A couple of weeks ago, I drew attention to how DWP minister Mark Hoban was unable, even in a formal response to an MP, to get his facts straight on the law regarding what the DWP’s Jobcentre Plus (JCP) is legally allowed to force – or ‘mandate’ – jobseekers to do.
Hoban thought that the DWP and its agents have the right to issue a ‘jobseeker’s direction’ (JSD) – an instruction that results in a sanction (suspension of benefits) if the jobseeker doesn’t comply – to make jobseekers use the highly-flawed and controversial Universal Jobmatch (UJM) system to look for jobs. They do not.
But it’s not just Mark Hoban’s ignorance. JCP advisers continue to break the law by imposing claimant commitments (CC) – the precursor to a JSD – that are completely illegal – and the SKWAWKBOX has documentary evidence.
I’ve received a copy, from a JCP insider, of one such CC:
This CC is illegal on (at least) two counts. Firstly, it requires the jobseeker to access UJM when, as my article a couple of weeks ago already showed, the DWP has no legal right to do so.
Secondly, it states that no ‘written jobsearch’ is now acceptable and mandates that evidence of jobsearch activity must be provided by either giving the JCP access to his/her UJM account or by providing a print-out of the ‘application history’.
But the DWP knows this is untrue. Not only do they know it to be untrue, but they have stated in their own guidance to their own employees that it is untrue.
A recent Freedom of Information Act response by the DWP outlined at length the guidance issued to JCP advisers on what they can and cannot do, and in particular what they can and cannot mandate. Point 82 of this guidance, under a heading of ‘Actively Seeking Employment‘, addresses the issue of jobsearch activity:
82. We cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this – it is not therefore possible to require JSA claimants to give DWP access to their Universal Jobmatch account.
Condemned by its own words – the DWP is fully aware that it has no right to demand any particular form of evidence that claimants have been looking for work. JCP advisers can require evidence – but not specify what form that evidence takes.
Yet this bandit department continues to ride roughshod over even the semblance of lawfulness. And as we saw last month, it has now formalised this lawlessness by decreeing that claimants have no right of appeal if a JCP adviser decides to illegally impose such conditions, even if they result in sanctions which are therefore also illegal.
Claimants can ask for a review by another adviser, but if the second adviser is equally ill-informed or reckless the decision – still illegal – can be upheld and enforced, and sanctions can be immediately applied for a failure to comply, even though claimants would be absolutely within their rights to do so, even according to the official guidance.
I’m tempted to call the DWP a maverick department. But that would be inaccurate. A maverick disregards the opinion and conventions of his/her peers, but the banditry of the DWP is entirely in line with the malevolence of the rest of the government toward any whom it considers lacking, or simply vulnerable to attack.
Reposted – http://jaynelinney.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/yet-more-dwp-illegality-the-dwp-is-built-on-lies/
what happens if the person does not have any computers skills? maybe even have dyslexia and have problems writing and understand english ??
several = ” more than two but not many ” is 7 hours many or about right , its vague and could somebody trip on not doing enough cos there view of several could be 3/4/5 hours. Wonder is UJ is logging the amount of time spent on the website as well too keep records.
You know what happens: the person is sanctioned.
And given that the rules and gotchas are now so complicated, that is precisely what is happening to those people who were only just managing before: now, they are not managing at all.
It follows that they will face court for Council Tax, demands for rent and bill payments, and finally eviction and homelessness.
Which is what we are seeing.
Now I’m worried. I do not use UJM (it’s crap) but always give my adviser print-outs of jobs I have applied for from other sites. It appears that from October, this will no longer be acceptable. Thoughts people?
It’s down to what your adviser accepts in your ‘claimant committment’.
You could try and argue that UJM is shit (it is). You might even find your adviser sympathetic. Or you might find they are just another uncaring sanction happy robot.
The problem is that this is all wide open to abuse and we don’t seem to have any rights. Even printing out what you do is difficult unless you can afford to run a printer and of course have tergular internet access.
Bastards. This will require a legal challenge, I presume, if any recipient of this treatment had the confidence & tenacity as well as a public spirited body with funds enough to support their battle. Only the adverse publicity of personal suffering could shame these politicians – if they’re still susceptible, approaching an election, to further proof of absolute toxicity.
