NOTICE of Complaint INTRODUCTION. This complaint is being initially sent to "The Decision maker" an employee of the Corporation of the Department of Work and Pensions and the Secretary of state Corp. As you would be aware, its of no importance of the alleged NAME of any such employee only that the electronic records are updated to reflect interaction on the Agreement to access the TRUST account. In this instance, the electronic record will show that no such employee of the service Provider JobCentre Plus has ever ...met their responsibilities to the client with regard to the agreement. It has to be constantly pointed out that the Clients agreement is for a bi weekly payment, in this case since August 2012, there are 3 occasions whereby any payments have only been made on a monthly basis, due to the expected lies and excuses of "Lost paperwork" at any given Processing Centre.And there will be no such record of any employment opportunities being offered to the Client at any time whatsoever during that period in the 7 mins allotted time allowance for any one such agreement autographing. As such I will remind the Decision maker that at all times the agreement which is not either a contract nor Lawful is indeed being autographed under Duress. As per the Criminal operation of the DWP, I will quote some of their own words with regard to Provider Guidance and the training of employees desk delivery to Client of such a service. 5. You are responsible for ensuring all participants are treated within the requirements of legislation outlined in your contracts. What "Contract" is the corporation referring to and were is there any text referring to any such Statute legislation within the two sided printed piece of paper. Is this a simple matter of presumption and assumption based solely on "Reasonableness"? Is this piece of paper considered to be some sort of lawful document to be used as a Viable financial instrument and why does the DWP Corp consider mere legislation as Law ... Would this have anything to do with Equity.? 6. In addition, the participant must give clear written consent for you to use their personal information when contacting employers to obtain evidence of employment. These consents must be given by the participant before any information disclosure takes place. You must have a participant declaration that meets the requirements of the Data Protection Act. Is it the Audio and Video track from the capturing cctv in the Jobcentre Plus offices that would be expected to act as a hearsy element of evidence in a Crown court action . When NO such Consent has been given via oral Testimony with a Jobcentre Employee why would someones business transaction be interfered with via a Sanction, since that in itself is Duress in Equity and A breach of Trust. 23. All participants involved in any way with DWP Provision are entitled to train and work in a healthy and safe environment with due regard to their welfare. Under Health and Safety Legislation they are regarded as your employees, whether they are paid by you or not. You must, therefore, comply with your Duty of Care under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Actâ€™s associated regulations in the same way as you would do for any other member of your workforce. So why , if employees of the DWP are expected to be aware of a duty of care for the client in this instance.... Does the government imagine that benefits are not rights but privileges and stand by the allegation in the Crown Courts that there is no such Duty of Care owed by DWP to agreement signee? If this is not a liability owed by DWP or the Crown Corp , then who is it that owes any Duty of Care to any Civilians or Employees of the Crown. 101. When delivering Jobcentre Plus provision you are responsible for ensuring that participants are not exploited.Why would it be that European Human Rights Acts of Legislation are taken into account as a need to be adhered to by the Crown Corp if no such Duty of care is alleged to exist.? 133. Identity checks .It is your responsibility to verify with whom you are communicating. To do this, you may decide to ask them to state a combination of their personal information.
