DWP - The battle comences

W Webber



Near Andover


SP11 ---

The manager

Andover Job Centre

6 London Street



SP10 2PA

19th May 2014

Dear Sir or madam,

Following a letter from the DWP you have stopped the amount of £72.00 from my benefit entitlement from the amount paid to me on the 19th May 2014.

You are aware from my previous correspondence that it is my view that this money has been taken from me illegally and that the DWP staff have breached the equality act by doing so.

I am obliged to give you formal notice of my intentions to recover the monies through the county court before I can ask the court to serve summonses upon you.

Please accept this letter as my formal notice to you that if the amount of £72.00 remains unpaid after 7 days from the date of this letter, the matter will be referred to arbitration in the county court.

It is my intention to recover my losses including stationary costs, compensation for discrimination and interest.

You should be aware if the matter is settled by you after the summons has been applied for by me then the matter will still be heard before the judge in relation to interest and compensation.

Yours sincerely

W Webber

10 Replies

  • Nice!!

  • I wish you the best of luck but fear for your chances for success.

    At the moment Job Centre staff are being given targets to sanction benefit seekers, if they don't meet their targets they face internal disciplinary action. Against attitudes like that you face a difficult battle, but you have to try !!

  • That may be so but the law is the law and I can prove they broke the Equalities Act.

  • It's about time we start to fight back I wish you luck

  • They can't have it both ways. Failures to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate a persons disability equates to indirect discrimination if the authority concerned is aware of the persons disability which obviously the DWP are. I don't see a problem with proving the case only sueing the right persons. In my case I am targeting the individuals concerned because everyone has to abide by the law and the fact they work for the DWP does not give them immunity from prosecution. I am also considering a private prosecution of those same staff members for harassment. They have clearly cause alarm and distress and continue to do so and that is a criminal matter which in fact any citizen can prosecute.

  • I was involved in some of the drafting of the DEA and some others.

    I would be interested to see how they failed to make allowances for you under this and why it resulted in a sanction..

    May be able to help

  • Hi Sospan,

    Thank you for your reply. I have a closed head injury which affects the control part of my brain. The interviews at the DWP cause me distress and can make me feel angry, I will likely become abusive to the staff when they ask me stupid questions. I was recently prosecuted for a section 4 public order offence after being forced into a meeting at a school and being provoked in that interview. Whilst most times I can control my anger it still makes me feel unwell for several days after the event.

    I attended an interview about a year ago in Andover and explained this in more detail. The staff agreed to make the next interview a telephone interview. Near the interview time they later wrote and said I had to attend the office for the interview. On the day I suffered migraine which is very common for me. I phoned them and they said I could not keep using this as an excuse. It was the first time I had not attended due to this. I then got angry about it and told them I should not have to attend because they agreed to telephone interview me instead. The animal who phoned me began to get cocky and sarcastic telling me I simply did not want to attend the interview. She went on to say the person who agreed to telephone interview me no longer worked for the DWP and that there was no record of any agreement. I told her she was a C—T and slammed the phone down because I could feel the anger building up fast.

    My partner phoned them back and they agreed to another telephone interview. This was successful but the interviewer told me during the interview the name of the man at Andover who made the first telephone interview agreement and that there was indeed a record of this. It means the animal that made a mockery of me lied about this and attempted to force me back into a physical meeting. She lied when she said the guy did not fork for the DWP and that there was no record of the agreement.

    It is because they first agreed to, and then changed it, and then changed it back again that they failed to make reasonable adjustments and then added unreasonable adjustments. The fact they conceded and later agreed to a telephone interview means they basically admitted being at fault. I hope this explains it clear enough to understand it. Thanks.

  • Ok I will send you a PM

  • I can do no more than wish you all the best! Bob

  • Hi Bill,

    We have sent you a PM offering some support with this from Headway. You can reply to that or contact our helpline on 0808 800 2244 or helpline@headway.org.uk and we would be happy to talk this through and help you get some further advice on this.

    Best wishes,


You may also like...