Due to the extreme volume of Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments in the United Kingdom, it is not remotely possible for this list to be comprehensive or exhaustive. However, there are certain areas in which victims of Ingeus (UK) Ltd abuse are far more likely to be victimised, and it is important that those victims are aware of their rights and what may be available to them.
Please note that I am not suggesting that anyone brings a frivolous or unjustified action against Ingeus (UK) Ltd. What I am suggesting is that there are many people who have genuine claims which they would be wholly justified in bringing, but those claims are not brought as the victims have no access to legal representation or the help they need.
It is an extremely unfair situation. People are sent onto a Work Programme administered by an organisation which is corrupt, incompetent and highly dangerous, yet the thugs in the organisation’s chief executive office have access to some of the most expensive lawyers in the country, while the victims are always impoverished and unable to avail themselves of any assistance.
I have had to fight a lone war against Ingeus (UK) Ltd, and other corrupt authorities which are in league with it, and which aid and abet its tortious and criminal activity. I have had to act as my own solicitor, my own barrister, and my own legal researcher. It has been a gruelling experience, and even after five years I am yet to claw back a single penny of the loss I have suffered. Do not think that standing up to these thugs is easy, for it is anything but. However, if no-one does it, there will be nothing but terror and humiliation awaiting the next victim to be targeted by Ingeus (UK) Ltd and its corrupt managers and executives.
If anyone needs help with preparing their own legal case, I am available and willing to help insofar as I am able. I am not a professional lawyer, and I have several cases of my own to deal with. Nevertheless, if you believe I can help, you are welcome to contact me.
Equality Act 2010
This Act could be of help to anyone with a protected characteristic, as defined by Section 6(1) of the Act. The Equality Act fundamentally replaced all other discrimination legislation, in an attempt to codify the law into one complete Act. It is still an extremely young Act, so precedents are rare.
There is no room here to undertake a detailed analysis of all of the different aspects of this Act, and indeed such an endeavour would be futile as a) most of the legislative provisions would never be used by Ingeus (UK) Ltd attendees, and b) it would duplicate the work of the relevant anti-discrimination bodies in any case. I will summarise the basics, as these will be enough to allow you to determine whether or not you have a case.
It must be borne in mind that Ingeus (UK) Ltd is incompetent to the degree of imbecility. Its managers make Frank Spencer look like a brain surgeon. Therefore, it is highly likely that anyone with a protected characteristic is being discriminated against in some way. If you are disabled, part of an ethnic minority, or homosexual, you will almost certainly have a claim under the Act if you are discriminated against because of that characteristic.
Of particular importance is Section 26, which deals with harassment. Given the way that Ingeus (UK) Ltd managers behave towards attendees, there is a very good chance that this specific section is being violated. The worse the behaviour of the manager, provided it relates to the characteristic in question, the more likely any action is to succeed.
Ingeus (UK) Ltd never takes any notice of the Act when dealing with disabled people. Anyone who has special needs is just shoved into the mainstream system and subjected to severe detriments as a consequence. Section 29, combined with Section 20, outlines the obligations which apply to providers of a service, and Ingeus (UK) Ltd routinely violates all of these obligations in dealing with every disabled person it meets. Therefore, this is a potentially rich source of litigation.
Protection From Harassment Act 1997
This is another potentially huge source of litigation against Ingeus (UK) Ltd, as the term “harassment” covers an extremely wide range of activities. It is only likely to be usable in situations such as mine where managers are actively targeting a victim with the intent of causing harm. Proving malicious intent isn’t necessary in proving harassment, as the statute allows for cases where the harasser “ought to have known” that they were causing alarm or distress, but it is certainly helpful in establishing the necessary test that the conduct complained of is “oppressive and unacceptable.”
There is not really much explication possible here, as each individual case will be different. All that can be said is that there are authorities from the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal which demonstrate that harassment can be by letter (Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors  EWCA Civ 123), including letters sent by an automated machine (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd.  EWCA Civ 46), and also that false reports to tax authorities and the government are actionable (Hayes v Willoughby  UKSC 17). Of course, good old fashioned bullying and maltreatment is also actionable, as long as it meets the severity test (Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd  EWCA Civ 1288). It is also necessary that the harassing acts are committed more than once, although two acts committed by different Ingeus (UK) Ltd managers would establish the continuation on behalf of Ingeus (UK) Ltd.
It is also important to bear in mind that the limitation period for this Act is six years, as opposed to a ridiculous six months for the Equality Act 2010. Also, there is no need to prove that you have any form of characteristic which entitles you to protection under the Act. It is possible to obtain a permanent non-harassment order against either an individual or a corporate body, although it is far more likely to be awarded against individuals.