There is a legal challenge ideb8. Anyone who has had problems with UJ can help by submitting a Witness Statement to help further a Judicial Review that is looking into the above matter. The person who has submitted the legal proceedings can be contacted at noconsentuj@gmail.com and she will provide details. It is easy to complete and a chance for people to make their voice heard.
Brilliant news. Many thanks. Will pass this email to a friend I’ve only just left, who related such a problem to us.
Get his/her details, mate. There should be an appeal going out tonight on this blog for lots of such accounts for the case.
Steve, cannot comment for other areas, but in our jcp yes, claimants are asked to provide access to their jobmatch account but it is not mandatory and as such sanctions cannot apply if not granted. Similarly, the jobseekers agreement – from which that image is taken – is just that, an agreement between the adviser and the claimant. It should only be signed by the claimant if they are in agreement with what is put on there. Unless the claimants requests/details are unreasonable (fie example (and I know this one us true) a person who wishes to become a deep sea diver, who cannot swim, that lives in Birmingham and refuses to travel more than fifteen miles to work, the claimants wishes should be taken into perspective. At least at a decent jobcentre. And believe it or not, there are many of them out there.
Oh, I believe it. I get passed a lot of information by decent JCP advisers who are appalled at what’s going on. But the system now seems set up to wear them down and make it very hard to do the decent thing.
The problem is, that undue influence (this is illegal) has been applied and the claimants rights have been ignored.
The Jobseeker Agreement should simply state “you are advised to keep a written record of your Jobsearch”.
There is no requirement in law to keep a written record of your job search or that it need has to be corroborated in writing.
The Jobseeker has not given informed consent, if they had, they would not have agreed to the final requirement.
I wonder if the unfairness could be eliminated by software where the JC staff put in stock answers for CC. The stock answers should be compatible with
regulations and universal. This should create equality and less stress for JC staff. Any thoughts?
Reblogged this on Dawn Willis .
Phew! Just found this recent FOI request, I have printed it and will wave it in their faces should they give me any grief!
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/giving_job_centre_acess_to_unive
Marie it was myself that submitted this request, I’m due to sign on this Friday and I expect again to have another attempt at bullying me into giving the JC access to my account. Thankfully we now have this but I am also submitting a complaint about the office as I was also originally lied to in which I was told from the start it was mandatory, I let the advisers know then and there that it was not compulsory due to the Data Protection act only for them to tell me this. Spread the word.
Reblogged this on kickingthecat.
There is currently a Judicial Review in process initiated by a member of the public which is looking into the lawfulness of UJ. If anyone is unhappy with UJ and would like to submit a Witness Statement to help further the case please contact her noconsentuj@gmail.com and she will provide details. If she was to win it would have great implications for all. Thanks.
Great info. I’ll ask her if I can blog on it to increase awareness.
Thank you.
Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL JOURNAL.
Reblogged this on Vox Political.
I am surprised DWP staff have not raised concerns under the Department’s Crisis of Conscience policy.
I have tried to make contact with their Union without success.
There seems to be plenty of evidence that laws are being broken, procedures are not being followed and claimant rights are being disregarded. This cannot be happening without management knowledge and it will not be individuals who are being required to act inappropriately, it will be large teams of people.
If individual staff are afraid to raise concerns alone, they can contact their Union rep.
2. All Civil Servants must follow the Civil Service Code. The Department’s Standards of Behaviour are based on this Code, and set out the fundamental standards expected from you at work and in your private life, which may impact on your work.
3. If you believe you are personally being required to act in a way which conflicts with the Code you may raise the matter as a concern under the Code. You should start by reading the Department’s Crisis of Conscience Policy and Procedures.
4. You may seek advice from one of the Department’s Nominated Officers if you need advice about your concern.
Great information. Who in the union have you tried to contact? I have a few contacts in PCS I could try.for you.
From what Mary says, it seems evident the cowboy mentality at the top is still percolating down, undermining respect, manners, sympathy and disregarding safeguards designed for the most vulnerable.
It’s as if we’ve an Aussie Rottweiler at the helm, inspired by those American get-up-and-go years in Iraq, who’s been given (or has purchased via “sponsorship”) the freedom to bully ministers and their departments at will, yet who may, in 5 years or so, appear in some dowdy court, also mumbling in his defence something akin to:
“There were known knowns; there were things we knew that we knew. There were known unknowns. That is to say, there were things that we now know we didn’t know. But there were also unknown unknowns. These were things we do not know we didn’t know..”
