Mandatory Work Activity: Unenforceable

Today, the Work Programme Network reveals a letter you may use to try avoiding the Mandatory Work Activity scheme along with instructions of what to do with it!!! Its not fail safe, Jobcentre Plus can decide to ignore it… which is why its down to yourself, if you choose to use it or not, to spread the information around… because the more people who use it the better the chances are of an “opt out“.

New location: Refuse the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme

This is just an example, feel free to modify it for your needs.
Its in 3 parts:- EU Law, UK Law, and Misc. You can select all or any parts (make sure you ensure no part is referring to smething you have removed), and even add to it.
If you do not want to risk a benefit sanction, do not send in the letter and refuse the scheme, attend Mandatory Work Activity.
Its not compatible under the Act it was made under, thus is unenforceable.
Its free, without any warranty or guarantees, but you must report back to this article regarding what action Jobcentre Plus is taking over this… thats all we ask.

Contents [hide]
1 Read guide thoroughly!!!
2 The letter
3 Addresses to send it to!
Read guide thoroughly!!!
Its your benefit claim and it is 3 months benefit sanction for refusal. The argument here is the scheme is unenforceable. You could however lose out benefit in such period – DWP is corrupt and Jobcentre Plus constantly bends the law on an office-by-office basis – any negative response after your letter is more likely for those reasons than the points made being incorrect.
Follow the plan to the last detail. Read it multiple times before full steam ahead. This includes that should you be sanctioned that you are to camp inside your local Jobcentre Plus office. Also, don’t forget to send copies to DWP etc.
Its a gamble. It wont be cheap. You will need to post a few copies off and it could be a good idea to send the DWP one by recorded delivery. You don’t have to send the letters to everyone on the list.
If you edit any of it.. make sure you double check it by reading it through again!
The letter remains the same. You may wish to do a covering letter to send a *copy* of the one to DWP HQ (the original) to these other places. Do not modify the address on the letter itself.
Add to the bottom of the letter… where you have sent copies to. (or where you intend to. So if you cannot afford to send all in one week, you can spread between a few – as long as the DWP one is sent ASAP!!)
Don’t forget to change the variables to your own!! Including your address up the top right. You must sign the original letter. Photocopy it (scan and print) if you can for the copies otherwise leave the gap for signature blank for the copies.
Ask at Jobcentre Plus for an appeal form. Throw away the booklet. Insert a copy of the letter and post off the letter to your local BDC!! It should be a freepost address

The letter


Department for Work and Pensions
Caxton House,
Tothill Street,


Dear Secretary of State,

Notice of Mandatory Work Activity Scheme Refusal

I, [YOUR FULL NAME] of [YOUR ADDRESS] , along with the nationwide syndicate following this action, actively refuses my place on Mandatory Work Activity scheme as proposed by [NAME ON NOTIFICATION LETTER] who might be guilty of a “Misconduct in public office” common law offence, along with any Decision Maker, or any such person in public office upholding an unlawful act for the following reasons:-

Firstly, and most importantly, European Union Law is absolute to UK Law. All member states including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is legally responsible to uphold European Union Law including that of the supremacy doctrine; where EU member states that have laws which conflict with the EU Law, by the primacy principle, the EU law must prevail in full precedence invalidating the law of the EU member state as its otherwise incompatible. Under the statutory instrument The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 makes provision for a jobseeker to take part (subject to 3 month benefit sanctions for refusal or failure etc) under Section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995, which is not compatible with European Union Law. European Union Law is made up of European treaties, Regulations, Directives and Decisions that have direct effect (see Case 26/62 ECR 1 and Case 152/84 ECR 723 etc.). EU Law takes precedence over domestic laws in member states if incompatible (see Case 6/64 ECR 585).

Secondly, the secondary legislation The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 isn’t valid under Section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995. Section 17A clauses (1) and (2) reads “Regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on claimants in prescribed circumstances a requirement to participate in schemes of any prescribed description that are designed to assist them to obtain employment” and “Regulations under this section may, in particular, require participants to undertake work, or work-related activity, during any prescribed period with a view to improving their prospects of obtaining employment”, respectively. Clause (3) follows with “In subsection (2) “work-related activity”, in relation to any person, means activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so”.

Not only is the eligibility criteria in The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 very vague, referring to every Jobseekers Allowance claimant (Income Based or Contributions Based, short term claimant or long term claimant) excluding only exceptions to the main Act such as those of school leaving age but under 18 (such as under hardship provision), Jobcentre Plus advisers are to use discretion of whom can be referred. This does not satisfy “prescribed circumstances” under 17A(1) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 as no circumstances have been prescribed under such Regs that differentiate between one claimant to another. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 also doesn’t specify in statute regarding the discretion based criteria that will be used; thus such requirement to participate in such cannot lawfully be imposed upon a jobseeker where prescribed circumstances aren’t actually specified in the regulations or any others.

