimum required standard as specified in
Schedule Two”.
18. Schedule Two of the contract states that Jobcentre Plus requires Pertemps to
provide a wide and varied range of work placements across all parts of the Marches
district. Schedule Two goes on to say that Jobcentre Plus expect Pertemps to cover
the following work areas for participants of the Intensive Activity Period;
“Occupational Areas to be delivered; Business Administration, Construction,
Engineering, Healthcare & Public Services, Retail, Customer Service,
Warehousing & Distribution, Forklift Truck and Warehousing, Transportation,
Manufacturing, Hospitality.
With Construction [Jobcentre Plus] would anticipate the following areas to be
covered; Bricklaying, Plumbing, Glazing & Window Fitters, General
Labouring, Plastering, Floor & Wall Tiling, Carpentry & Joinery, Painting &
Decorating, General Construction Maintenance, Electrical”.
19. The Jobcentre Plus Provider Guidance (the guidance) says that providers must
tailor Jobcentre Plus provisions to meet individual participants’ needs rather than a
‘one size fits all’ approach. This involves carrying out an assessment of the
participants’ needs and discussing and agreeing with them the activities they will
undertake. The guidance says that the agreements reached must be reflected in the
participant’s Training or Action Plan.
20. The guidance explains that work placements aim to help participants find
work and contribute to an improvement in their employability. The main objectives
of work placements are to:
enable the movement of participants into work;
•
1
Mr New Dealer’s complains about the service he received while participating in the Intensive Activity
Period.
4
improve the employability of participants by providing them with an
•
opportunity to put work skills into practice;
engage participants in employment that matches their job goals;
•
provide prospective employers with evidence that the participant has the
•
necessary skills and abilities to do the job;
boost participants’ motivation and confidence; and
•
provide participants with a recent work reference.
•
21. The guidance says that providers must ensure that participants are not
exploited by employers. Jobcentre Plus considers that this is particularly relevant
where participants are placed with employers for the purposes of training or work
experience. Jobcentre Plus considers it unacceptable for employers involved in the
delivery of a provision to use participants for cheap labour or to help out during a
busy period.
22. The Jobcentre Plus Work Placement Employer Agreement states that
employers offering work placements will;
“Aim wherever possible to retain in our employment people who join
us under these arrangements as long as they can demonstrate to us
the aptitude, commitment and will to work which we need from
them.
To offer a period of structured and supported work experience to
people who join us under these arrangements as long as they
demonstrate to us the aptitude, commitment and will to work which
we need from them, which will provide the participant with valuable
skills for future jobs.
To offer every placement participant recruited under the New Deal 25
Plus, as a minimum, the same support as other employees doing the
same job.
For those participants who cannot be offered employment we agree to
provide feedback on their performance and supply an up to date work
reference which details the skills and attributes show throughout the
work experience placement”.
23. The Independent Case Examiner is Mr John Hanlon. For clarity I use ICE in this
report when referring to his office and use Independent Case Examiner when
referring to Mr Hanlon. ICE provides an arms-length complaint handing service for
the Department for Work and Pensions, including Jobcentre Plus. Customers of
Jobcentre Plus who are dissatisfied with the handling of their case can approach ICE
and ask them to investigate.
5
Background events
24. Jobcentre Plus told us that Mr New Dealer commenced the Intensive Activity
Period on 10 July 2006. During this period, Mr New Dealer was required to complete 24
hours per week work experience and six hours per week job searching. On 25 July
2006 Jobcentre Plus and Pertemps signed the contract relating to Pertemps’
provision of services under New Deal 25 Plus. Jobcentre Plus said that Pertemps
recorded the following from their initial meeting with Mr New Dealer;
a) Mr New Dealer was applying for various types of work.
b) Mr New Dealer’s short term job goal was to gain worthwhile employment
where he would get the chance to use practical skills.
c) Mr New Dealer’s long term job goals were not to work in a bar, restaurant
or shop and he would like the opportunity to have a practical job i.e.
electrical, plumbing, carpentry.
d) Mr New Dealer’s Jobseekers Agreement goal was to work in the
administration area.2
25. Mr New Dealer and Pertemps agreed a Learning and Development Plan (the Plan)
on 31 July 2006. The Plan outlined the agreed aims, objectives and steps required to
assist Mr New Dealer in his search for employment. The Plan’s goals for Mr New Dealer were
as follows;
Immediate – curriculum vitae, interview skills, confidence building.