What Identity would the DWP Corporation be referring to, What personal information? Fraud Prevention: Terminate the contract and recover from the Supplier the amount of any loss suffered by DWP . Will this be the case in the matter of the the Director of A4E Emma Harrison on criminal charges, which would mean a full financial recovery of 15 years worth of alleged contracting and funding? Are the Employees of DWP acting on behalf of the secretary of State actually aware that arbitrary decisions can be made to stop interference and meddling in the flow of business. 1. Resolving customer complaints at the outset can reduce the need for individuals to escalate their complaint in order to achieve an appropriate response and/or outcome. 4. It may be helpful for your staff guidance to emphasise the organisations commitment to resolving complaint in a timely and effective manner and highlight the potential costs of failing to do so, including:
loss of confidence on the part of the service user; inconvenience/costs to the service user of having to escalate their complaint; staff time; Corporational reputational damage; [stockholders, Shareholders] financial cost (special payment in recognition of service failure and/or ICE fee). With regard to the persistent insistence of trained employees at the JCP to make Testimony of Legislation backing up the allegation of a Mandatory need for all Jobseekers to sign up to the SERCO electronically held data system of the Universal Jobsmatch website. Please answer the questions above. And also answer these questions below. Since it is the wish of DWP to persue this assignment and stop payments to clients who do not wish to sign up, this would raise the questions of "reasonableness" and "doubt" which are , of course , words of arbitrary decisions to be made by a Crown Judge with a team of Barristers QCs employed by the DWP to decide in a public Court Room, at great financial cost and loss of reputation to the Corporation and to Taxpayers. What current Legislation do the staff refer to with regard to the Universal Jobs match and where is that mentioned in the agreement ? And how is it possible for ONE site alone to covert all the advertised Jobs available in any location in the UK state.? What is "Evidence"? And what are "Relevant facts" What reasons can you give that constitutes an allowance for Perjury in a Crown Court.? And Misprision of treason? Can you physically recognise an autograph in a box on a piece of paper that the DWP call a ES3JP form.? How do you imagine it may or may not have arrived on that paper.? Does the decision maker belive that Legislation is LAW and why? What Legislation in the UK requires any PERSON to have an Address? What is a UK State, and how can your provide evidence of its existence? What exactly is it that the DWP belive to be the meaning of the word "Consent"? And if indeed all words creating Legislation are open to "Interpretation" in what way would a client seek a meeting of the minds and a remedy to a complaint with a corporation designed to create profit only? What does the decision maker belive as to where the authority comes from by the creators of UK Legislation? What does the decision maker belive to be Inviolable Unalienable God given Rights. And what are Fundamental Rights, what are the differences? Why would the Decision maker acting on behalf of The Secretary of state image that one or two claimants would have to take a court case to appeals Court over an extended period of time and at great cost to the "Taxpayer" only for some arbitrary decision to be made on the blatantly obvious? What Oath of Office were the Judges standing under at the time he/she made the allegation of a Judgment in the case stated below? [ Evidenced by the relevant fact of trackable , traceable and substantial electronic "funds" sent in to the Insurety Bonds of the corporate name and personal account of the Acting Judges with associated Number on the day and date of the Court hearing,allowing for full commercial Liability . The funds are sent in from overseas by
the EU Central Bank and laundered by the UK Government Corporation, producing THE permanent conflict of interest. Ironically this process is also governed by SERCO software.The Original paper copies signed with a wet ink signature will be available]
Since these are the sort of statistics produced by the work of the UK Government and DWP. "32 die a week after failing test for new incapacity benefit. More than a thousand sickness benefit claimants died last year after being told to get a job." What effort will the DWP make in the years 2013 to 2050 to create real and viable jobs for the next generation of children? And would it be fair to ascertain that there is a planned program of Genocide upon the Peaceful British Inhabitants. http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html Why does the UK Government of which department is the Work and Pensions consider that the current 12 million "Citizens" living in the British Isles during 2013 would only autograph agreements with the Jobcentreplus Corporation as a mere voluntarily pastime?
