More tales of DWP newspeak

Are work coaches intentionally obstinate? I suspect the answer is more complex

If you support this current government in singing the praises of the work coach, then I would have to humbly question your judgement.

We are told that work coaches are there to support you. So I’m wondering why, after someone I work with who currently can’t walk very well, and certainly not very far without stopping, is being referred to by his work coach for jobs on a construction site.

Furthermore, presumably because of some DWP contract, this guy has to attend some random “mandatory” appointment each week. He gets the texts every week to remind him how mandatory it is.

It’s through a project called “Restart”, delivered by Ingenus (of PIP fame), where he has to drag his disabled body across London every week.

Oh, and before I forget, he’s rough sleeping.

So his work coach doesn’t support him in getting access to housing, because that’s all separate you see. Plus the work coach has goals they have to meet, like presumably how much signposting they’ve done. (I wonder if they get extra points from their manager for walking out of the job centre, and physically signposting rather than sending a message on the journal?)

I also love the idea that you can of course work, simply because your work coach told you so, and you can also do this job and then return to the streets at night to sleep, and that this will all contribute to your wellbeing. Just change your mindset, yes you might be sleeping among rats and getting peed on tonight, but at least you’ve done a day’s work! Good for you.

(By the way, lots of rough sleepers do work. It’s often unhoused people in hostels who don’t. Because they get evicted back to the streets if they accept a job, upside down smiley face emoji).

So anyway. That’s not why the work coach has annoyed me! Though the above is reason enough.

This guy has been found, about a month ago, to have “capability for work”, despite not being able to walk. Hence the referrals on his journal for construction jobs.

Obviously this guy has told their work coach that they want to appeal this decision. So I ask, as a taxpayer, (because I am only allowed an opinion as one) - why has the work coach suggested a meeting to discuss the work capability assessment appeal after the deadline to appeal has passed.

The cynic in me says this is intentional. But am I beginning to waver on bitterness? The thing is, the work coach is surely measured by whether they get someone into work. If their CUSTOMER is found to have limited capability for work (or none), then surely the work coach will not meet their KPIs?

Hmm. Guess I can’t blame them then.

The fact is, the work coach, in missing the deadline for a “mandatory reconsideration” of this guy’s capacity to work, is not just letting him down and going against his wishes.

And I don’t care if it’s merely an oversight. Because what matters is how the work coach has made this guy feel. While he’s in constant pain and not getting the support he needs to manage his disability (rough sleeping probably doesn’t help), the work coach has not only dismissed his inability and/or desire to work on a construction site, but has sabotaged any attempt he will have to appeal the decision.

Oh and by the way, just for the record this guy has always worked. But got evicted during covid and rough sleeping led to his feet worsening, and he is now at the point where he can’t really work. But perhaps I’m too soft, in believing that people dwelling on the street shouldn't be forced to work and that perhaps disabilities worsened by public service systems, should encourage some accountability.

What happened in the end?

So I told (read, politely encouraged) the guy to write on his work journal the following;

“I would like a mandatory reconsideration of my Limited Capability for Work assessment please.”

Within an hour, someone had responded. The deadline was no longer last week but mid June, to send on additional “evidence”.

So it was not enough for him to tell his work coach “I don’t agree with this decision”. Seemingly he had to specifically ask for a “mandatory reconsideration” to set the gears in motion.

And who said Newspeak is science fiction!