Medium term – work experience and placement.
Long term – full time sustainable employment.
26. In the meantime, Pertemps offered Mr New Dealer a placement as a depot worker
with Network Worcestershire (Network), an electrical appliance reconditioning and
recycling centre. Jobcentre Plus told us that Mr New Dealer’s duties would be to take in
deliveries, deal with paperwork, record data and input this onto a computer system
and move goods into storage bays. Jobcentre Plus said that Pertemps felt that this
placement would support Mr New Dealer’s progress and provide him with a balance of
what he was seeking i.e. practical and administrative experience. Mr New Dealer started
work at Network on 26 July 2006.
27. Mr New Dealer said that while at Network he was made to clean dirty fridges. He
complained to Network that this type of work was not appropriate. Mr New Dealer said
that after he complained, Network began training him in preparation to cover
another employee’s holiday leave. Mr New Dealer said that he provided this cover for
two weeks and his duties included; taking donations, doing van deliveries and
booking in goods on the computer.
2
Jobcentre Plus have not been able to locate a copy of Mr New Dealer’s Jobseekers Agreement from this
period (July 2006). I have seen a copy of the agreement completed in October 2006 and this states
that Mr New Dealer was looking for work which included clerical office and general administration.
6
28. When a permanent position became available at Network, Mr New Dealer applied
for this but was unsuccessful. Jobcentre Plus said that the feedback Pertemps
received from Network was that Mr New Dealer had never suggested he was unhappy
with the placement and he did not request any feedback as to why he was
unsuccessful in his application for a permanent position. However his supervisor at
Network met with him and explained that he was not successful due to his lack of
experience and the fact that he had been unemployed for the previous 13 years. The
position was filled by another work placement volunteer with 16 years warehouse
experience.
29. Jobcentre Plus in their letter to Mr New Dealer of 9 October 2006 (about five
weeks into his placement) said it was at this point that Mr New Dealer expressed to
Network that he was unhappy about not getting the job and did not continue with
the work placement. Mr New Dealer returned to Pertemps for the mandatory 30 hours
per week attendance under the Intensive Activity Period, where the main focus was
to secure a further placement for him and continue his supported job search
activities.
30. Jobcentre Plus said that during this time Mr New Dealer applied for over 50 jobs.
Pertemps told Jobcentre Plus at the time that they were of the view that the range
of jobs being sought by Mr New Dealer was unrealistic, given his lack of relevant
qualifications and experience. A Pertemps Deputy Manager then contacted
Mr New Dealer’s New Deal Personal Adviser to inform her that he was applying for a
variety of jobs requiring practical experience, e.g. electrician, carpenter and
plumber, which did not correspond with his Jobseekers Agreement goal or support
realistic short term aspirations (as long term training or a trainee position was
required to gain employment in these areas). The Pertemps Deputy Manager also
expressed concern that Mr New Dealer’s motivation levels were declining.
31. Jobcentre Plus said that the New Deal Personal Adviser confirmed that she
wanted Pertemps to adhere to the agreed administrative job goal and that she
wanted Mr New Dealer to focus on this area. Also, Jobcentre Plus and Pertemps
considered that Mr New Dealer would benefit from being in a more supportive placement
environment. Therefore Pertemps offered Mr New Dealer a work placement at their
offices ‘Pertemps Mouzer’ in Kidderminster. Pertemps felt that this placement
would:
Provide work experience linked to Mr New Dealer’s Jobseekers Agreement goal.
•
Be in an environment operating services linked to Mr New Dealer’s qualifications
•
(he held a diploma in Careers and Guidance).
Stimulate Mr New Dealer intellectually and motivationally and build his
•
confidence.
32. On 21 September 2006, the day Mr New Dealer was offered this work placement,
he wrote to Jobcentre Plus requesting a copy of the contract between Jobcentre
Plus and Pertemps. Mr New Dealer said that he had concerns about whether Pertemps
were meeting the requirements of the contract and the needs of himself and other
New Deal participants. Mr New Dealer complained that a wide range of quality
7
placements across all occupational sectors were not available and that the offer of a
work placement at Pertemps Mouzer was an admission that Pertemps were unable to
provide quality placements.