In the Appeal Court case of Catlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson Versus The secretary of State for Work and Pensions Corporation Case No. B3/2012/2138/2141 . CT No:  EWCA Civ 66 dated 12/02/2013 Taken over a 6 month period at great cost to the UK Taxpayer and loss of reputation to the DWP Corp, the statement of one of the 3 presiding Judges were as follows. Master Justice Foskett stated .“it seems to me to be consistent with all the established principles of fairness and openness . . . that the parameters in which the individual has a choice should be made clear before the choice is made. . . . If there is a true choice about participating in a programme, then it is not really a question of making representations . . . but simply of having the opportunity to make an informed choice about whether to become engaged in the programme at all.” He held that there was insufficient information about sanctions in the letters sent by the Secretary of State . In February 2013, the decision of the High Court was overturned on appeal, with the Court of Appeal ruling that the work placement system was unlawful as the people involved were not provided with sufficient information about it. The judge repeated, at paragraph 126, “that the information given concerning sanctions is unclear and opaque.” The letter of 16 November “did not fairly set out the information that should have been provided . . . stating that the period of loss would be 26 weeks might persuade someone who otherwise might wish to register a protest not to do so” .....Miss Reilly's original complaint arose from what she was wrongly told was a compulsory [Action]....and would impede his continuing efforts to find employment, ..... Similarly, it was submitted, “circumstances” are not prescribed in the regulations and neither is a “period” during which participants are required to undertake work. 44. Mr Nicholls drew attention to ..... section 36 of the 1995 JS Act to make regulations which includes a power to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter. Section 17A does not, however, confer on the Secretary of State a discretion beyond the powers conferred by the Act. It begs the question whether the Scheme is within section 17A(1). Referencing to Ultra Vires. " I understand the difficulty faced by a Secretary of State who seeks to tighten the procedures by way of sanctions he considers necessary. If the court is against the Secretary of State on this basic point, it is not, however, for the court to suggest ways in which the statutory requirement can be met." In this statement the Judge allows for a case by case basis in Courts and very clearly specifies that Acting Judges have entirely not input or interest to the creation of any such Legislation. ...... Also... In the present case, however, the question of the proper approach of the Court to the interpretation of the Act and the Regulations is of no importance, because I do not think it is possible to construe and to apply them in the manner contended for by the Secretary of State. "..Indicating NO MEETING OF THE MINDS. Also....... it was stated that “these regulations interpret the Act very broadly so that future changes to the Scheme could be made administratively without any reference to Parliament.” ...... Also ....66. the court held that there could be a breach (Art 4 HRA) “if the service imposed a burden which was so excessive or
disproportionate to the advantages attached to the future exercise of that profession that the service could not be treated as having been voluntarily accepted beforehand.” Referring to consent and Choice. 74. "However, any scheme must be such as has been authorised by Parliament. There is a constitutional issue involved. The loss of jobseekers’ allowance may result in considerable personal hardship, and it is not surprising that Parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed. " To what constitution is the Judge Referring to in this statement and to which Parliament? 75. Furthermore, it is not possible to identify any provision of the Regulations that can be said to satisfy the requirement that the description be “determined in accordance with” the Regulations. 76. It would be absurd to conclude that a scheme is subject to the statutory requirements only if the Secretary of State decided to call it such. The Act does not authorise programmes, or sub-schemes.
DWP spent £5m on ID database it never built. http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2011/02/dwp-spent-5m-on-id-database-it.ht ml The stated LAWFUL reasons for the request for DWP Decision maker to overturn the sanction decision are. 1. A Breach of Trust. 2. A Breach of Confidence 3. Unconscionable Conduct 4. Constructive Fraud 5. Misuse and Misappropriation of Public Funds 6. Consorting in Genocide 7. Unlawful Enrichment 8. Fully Failed Fiduciary Duty 9. Unlawfully maliciously vindictively persecuted (UMVP) 10. Duress of circumstances Since it would clearly be in the Public interest for the DWP to answer clearly and fully and without opaqueness all of my questions, and post to me the actual evidence to back up the Corporate claims to allow for full disclosure before a definite court action and within 14 days, which I consider to be both in a timely manner and reasonable, and in compliance with Civil Procedure Rules.
This document and your answers, just as any Public court Outcome, will be in the public domain, so as to assist the public in their endeavors to help the DWP work in a much more efficient , cost effective and Caring manner. Please do appreciate that this NOTICE can be updated and re-drawn at anytime. And as for the Defending Barristers using very usual cut and paste tech, this NOTICE is created without vexation or frivolity. And without PREDUDICE. Standing in my own Cognisance Cognisance..
Vani timoris justa excusatio non est – There is no legal excuse based on groundless fear. Quad alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vel fraudum petatur, malum et injustum efficitur – What is otherwise good and just, if it is sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust. Dolo malo pactum se non servaturum – An agreement induced by fraud will not stand. We can do nothing against truth. [2 Corinthians 13:8] The Theatre of the Bar Banking Group Acts again.