Skip to main content

A Day in the Journal: June 10th - The Day My Consent Wasn't Good Enough

A Day in the Journal: June 10th - The Day My Consent Wasn't Good Enough

The fight shifted. After the initial battle over my right to use email, Cambridge Jobcentre opened a new front in their war of attrition: consent. I was trying to follow their process. I was trying to get my ID verified via a third party. I was trying to give them the permission they needed.

They had a choice: follow their own guidance, use common sense, or invent a new rule. On June 10th, 2025, they chose to invent a new rule.

The New Roadblock

In a message timed at 12:20 PM, a manager named Carla laid down the new law. She dismissed my repeated attempts to provide consent through my journal. She insisted on a single, slow, and unnecessary method.

Direct quote from UC Journal: 10 Jun 2025 at 12:20pm

"To progress your Third Party Verification request DWP requires you to complete, sign and return the forms via the return envelope supplied. Whilst email maybe your preferred option this will not be accepted as confirmation of your consent or verify your identity."

This single message created weeks of further delay. All of it was based on a requirement that simply does not exist.

The Official DWP Policy They Ignored

Her demand for a posted letter directly contradicts the DWP's own published guidance. The official policy on "Consent and disclosure" is not ambiguous. It is simple, clear, and direct.

Official DWP Guidance: Consent and disclosure including when to share with third parties

"Explicit Consent can be given and withdrawn by the claimant using the most appropriate channel in their circumstances. This could be via:
• their journal
• in writing
• by telephone
• face-to-face"

Why This Day Matters

This wasn't a simple disagreement. It was a manufactured delay. It was a conscious choice to ignore the rulebook and leave a disabled claimant in financial distress.

This one action reveals a culture of obstruction, gatekeeping, and cruelty.

The punchline to this story is as predictable as it is damning. This "unbreakable" rule about postal forms vanished into thin air just days after I filed a formal discrimination claim against the staff on June 20th. On June 25th, my ID was finally verified using the very consent method that Carla had declared unacceptable just two weeks earlier.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Day in the Journal: April 5th - The Broken System at Day One

A Day in the Journal: April 5th - The Broken System at Day One My Universal Credit claim began on April 5th, 2025. It began with a broken door. The very first, and most critical, step—verifying my identity—was an impossible task designed by a system that doesn't talk to itself. For nearly two hours, I was stuck in a loop, trying to use the GOV.UK Verify system as instructed by the Universal Credit portal. The system repeatedly failed, but I kept trying because the alternative it offered was a telephone call—a method of communication that is extremely difficult for me due to my disabilities. After completing every other section of the application, from housing to health, the system finally logged a crucial, but false, confirmation. The Ghost in the Machine At 11:16 PM on the night my claim was submitted, my Universal Credit journal was updated with a single, misleading line: Journal Entry: 5 Apr 2025 at 11:16pm "Confirm your identity completed" I...
Post a Comment
Read more

Watch failure - Cambridge Jobcentre Plus delays easy fix to housing

The Hidden Scandal: How Cambridge Jobcentre Ignored a Three-Month Mistake Welcome back to Universal Credit hell. Today, we are unpacking another lawless failure from my partner's journal—a simple mistake that Cambridge Jobcentre Plus allowed to cause three months of financial hardship, and a legal request they chose to ignore. The Problem: A Lie Written into the System The situation was straightforward. My partner lives in a shared house with three flatmates. But when Universal Credit calculated her housing costs, they didn't see flatmates. They saw "family members." This wasn't just a clerical error. It was a lie written into the system. It meant that because she was out of work, the DWP's calculation wrongly assumed her "family" would pay her share. Her flatmates were now financially responsible for her in the eyes of the DWP. A bigger problem is that nothing we said could make the Cambridge team understand this basic re...
Post a Comment
Read more