33. Mr New Dealer said he accepted the placement at Pertemps Mouzer but that it
was not among the work assignments he requested. Mr New Dealer said that when he
attempted to discuss this issue with the Pertemps Deputy Manager she said to him
‘I’m not going to argue with you about it’. Mr New Dealer considered that the Deputy
Manager displayed a negative attitude towards him. Mr New Dealer said that there were
no witnesses to this discussion, as they were in an office alone.
34. Jobcentre Plus said that the Pertemps Deputy Manager was attempting to explain
to Mr New Dealer that his New Deal Personal Adviser had confirmed that he should focus
on “administration” when Mr New Dealer became extremely challenging as to why he
should comply. Mr New Dealer told her that he was unwilling to pursue any work
experience in administration. The Deputy Manager felt that such a placement would
benefit Mr New Dealer both on a personal and professional level, because by his own
admission, he had difficulty setting long term goals. The Deputy Manager had
explained the benefits of working within such an environment by recapping on her
own learning experience.
35. Mr New Dealer commenced his placement at Pertemps Mouzer on 25 September
2006. Jobcentre Plus said that Mr New Dealer’s responsibilities included; reception work,
receiving, recording and distributing post, answering the telephone and taking client
bookings from Jobcentre Plus advisers. Mr New Dealer was also given the responsibility of
organising the careers advice and guidance room, which involved collecting,
collating and displaying resources available to participants. Jobcentre Plus said that
Mr New Dealer also assisted in setting up two client computers and was very positive and
co-operative in his approach to his duties. This placement continued until the end of
the 13 week Intensive Activity Period.
36. On 9 October 2006 Jobcentre Plus responded to Mr New Dealer’s complaint letter
of 21 September 2006.3 Jobcentre Plus said that due to Mr New Dealer’s lack of
qualifications and experience in the types of practical jobs he was seeking, Pertemps
found it very difficult to find a placement for him. Jobcentre Plus accepted that
there was a lack of suitable placements in Kidderminster but felt that the
placements offered adhered to Mr New Dealer’s Jobseekers Agreement which was to
work in an administrative position.
37. Jobcentre Plus said that when Mr New Dealer challenged the Pertemps Mouzer
placement with the Pertemps Deputy Manager, she was trying to explain the benefits
of working in an office environment. Jobcentre Plus said that Mr New Dealer’s
perception of the Deputy Manager being aggressive and having a negative attitude
was as a result of her trying to help him attain his job goal.
3
Jobcentre Plus provided Mr New Dealer with a copy of the contract between Jobcentre Plus and
Pertemps on 10 October 2006.
8
38. Mr New Dealer wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 10 October 2006. He asked Jobcentre
Plus if Pertemps were operating the New Deal programme fully in accordance with
the contract. The following day, Jobcentre Plus wrote to Mr New Dealer asking that he
meet with them at their office in Kidderminster to discuss his complaint in full.4 Mr
New Dealer wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 15 October 2006 and said that he had not been
given a definitive answer to whether or not Pertemps were meeting the terms of the
contract. Mr New Dealer said that he did not object to meeting with Jobcentre Plus if
they had the capability and willingness to address the issues he had raised. Mr
New Dealer insisted on receiving a written response to the questions he raised.
39. On 18 October 2006 Mr New Dealer wrote to Jobcentre Plus and requested copies
of all the information Jobcentre Plus obtained from the monthly monitoring of
Pertemps performance since the start of the contract (July 2006). Mr New Dealer also
requested a copy of all contractual reviews undertaken by Jobcentre Plus. The same
day, Mr New Dealer wrote to Jobcentre Plus’s Chief Executive and asked for confirmation
that the contract between Pertemps and Jobcentre Plus was being delivered to at
least the Schedule Two specification [Paragraph 18]. Mr New Dealer requested evidence
that this was occurring or if it was not, what action was being taken to remedy this.
40. On 27 October 2006 Jobcentre Plus provided Mr New Dealer with the requested
documentation. This included;
Provider Assessment undertaken on 14 August 2006.
•
Provider Assessment Report dated 14 August 2006.
•
Contract Start Up Plan.
•
Pertemps September Report.
•
Pertemps Monthly Programme Breakdown.
•
Monthly Report to Senior Commercial Manager dated 12 October 2006.