“Ok.. damnit – Guilty, your Honour”
As usual, it’ll be too late by then though.
The JCP staff won’t have time to check your job search activity on UJM if you are on the ” Work Programme “, they don’t even have the time now as it stands to check on UJM even though I keep demanding they do as I apply for over 100 jobs a week, anything and everything that comes up. They still say ” sorry we don’t have time to check your UJM account, can you write them down for next time you sign on “.
Reblogged this on defytheeconomy.
Jobsworth what will they do once everything is computerised and the DWP has to pay off all those advisers who shat on the public for years once they arew made unemployed retribution will take place and the so called advisors will find themselves in the shit
Hiya Steve, after re:blogging I have just sent this to Raquel Rolnik on her email addy, as well as doing the rounds to push this out there. I n Solidarity!
Huggs Lizzie 🙂
Thank you – good move! Let me know whether you get anything back.
Will do Steve 🙂
“what happens if the person does not have any computers skills? maybe even have dyslexia and have problems writing and understand english ??” Then I guess they would have to rely heavily on friends or family to help them meet the targets in order get their money.
I want to be surprised but I’m not. What the hell are we doing?
Have a read, the UN want to know about us! http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/19082
The DWP has become expert at the demonisation of those less fortunate than Tory supporters. So it continues while this Government survives.
If i cannot find any suitable work to apply for, but I am actively looking for work, do they have a right to sanction me ?
It depends whether they agree with your definition of ‘suitable’, basically. They can’t reasonably sanction you if you can show you’re looking – but in practical terms they can do what they like.
Make sure you keep a detailed record of your jobsearch activity, and if you have any problems let me know – I may be able to get you some help.
I have just seen info about an “independent review of benefit sanctions” being carried out by this government …
http://disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2013/september/independent-reviewer-benefit-sanctions-announced
… the trouble is the ‘independent reviewer’ for the government is none other than Matthew Oakley … yes, that one from Policy Exchange who “… says that there must be greater conditions for in-work claimants…” … and “says that paying private and voluntary providers to help people back into work is a sensible approach to reducing unemployment.” … oh, and he’s also the one who’s promoting “… moving to a more localised system of pay bargaining in the public sector …”
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/people/item/matthew-oakley
… sounds typical for this government’s new definition of “independent”.
Great info.
My jobcentre in Cardigan have never done this, they are total sweethearts, they are lovely, the best thing about signing on. They help all the people with learning difficulties; loads of people here don’t have computers, i met one guy lives 20minutes’ drive from the nearest bus-stop, not everyone can afford bus-fares into the town to use computers at the library (again, the only library you don’t need a card or anything to use the computer – even in fishguard you need a card!) and they’re so fair. Oh, everybody, move to Wales, it is so much better here, england sucks.
maia, that’s great news – wonderful. As Brooke might say:
And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by Wales once given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under such Welsh heaven.
hi this has happened to a friend of mine, his money has been santioned for 4 weeks and this has left him with no mo money at all and he has been told he cant have a hard ship loan as his money has been sanctioned and they also wont give hima crisis loan so he contacted social work and they also said they cant help him any ideas, as he is virtually going to run out of everything in the next few days, with unpaid bills mounting up x xx
Thanks for letting us know. If he wants to send me more details I’ll publicise his story and try to get him some help.
hi having just spoken to him he has informed me that it was triage that informed the job centre that he was putting barriers up against finding work, it due to him staying in a very rural location and having no transport, he has kept every job search he has done, and has been phoned off various agencies but due to him having no transport he is finding it difficult to get there for the times stated as our buses only start at 9 in the morning and he has already showed them all the bus time tables and is still being told that no one or agency can help him, what advice can you offer
Drop me a line at ccgwatch@gmail.com please – I’ll ask an expert I know whether they can help.
Hardship payments
If Jobseeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit is stopped due to a sanction your friend might be able to get a hardship payment.
I strongly advise he speaks to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau – getting hardship payments can be tricky and they’ll help him.