Furthermore, the Mandatory Work Activity is designed as a punishment to claimants; and the Department for Work and Pensions have clearly and openly admitted such scheme is to force those who aren’t doing enough or barely more than the legal minimum, which the latter in itself is adequate to lawfully claim Jobseekers Allowance, into a work-like environment to develop discipline for work which in itself doesn’t relate to that in 17A(1), 17A(2) and 17A(3) of the Jobseekers Act 1995, as doing unpaid community work that is in addition to existing and expected jobs isn’t going to make such person more likely to obtain employment. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 makes no mention or reference to any claimant either not meeting the jobseeking conditions (which would invalidate their claim) or not exceeding a specific defined benchmark.

As such isn’t a prescribed circumstance under the Regs made under 17A of the Act; and that my claim is on good standing, the lack of appeal procedures mean I cannot dispute such advisers discretion for my participation by producing indepth evidence of my jobseeking efforts, and I am therefore deemed to either meet or exceed the jobseeking conditions with my active claim for Jobseekers Allowance after previously providing evidence when signing labour market declaration at forthnightly review sessions. It is therefore unenforceable as such regulations doesn’t meet the criteria stated in Section 17A of the primary legislation which the regulations were allegedly made under. Not only can sanctions not be lawfully awarded for such reasons as the regulations are not valid, but an Jobcentre Plus adviser cannot refer such a person to participate.

Thirdly, I would be both technically and statistically “employed” under this “employment programme“. I am claiming jobseekers allowance because I am actively seeking work, available for work and have no job – which happens to be the internationally recognised definition for “unemployment“. I do not intend to magically appear as having a job when I do not. The scheme designed to increase the chances of benefit sanctions was not going to help me in obtaining a job even indirectly; firstly, upon full attendance for 4 weeks of 30 hour work is going to make me unable to contact employers in typical office hours especially when including travel time in the equation, and secondly, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported “the threat of sanctions may encourage participation, sanctions themselves do little to change motivation to work” along with a warning that extended sanctions only increases crime rates and poverty; just because a benefit claimant has signed off and hasn’t tried to reclaim doesn’t mean they have secured employment. This scheme was a quickly put together regime to increase benefit savings to reduce the welfare bill, without any real effort ensuring the regulations were lawful, and without even specifying any prescribed circumstances as required under 17A(1) of the Jobseekers Act 1995.

I wholeheartedly refuse this workfare programme for the above reasons, namely because not only is it an unlawful request under UK law but also strongly violates EU Law, and I, [YOUR FULL NAME] , along with the nationwide syndicate will be ensuring its prompt removal including where applicable a judicial review for being irrational, illegal and a breach of natural justice due to decision maker bias. I am not directly requesting for good cause because that would require an sanctionable offence to be committed.

I serve this notice as the so-called mandatory scheme is unenforceable for the above reasons – and should I be sanctioned unlawfully in regards to a corruption process going beyond the extent of law; may result in civil and criminal penalties against [NAME ON NOTIFICATION LETTER], decision maker, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling and or other relevant DWP ministers. If my jobseekers allowance is stopped on unlawful grounds I will be forced to spend the night at [YOUR JOBCENTRE NAME] Jobcentre Plus office ongoing, where I will be seeking compensation for unlawfully withheld benefits and for infringements to my fundamental rights. I have detailed below where I have sent copies of this letter to.

I demand a response within 48 hours of receipt of this letter which may include a holding response pending indepth investigation and/or response. If Jobcentre Plus can prove that should the above Regulations and my application onto the scheme to be legit, then this letter is not a refusal to such scheme but one requesting clarification; I will cooperate should it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Regulations are lawful, such as if my copy of the JS Act and Regs obtained from a Government website are incorrect which I feel is unlikely.

Yours sincerely,



Addresses to send it to!

1. DWP: Address already on letter. (Required) (Recorded delivery)

2. Local BDC. Ask for an appeal form (no need to specify further details) and send a copy of the letter to the address preprinted on envelope (Freepost).

3. Local Jobcentre Plus office. You could either post it or hand it in person (if the latter give to adviser, not front desk staff) (optional)

4. Your MP. Why not send it to your local MP? Regardless of what party there are. (Recommended)

5. Downing Street. Send Cameron a copy… he wont read it but will upset him (Recommended)

6. Child Poverty Action Group. 94 White Lion Street London N1 9PF (Scotland: Unit 9, Ladywell 94 Duke Street Glasgow G4 0UW)… Actively promotes welfare rights. (optional)

Please feel to share (via comment) any further names and addresses you think might benefit others, of having their letter sent to.

Please comment once you have sent off your notification. This is likely only going to help if you are not yet on the scheme and where you have some time to receive a response back so you can still participate on the scheme (if needs be) to avoid a sanction.

Leave a Reply