•
Provider Level Management Information for September 2006.
•
41. On 4 November 2006 Mr New Dealer wrote again to Jobcentre Plus’s Chief
Executive. Referring to the documentation recently received, he said that Pertemps
appeared to have recorded 55 job outcomes when the actual figure was zero. Mr
New Dealer asked if he was correct in assuming that Pertemps had committed fraud in
this respect. Mr New Dealer asked again if Pertemps were delivering the New Deal
provision to at least the minimum standard outlined in Schedule Two of the contract.
Mr New Dealer wrote again on 11 November 2006. He was concerned about the lack of
response from Jobcentre Plus and said that time was of the essence if fraud was
being committed.
42. On 20 November 2006 Jobcentre Plus’s Director of Programmes, on behalf of
the Chief Executive, responded to Mr New Dealer. He said that Jobcentre Plus took any
4
Mr New Dealer wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 11 October 2006 asking whether the New Deal programme was
operating on the basis of age discrimination. Mr New Dealer and Jobcentre Plus exchanged
correspondence on this issue over the next five months. This issue does not form part of the
complaint accepted for investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
9
allegations of fraud seriously and wanted to assure Mr New Dealer that in this case there
was no evidence to suggest there were any financial irregularities in the way
Pertemps operated. Jobcentre Plus confirmed that Pertemps had claimed the
following job outcomes to date; July – 0 jobs, August – 6 jobs, September – 11 jobs,
October – 21 jobs. Jobcentre Plus said that through regular monitoring and contract
management meetings with Pertemps, Jobcentre Plus were satisfied the contract
was being delivered to the required standard.
Mr New Dealer replied to the Director of Programmes on 27 November 2006. He
43.
asked for an explanation of the basis upon which Jobcentre Plus formed their
conclusions about Pertemps. He asked where the job figures had been quoted from
with reference to supporting documentation. On 13 December 2006 Mr New Dealer wrote
again to Jobcentre Plus and requested all information obtained from their monthly
monitoring of Pertemps.
44. On 18 December 2006, Mr New Dealer wrote to the Director of Programmes
requesting a response to his previous letter. Jobcentre Plus’s Director of Programmes
responded to Mr New Dealer on 19 December 2006.5 Details of the response were as
follows;
The job outcome figures were compiled from the payment claims submitted
•
by Pertemps. A copy of these source documents could not be provided to Mr
New Dealer as they included personal information about Jobcentre Plus
customers. Disclosure was therefore restricted under the Data Protection Act
1998.
Providers’ performance was monitored against paid job outcomes only. The
•
monthly figures, Mr New Dealer referred to in his letter, noting 55 jobs up to the
end of September 2006, was part of a report prepared by Pertemps for their
own monitoring purposes. The figure could relate to jobs still to be validated
by Jobcentre Plus or for jobs less than eight hours. Jobcentre Plus does not
consider these figures when analysing performance as they do not relate to
paid job outcomes.
Regular monitoring and contract management meetings with Pertemps had
•
been carried out in line with the Jobcentre Plus contract management
framework. Pertemps performance had been rated as satisfactory based on
the job outcomes achieved and reviews undertaken to date. A copy of this
report had been provided to Mr New Dealer on 27 October 2006.
Jobcentre Plus assured Mr New Dealer that the Jobcentre Plus contract
•
management framework had been appropriately applied and all monitoring
was carried out by experienced and trained procurement staff. Jobcentre Plus
had no reason to doubt their professional judgement.
5
The Director’s letter refers to Mr New Dealer’s initial letter of 27 November 2006. It is unclear whether
Mr New Dealer’s letter of 18 December 2006 had been received by Jobcentre Plus at that time.
10
45. Mr New Dealer responded on 28 December 2006 and asked if the contract said that
Pertemps were supposed to deliver placements to New Deal participants in the
occupational areas outlined under Schedule Two of the contract. [Paragraph 18]
46. On 12 January 2007, Jobcentre Plus provided Mr New Dealer with the
documentation he had requested on 13 December 2006. These included October and
November 2006 Performance Reports and a Provider Performance Review dated 9
January 2007. Within these documents was a Jobcentre Plus monthly report of
Pertemps performance dated 7 November 2006. The report said the following;
There had been an improvement on job outcomes but Pertemps had not told
•
Jobcentre Plus how they would improve other aspects of performance;
Jobcentre Plus were liaising with Pertemps over major non-compliance issues
•
in relation to provision in Mr New Dealer’s area;
Pertemps had achieved 27% in job outcomes against the promised 42.5%; and
•
Although there were still major issues that needed to be addressed to meet
•
contractual compliance, Jobcentre Plus would give a cautionary satisfactory
marking overall.