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
This is another piece of information for the unemployed bullied by the DWP and the Job CentreThe Skwawkbox here shows that the they cannot make you look for work on Jobsearch plus. If they threaten you with sanctions, then they are breaking the law. They do not have the right to spy on your attempts to find work like this.
Reblogged this on glynismillward189.
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
So, really, it doesn’t matter if this is illegal. What practical power does a claimant have in this situation? If he sticks to his guns and the adviser decides to act in ignorance or through malevolence (or both), the Jobseeker is screwed. Can people really be expected to have any credibility if they take a print out of the FOI response? Won’t the adviser just see that as you being a troublemaker? After all if you were serious about looking for a job you’d gladly give out your details – wouldn’t you?
This is how they think. What does the PCS have to say about this? Do they care? What about the CAB?
In spite of the DWP spokes bodies always claiming sanctions are only used as a last resort, – otherwise known as lying. Here’s a fresh example of someone having to go through all the hassles of being sanctioned while 100% innocent.
http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/welfare-to-work/7061-sanctioned-for-ingeuss-error-which-they-admit
Decision makers must determine these types of cases on the balance of probability.
From the evidence presented this person has a good track record of attendance and the provider cannot prove a) the letter was posted or, b) the letter was delivered c) an administrative error did not occur.
It is essential this person asks for reconsideration ASAP on these grounds and makes a complaint too.
Your contributions on here are absolutely fantastic.
Standard of proof – balance of probability
01343 The DM must decide claims and applications on the balance of probability. This is not the same as “beyond reasonable doubt”, the standard test for proof in criminal trials.
01344 The balance of probability involves the DM deciding whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred, or that an assertion is true
1. It does not mean that the claimant can be given the benefit of the doubt.
2. If the evidence is contradictory the DM should decide whether there is enough evidence in favour of one conclusion or the other to show which is the more likely. The DM may decide on the basis of findings made on the balance of probability or may find that there is not enough evidence to satisfy them about findings one way or the other.
1 R(I) 4/65; 2 R(I) 32/61
01345 Alternatively the DM may find that there is insufficient evidence to establish the facts one way or the other and ask for more evidence
1. Claimants must supply all information and evidence required in connection with the decision
2. The DM should do as much as possible to see that all the necessary evidence is brought to light.
1 R v. Secretary of State ex parte CPAG [1990] QB540; 2 SS (C&P) Regs, reg 7(1), JSA Regs, reg 24
Well the DMs ignore that
You can have several months of applying for 4-5 jobs a week then one week you can only find 1-2 jobs, the stupid advisor raises a doubt and the moronic DMs sanction you
Here’s some more illegality for you.
There are comments on this blog
http://aftertheworkprogramme.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/after-the-work-programme/#comments
from people being bullied into taking her bank statements to the Jobcentre – then threatened with sanction because she has borrowed money to make ends meet:
Lisa on July 8, 2013 at 3:15 pm said:
“2nd appointment, have been refereed for the compliance interview. Where I’m almost certain I’ll be sanctioned for having to borrow money to survive and having money that doesn’t even belong to me go through my account…”
aftertheworkprogramme
on July 10, 2013 at 3:34 pm said:
” was asked to bring 3 months of statements to my second post work programme support meeting.”
Anonymous on July 10, 2013 at 7:51 pm said:
“Bumped into a friend today who has survived work programme. He is now having to sign on 3 days a week. Had to present his passport, proof of all utility bills and 6 months of bank statements. Seems they are trying to do anything to get people off benefits.”
Could you ask them to contact me on ccgwatch@gmail.com?
I work for a recruitment company and we (try to!) post jobs onto UJM but it is truly appalling and incredibly frustrating – I can only imagine how awful it is to search
It’s incredibly easy to post fake illegal jobs that you can advertise for months on end
Terrible WP results? Never mind. – Solution, more WP sanctions on the way:
“Conditionality – A Fair Deal” aims to help make sure that we all understand and apply those rules fairly but robustly across DWP.”
“improve ways of working together and drive up the quality of referrals.”
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-memo-130.pdf
and drive up the quality of referrals.
Don’t know if this is a good place to put this, but just found your site and thought you might be able to offer some advice. No one else seems to know what the work program or job centre can actually do.
