Tuesday, 12 February 2013

THE LAW SAYS WE'RE WRONG ..thats OK we'll just change the law

This young lady's name is Cait Reilly ttoday the high court ruled on appeal in her favour ...

A Judgment that has profound consequences for anybody collecting unemployment or sickness benefits ..

The Story of the ruling is set below ...

From that champion of free speech with no political bias whatsoever ..The Daily Fail

Taxpayers 'facing multi-million pound compensation bill' as judges rule back-to-work schemes are unlawful in Poundland test case

  • Cait Reilly has won her Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful

  • She and unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims

  • The ruling will not affect the schemes’ existence but will mean the way in which they are written and enforced will need to change

  • Lawyers say today's ruling could mean those whose benefits were stripped for refusing part in back-to-work schemes could now reclaim them

  • But DWP say it is 'adamant there are no grounds for repayment'

A university graduate has today won her Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful.
Cait Reilly was backed by three judges in London who ruled that the regulations under which most of the Government’s back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful and quashed them. 
But they disagreed with a comparison to the programmes as 'slave labour', and found that participation in the schemes does not breach human rights. 
However, lawyers say today's ruling could mean thousands who had their benefits stripped for refusing to take part in the programme - designed to help the unemployed gain skills through training and unpaid work - could now reclaim them at a multi-million pound cost to the taxpayer.

Today Miss Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.
Their solicitors said later the ruling means 'all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseekers’ allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits.'
Today’s ruling was made by Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton.
In November 2011, Miss Reilly had to leave her voluntary work at a local museum and work unpaid at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, under a scheme known as the 'sector-based work academy.'
She was told that if she did not carry out the work placement she would lose her jobseeker’s allowance.
For two weeks she stacked shelves and cleaned floors.

Mr Wilson, a qualified mechanic, was told that he had to work unpaid, cleaning furniture for 30 hours a week for six months, under a scheme known as the Community Action Programme.
He objected to doing unpaid work that was unrelated to his qualifications and would not help him re-enter the jobs market.
He refused to participate and as a result was stripped of his jobseeker’s allowance for six months. 
After the ruling Public Interest Lawyers, who represent Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, said the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision was a 'huge setback for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), whose flagship reforms have been beset with problems since their inception'.
They said that 'until new regulations are enacted with proper parliamentary approval, nobody can be compelled to participate on the schemes.'
Solicitor Tessa Gregory, said: 'Today’s judgment sends Iain Duncan Smith back to the drawing board to make fresh regulations which are fair and comply with the court’s ruling.
'Until that time nobody can be lawfully forced to participate in schemes affected such as the Work Programme and the Community Action Programme.
'All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them.'
Ms Gregory said: 'The case has revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions was going behind Parliament's back and failing to obtain Parliamentary approval for the various mandatory work schemes that it was introducing.

'It also reveals a lack of transparency and fairness in the implementation of these schemes.
'The claimants had no information about what could be required of them under the back-to-work schemes.
'The Court of Appeal has affirmed the basic constitutional principle that everyone has a right to know and understand why sanctions are being threatened and imposed against them.'
But a DWP spokesperson said it was adamant that there would not be any repayment. 
She added: 'We have no intention of giving back money to anyone who has had their benefits removed because they refused to take getting into work seriously. 
'We are currently considering a range of options to ensure this does not happen.'
Ms Reilly said she was delighted with today's judgment.
'I brought this case because I knew it was wrong when I was prevented from doing my voluntary work in a museum and forced to work in Poundland for free for two weeks as part of a scheme known as the sector based work academy, ' she said.
'Those two weeks were a complete waste of my time as the experience did not help me get a job.
'I wasn't given any training and I was left with no time to do my voluntary work or search for other jobs.
'The only beneficiary was Poundland, a multimillion-pound company. Later I found out that I should never have been told the placement was compulsory.
'I don't think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277426/Taxpayers-facing-multi-million-pound-compensation-judges-rule-work-schemes-unlawful-Poundland-test-case.html#ixzz2KguoPPz9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

However it did not take the Government long to respond ....

From the ever despicable Hoban ......

"The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help get them into work. It’s ridiculous to say this is forced labour. This ruling ensures we can continue with these important schemes.
"We are however disappointed and surprised at the court's decision on our regulations. There needed to be flexibility so we could give people the right support to meet their needs and get them into a job. We do not agree with the court's judgment and are seeking permission to appeal, but new regulations will be tabled to avoid any uncertainty.
"Ultimately the judgment confirms that it is right that we expect people to take getting into work seriously if they want to claim benefits."

So if they cannot appeal ... they are just going to change the rules to suit themselves then ?

why does this NOT surprise me


No comments:

Post a Comment