On 26 February 2007 Mr New Dealer wrote to Jobcentre Plus’s Chief Executive.6 Mr
47.
New Dealer asked for confirmation that the contract between Pertemps and Jobcentre
Plus was being delivered to the minimum standard as required by Schedule Two of
the contract.7 On 3 April 2007, Jobcentre Plus’s Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of
the Chief Executive wrote to Mr New Dealer. He reiterated the information provided to
Mr New Dealer in the Director of Programmes previous responses. The Chief Operating
Officer said that all payments for job outcomes claimed by Pertemps were validated
by Jobcentre Plus before being authorised. He said that there had been considerable
previous correspondence on this matter and Jobcentre Plus was neither required nor
resourced to reply to correspondence that had become circular in nature. Mr New Dealer
was advised that any further communication from him on this matter would not
receive a reply.
Independent Case Examiner
48. In May 2007 Mr New Dealer complained to the Independent Case Examiner. Mr
New Dealer said that Jobcentre Plus and Pertemps appeared to not be ensuring that the
contract under which they operated was being delivered according to its written
terms. Mr New Dealer said that he came to this conclusion as he was not provided with
the work placements he requested, even though it clearly stated in the contract that
this was a requirement. ICE agreed to investigate part of Mr New Dealer’s complaint, but
with regards to the allegations of contractual breaches and non-compliance, ICE
6
Mr New Dealer sent a similar letter to Jobcentre Plus’s Chief Executive in response to the Director of
Programmes’ letter of 20 November 2006. Our copy of this letter is undated.
7
On 27 February 2007 Mr New Dealer wrote to Jobcentre Plus and made a formal complaint about the
conduct of a Jobcentre Plus employee. This issue does not form part of the complaint accepted for
investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
11
advised that it was not their role to audit the robustness of the contractual
management arrangements between Jobcentre Plus and its providers.
49. ICE agreed to investigate the following complaints;
1. Despite guidance to the contrary, when Mr New Dealer attended the New
Deal programme, he was not supplied with the work placements he
had requested, and;
2. Jobcentre Plus failed to provide adequate replies to Mr New Dealer’s
correspondence.
50. In September 2007 the Independent Case Examiner issued his findings. He did
not uphold Mr New Dealer’s complaints. The Independent Case Examiner said that given
the provisions of the Intensive Activity Period and Mr New Dealer’s agreed employment
goals with Pertemps and Jobcentre Plus, the work placements provided to him were
in line with guidance. The Independent Case Examiner found that Jobcentre Plus had
replied to correspondence within timescales and that their replies had been
reasonable and thorough.
Mr New Dealer’s comments
Mr New Dealer said that upon commencing the Intensive Activity Period with
51.
Pertemps he requested work in the electrical occupational area. Specifically, he
wanted to be offered an electrical installation placement by Pertemps. Before
starting the Intensive Activity Period, Mr New Dealer said he was told that he would get a
suitable placement to help him get the sort of job he wanted. Mr New Dealer said that
he hadn’t obtained the experience he had been promised, although he did gain some
experience, which would probably be useful at some point. He said that the two
placements offered, at Network and Pertemps Mouzer, were at the convenience of
the provider, without taking his needs into account.
52. Mr New Dealer said that in accordance with the guidance, Pertemps must ensure
that the provision is tailored to his needs, not one size fits all. Mr New Dealer considers
that this tailoring meant finding him an electrical installation placement, not
sending him to Network to clean dirty fridges or cover another employee’s holiday
leave. Mr New Dealer considered that this work constituted cheap labour, which was
prohibited under the guidance.