I got a letter a couple of weeks back from pertemps/PPDG/G4S who are my work program providers saying they wanted me to go in every day until I finihshed the work program. This scared me, set off my depression and ruined my birthday. I went in today and I’m not sure if I feel better or worse. Seems like the reason they’ve called me in is that I finish the program with them in December before going back to the job centre. Obviously they’re pushing me to get something before then otherwise they don’t get their backhander. They claim they’re trying to help me because when I go back to the job centre, they will push me into taking any crap job. I’m not sure that’s true. He was also very keen to mention Osbournes latest “work for dole” plan as something that will definitely happen and to be scared of, although it looked like a choice of 3 options; work for free, go to the jobcentre every day or intensive training/treatment for problems/addiction etc. I said the last one sounded good, as it might be the only way I get any real help with my depression.
I mentioned that I didn’t want to go in every day and that it was setting off my depression. They said go in tomorrow and see how it went. Now I’m worried that even if I do get out of going, things are going to get a lot worse in a few months and that I might not be able to get out of going in every day anyway. I thought I’d ask here if any one had any advice, as even the job centre seems to think the work program has no limit to its powers and I don’t know what will happen to me after it finishes…
We have a very helpful regular commenter on here who used to work at a JCP and will, I’m sure, offer some useful expert advice now that I’ve confirmed your comment to appear on the blog!
Hi Frankie
I am so sorry to read about the problems you are experiencing with your Work Programme Provider.
The WP delivers a service on behalf of the Secretary of State and this means they must comply with Public Law and the tests of reasonableness.
Due to your health issues the WP provider owes you a duty of care and has to accommodate your needs under the Disability Discrimination Act.
A complaint about your poor treatment must be made.
Attending the WP every day is not a rational decision and does not support your job prospects. The intention is to inconvenience you, so that you will decide to withdraw your claim, find any work or claim another benefit.
I spoke to someone from the job centre yesterday. At first she said that the WP couldn’t make me go in every day but after speaking to her manager she said that apparently the WP provider decides what is manditory. She said my only option was to complain to the manager of the provider and give a copy of the complaint to the job centre, which I’ll do on monday when I have to go in again, unless they drop the requirement. I’m not confident the complaint will make any real difference though.
I am pleased to read you have the courage to complain, please let us know how you get on.
I am sure someone here will be able to assist you further.
Here’s what I’ve got so far of my complaint. Not sure if I need to put in more about my depression or a better/longer ending. Not sure about mentioning that I’m apparently supposed to get a “Mandatory Activity Notification” letter for each time I’m required to go in, rather than one for an ongoing thing. Maybe mention I’d be willing to go in every few weeks, or not say anything?
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to complain about the poor treatment I have received from PPDG (formally Pertemps) recently. I received a letter from PPDG saying I was required to attend “a series of daily job clubs, commencing on Monday 30th September and these will continue on a daily basis until such a time as your time on program expires” and that this activity was “Mandatory”. I believe this to be a disproportionate and unreasonable demand. Getting this letter caused my depression, which I suffer from quite badly, to flare up, which in turn affected my chances of successfully looking for work. I have also been trying to study and learn a new computer language that I believe will help me in securing a new role, and this has also been hampered by my illness.
When I attended my first session, I ended up simply going through the job search emails that I usually look at from home and received no real additional help, meaning that it was a waste of time, as I could have done everything from home. Before I attended my first session, I went into the job centre to ask if I could really be required to attend daily, and they rang [D] at PPDG who said that I should attend a couple of sessions and we could see how things went. After the first session, I told [R] that I did not think that the session had done any good and explained about how it had badly set off my depression, he told me to try again the next day. After the second session, he tried to get me to come in again daily, even after I explained again that it wasn’t doing me any good and was in fact harming me and making my situation worse. At this he seemed to get angry at me, exclaiming that he “didn’t make up the rules”. He mentioned that he needed to contact me, even though I pointed out that he had my email address, phone number and address.
I did not appreciate [R] trying to scare me at me first session with talk about how bad things would be for me after I finish with the Work Program and return to the Job Centre, saying that I would be forced into “any old job” and that I’d be “picking up litter”. I also did not appreciate the sheer glee he seemed to be showing when talking about the plans mentioned by George Osborne at the Conservative Party conference, about “working for the dole”, saying I’d be forced into unpaid work, even though I pointed out that one of the options mentioned was attending the Job Centre daily, which is similar to what Richard was trying to get me to do now, or that another option was an intensive course for people with serious issues, which I pointed out could actually be useful for helping with my depression.