Jobcentre Plus’s comments on Mr New Dealer’s complaint
53. Jobcentre Plus said that Pertemps did attempt to secure placements in
accordance with Mr New Dealer’s preferred occupational areas. However, due to Mr
New Dealer’s lack of qualifications and experience in the type of practical jobs he was
seeking, Pertemps found it very difficult to find placements for him. This was
because employers and organisations were not willing to take on trainees (to work in
the electrical field) as work placement volunteers. But Jobcentre Plus felt that the
work placements offered to Mr New Dealer supported his progress and provided him with
a balance of what he was seeking i.e. practical and administration. Jobcentre Plus
12
confirmed that Mr New Dealer was referred to Network with a view to undertaking
administrative duties. However to ensure that he had a full understanding of the
business, he was given duties which included cleaning fridges which is part of the
recycling process. If Mr New Dealer had remained with Network his duties would have
changed to include administration. Jobcentre Plus said that Pertemps have used
Network for a number of placements and that Mr New Dealer was not there to cover the
absence of another employee.
54. Jobcentre Plus accepted that they did have issues with Pertemps at the time
with regard to the low level of performance being achieved against the job outcome
targets. However, Jobcentre Plus recognised that Pertemps had been required to
accommodate a higher number of customer referrals than originally indicated.
55. Regarding Mr New Dealer’s complaint about the inadequate responses to his
correspondence, Pertemps had minimal contact with Mr New Dealer in this regard. In
accordance with Jobcentre Plus protocol, they sought information from Pertemps
and responded accordingly to Mr New Dealer.
ICE’s comments on Mr New Dealer’s complaint
56. When investigating Mr New Dealer’s complaint, the Independent Case Examiner
did not refer to any contracts, guidance or service agreement between Jobcentre
Plus and Pertemps. Rather ICE requested from Jobcentre Plus, answers to specific
questions about Mr New Dealer’s work placements, a full record of the evidence and a
statement of events. ICE’s investigation focus is on the individual complainant and
the service received. It is not the Independent Case Examiner’s role to undertake
broad investigations into the contracts entered into by Jobcentre Plus or measure
the general performance of New Deal providers. ICE made this clear to Mr New Dealer.
Findings
57. Mr New Dealer’s complaint that Pertemps provided an inadequate service centres
on Schedule Two of their contract with Jobcentre Plus. I disagree with Mr New Dealer’s
interpretation. First the contract states that Pertemps must offer a wide range of
work placements in general across the District, rather than provide a wide range of
placements for each participant. And secondly, the Schedule states that Jobcentre
Plus anticipates the Pertemps provision would cover the electrical work area. There
is no guarantee to this effect.
58. Mr New Dealer has also identified that there were contractual compliance issues
between Jobcentre Plus and Pertemps. In relation to our investigation of Mr
New Dealer’s complaint, I would need to see evidence that the non-compliance issues
resulted in Mr New Dealer receiving an unreasonable or inadequate service and one that
was contrary to any relevant guidance in place at the time. This guidance is referred
to in paragraphs 15 to 22 of this report which I have taken into consideration in
reaching my findings below.
13
59. While participating in the Intensive Activity Period I note that Mr New Dealer’s
short term goal was to gain worthwhile employment where he could use practical
skills and his long term goal was to obtain a practical job in the electrical, plumbing
or carpentry field. I also note that Mr New Dealer’s Jobseekers Agreement goal was to
work in the administration area. The first work placement at Network involved
practical tasks which Jobcentre Plus said would have included administrative duties
if Mr New Dealer had remained with that employer. I have no reason to doubt what
Jobcentre Plus have said in this regard. I appreciate that Mr New Dealer feels that the
placement was not tailored to his needs, but the position appears to address Mr
New Dealer’s short term work goals and his Jobseeker’s Agreement. Furthermore as
Network operated a repair and recycling service for electrical appliances, I can also
see how this placement would have provided some experience to assist Mr New Dealer
reaching his long term employment goal of working within the electrical field.
60. Mr New Dealer has complained that while at Network he was made to clean dirty
fridges. Jobcentre Plus have told us that cleaning fridges was included as part of Mr
New Dealer’s duties to ensure that he had a full understanding of Network’s business.
Although Mr New Dealer may not have considered this task appropriate, I do not consider
it unreasonable to expect work placement participants to undertake a range of
duties that are an essential part of a business’s operations.