In the recent past, [R] has said that he still does not really understand what I did in my last role or what I am looking for in my next, which I find shocking given that I have been attending the Work Program with him for almost 2 years. I barely hear from him for months on end, apart from the occasional “training course”, I have always attended everything I am required to do and now I am suddenly told to come in every day, now that my time on the program is coming to a close.
I would like to know why I am being required to attend daily, when I can do the same things from home, why this is thought to be a reasonable demand and how my illness has been taking into consideration in my treatment, which I understand is a requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act. I will be sending a copy of this letter to the Job Centre, at their request. (Leave this out?)
Yours Faithfully
Any thoughts?
This is very good, Frankie.
Have you any medical evidence to support your health issues. You do not need to supply the information, you can simply advise they are available on request. If so, you can add that the PPDG has a duty of care to make reasonable adjustments under the DDA.
There is no need to send a copy to the Jobcentre. I will advise you about the next stage, based on the response.
Well done!
I went to the doctor on thursday and asked for a note or something to show I wasn’t making it up. He said that the WP people wouldn’t really take notice of that and that they could request info if needed.
I wasn’t sure if it was better to mention sending a copy to the job centre or not. Mentioning it might mean they realise they have to do something as the job centre is aware, but not mentioning it might be useful as they might be more desperate to fix it so the job centre doesn’t get a bad report. I don’t know which is better or more likely…
There is a strict protocol you must follow. Jobcentre Plus will get to know, if your complaint is not handled correctly.
Complaining about an organisation that provides a service for DWP
http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/depa…complaints-procedure
Other organisations sometimes provide DWP services, for example Work Programme providers. If you are unhappy with the service you have received from an organisation like this, you should complain to them first and give them a chance to put the matter right. If you are unhappy with their response they must tell you how you can take your complaint further.
If you remain unhappy with their final response to your complaint, you can ask the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) to investigate your complaint.
Final point.
Please ask for a reply in writing, so there is an audit trail.
Thanks
Ok, so I should take out the bit about sending a copy to the job centre and put in about requiring a reply in writing. I’m getting scared about going in tomorrow again. Should I give the letter to the provider and trust that it will be passed on to the manager, or should I ask to speak with them directly (which I guess will be over the phone)?
Yes,
I would hand it to the manager marked private & confidential. Please do not be scared, you have done nothing wrong. You are entitled to be treated sympathetically and with respect.
I’m worried that the manager won’t be there. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anyone in the office apart from the advisers and that I’d have to speak to them by phone, leave the letter there or go in again another day. I’m worried that they’ll try and get me to go in every day until they decide what to do.
I presume there is someone who can take the letter for you, his /her assistant. Alternatively post it 1st class recorded delivery and it will get there Tuesday.
I doubt it. As far as I’ve seen it’s two advisors working out of a room in a building with loads of companies renting rooms.I presume anyone higher in the company is based elsewhere.
There must be a company address on some paperwork you have, if not ask for the HO address.
I think the only address I have is for the little rented office. I’ll have to see what happens tomorrow.
(Forgot to put this in as a reply, so might get duplicated…)
Great! I get in today to be told the my adviser is off sick and they’ll let me know when to come back in. I said I needed to speak to someone about contacting a manager, and they said the other adviser isn’t in until gone 12 and the other person there I’ve never heard of is in a conference call. They said they’d ring me back. I just want this over with. Currently on a comp in the library rather than risking having to come back later…
If you want to be a little awkward and you have an old pc with a floppy disc drive you could copy the jobsearch details on to a floppy and give them that. I bet their computers don’t have a floppy disc drive so they will either have to ignore it or go to some trouble to get access.
Great! I get in today to be told the my adviser is off sick and they’ll let me know when to come back in. I said I needed to speak to someone about contacting a manager, and they said the other adviser isn’t in until gone 12 and the other person there I’ve never heard of is in a conference call. They said they’d ring me back. I just want this over with. Currently on a comp in the library rather than risking having to come back later…