61. Mr New Dealer has also said that while at Network he covered another employee’s
leave and this constitutes being used as cheap labour. I accept Mr New Dealer’s
comments that the guidance explicitly prohibits work placement participants to be
exploited, but I have seen no evidence that this occurred in his case. Jobcentre Plus
have said that Mr New Dealer was not used to cover another employee’s absence and
that they have used Network for successful placements in the past. If Mr New Dealer did
in fact cover the absence of another employee for a period, I am not persuaded that
it then follows that he was exploited. Particularly if the duties were consistent with
those initially agreed for the work placement. On this point, Mr New Dealer has said that
the covering duties included taking donations, making deliveries and booking in
goods on the computer system. I note that these tasks were in line with the original
work placement duties arranged prior to starting at Network.
Mr New Dealer left the placement voluntarily and Pertemps arranged for him to
62.
work at his local Pertemps office in an administrative role. I can appreciate why Mr
New Dealer considers that this was evidence of Pertemps being unable to find him a
suitable position and Jobcentre Plus have accepted that there was a shortage of
placements in the area at that time. However, Mr New Dealer’s Jobseekers Agreement
goal was to work in the administrative area and I understand that Mr New Dealer holds a
diploma in careers and guidance. On this basis, it would not appear unreasonable for
Pertemps to have provided a placement for Mr New Dealer in their offices where he
could gain further administrative skills with an employment and training
organisation.
For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 57 to 62 above, I do not consider that
63.
the service Pertemps provided to Mr New Dealer fell so far short of getting it right as to
be maladministration. I do not uphold his complaint.
14
64. Mr New Dealer also complains that a Pertemps Deputy Manager spoke to him in a
rude manner. I understand from Mr New Dealer that while attempting to discuss his
concerns about his work placements, the Deputy Manager responded by saying “I am
not going to argue with you about it”. Jobcentre Plus have said that Mr New Dealer was
extremely challenging towards the Deputy Manager who was trying to explain the
benefits of the placement and assist him in reaching his work goals. I can appreciate
that during this time Mr New Dealer was frustrated about what he considered were a lack
of suitable placements and I do not doubt that he felt the Deputy Manager’s
response was unhelpful. However, in this case there is insufficient evidence for me
to reach a finding one way or another.
65. I turn now to Mr New Dealer’s complaint that Pertemps and Jobcentre Plus did not
provide him with adequate responses to his enquiries and complaints. From the
papers provided it appears that Mr New Dealer’s enquiries were directed to Jobcentre
Plus. Jobcentre Plus have said that in accordance with their policy, they responded
directly to Mr New Dealer and where appropriate they obtained information from
Pertemps. There is no evidence to indicate that Jobcentre Plus unreasonably delayed
in responding to Mr New Dealer or that they failed to provide him with all the
documentation he had requested (subject to the provisions under the Data
Protection Act 1998). Mr New Dealer asked Jobcentre Plus if they were satisfied that
Pertemps were delivering the programme to the required standard as stipulated in
the contract. Jobcentre Plus confirmed that they were and explained what job
outcomes Pertemps had claimed, how these were paid and how Pertemps’
performance was monitored. I acknowledge that Mr New Dealer wanted more specific
reasons why Jobcentre Plus were satisfied in this regard, but I cannot see that
Jobcentre Plus’s replies were vague or misleading. On that basis it seems to me that
Jobcentre Plus were sufficiently open and accountable and I can find no basis to
conclude maladministration in the way they responded to Mr New Dealer’s enquiries. I do
not uphold his complaint.
Independent Case Examiner
The Independent Case Examiner concluded that the work placements provided
66.
to Mr New Dealer were reasonable and that Jobcentre Plus’s replies to his
correspondence were appropriate. I acknowledge that I have provided a more
comprehensive response to Mr New Dealer’s complaint with reference to the relevant
provider guidance. However, I note that ICE’s investigation, in accordance with their
policy, did not involve any examination of the contractual agreements and guidance
between Jobcentre Plus and Pertemps and that Mr New Dealer’s complaint to ICE did not
include his concerns about cleaning dirty fridges, covering an employee’s absence or
his treatment by the Pertemps Deputy Manager. Given these limitations, I do not
consider that the Independent Case Examiner’s conclusions were unreasonable and I
am satisfied that ICE was not maladministrative in their handling of Mr New Dealer’s
case. I do not uphold Mr New Dealer’s complaint about the Independent Case Examiner.
Conclusion [to be completed]
15