It is also possible to obtain an injunction temporarily preventing the harassment, although the offering of a cross-undertaking as to damages will be problematic for an unemployed person. It will be necessary to rely upon Allen v Jambo Holdings Limited (1980) 1 WLR 1252, an authority in which an impecunious claimant was granted an injunction to prevent an aeroplane from being moved. This authority is not always followed in the way that it should be, so obtaining the injunction will not be automatic.
Data Protection Act 2018
This Act is violated by Ingeus (UK) Ltd as a matter of course. In fact, it is treated with total contempt. However, bringing an action under this Act is likely to lead to limited benefits at best, and it is better to take the precautions outlined in the Survival Kit.
If your rights are being violated in an extreme manner, it will be better to rely upon the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. Damages are likely to be higher, although still modest unless an actual psychiatric injury has been caused, and a non-harassment order can also be granted.
Nevertheless, the DPA remains useful, and it can certainly be used to obtain information which can be used in other actions. The Department for Work and Pensions is the actual data controller, and you don’t even have to pay the usual £10 to obtain the documents. Be aware, though, that the DWP is a slippery customer, and will resort to withholding information to protect its beloved “business partner” if it believes there is imminent litigation. The DWP withheld many important documents from me, and it took two further attempts to get them to reveal what they had.
If you are being inundated with spam or nuisance messages, you can also complain to the Office of the Information Commissioner. The ICO is a wet lettuce and will never take any action, but complain anyway as you will at least get a proof of statutory violation which you can use in court.
Interlocutory Injunctive Relief
As litigation tends to drag on for months if not years, it may be necessary to make an application for interlocutory injunctive relief at the same time as issuing a claim. This will definitely be necessary if you are being subjected to extreme and dangerous harassment by an adviser or a manager.
There is no room here to go into the complex matter of applying for injunctions, but it is important to point out that the injunction will not subject Ingeus to any financial loss. Therefore, any cross-undertaking as to damages would be minimal at best, giving you scope to rely on Allen.
One of the best uses of litigation, of course, is to use it as a bargaining tool to try to get a better deal. Even though the Ingeus (UK) Ltd chief executive’s office is completely nuts, and has been prepared to waste over £100,000 in unrecoverable legal costs just to prevent one innocent victim from having access to one hour of an adviser’s time, it probably doesn’t want too many repeats of this situation. Now that it has demonstrated its intention to attack anyone needing to sue as vigorously as possible, and to resort to criminal activity to persecute an opposing litigant, Ingeus has, in a way, exposed its soft underbelly. It has exposed the sheer expense of its legal advisers and litigation process, making it obvious to anyone with a grievance that they can cause the organisation severe financial loss just by sticking up for themselves.
You can take advantage of this by threatening litigation at the appropriate stage. Even though they have been hell bent on destroying me at all costs, they can only keep this up for so long. If you threaten legal action unless you are given fair treatment, you may well get fair treatment. It is certainly worth a try, as writing a letter before claim costs nothing but a couple of hours of your time.
I certainly believe that anyone who is forced to escalate a complaint to the Regional Director level should also send a letter before claim to both that Regional Director and the chief executive’s office. This is provided, of course, that the complaint is of sufficient gravity to warrant a legal action. The Regional Director will then know that refusing to deal with the complaint will result in severe loss to the Chief Executive, and the CEO will also be closely watching the Regional Director. It may just be enough to persuade the Regional Director to solve your problem in order to avoid that loss.
I certainly wish I had sent such a letter to “Loopy” Louise Preston before my complaint went to that level. It probably wouldn’t have made a difference in that case, as Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert hijacked the meeting in any case, but that is not certain. The Chief Executive Officer was not Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer back then, and the previous incumbent may have actually wanted to avoid the courts over a matter which could be solved without cost simply by making an appropriate referral.
In any case, a letter before claim has to be worth employing, as long as it is not just a hollow threat which is going to be laughed at. As long as there is substance behind it, it should be employed at the Regional Director stage, or earlier if the problem is of sufficient gravity.
If you want my opinion on any legal issue relating to Ingeus (UK) Ltd, I can be contacted through the Contact Page.
One last thing, for any politicians who happen to be reading this. Work Programme attendees desperately need to be able to take their case to a Tribunal if they are being maltreated or refused access to the programme. It is an absolute disgrace that people who are being victimised on a Work Programme have to try to fit their case to a tort and take action in the courts. It also unnecessarily burdens the courts.
No-one who is being maltreated on a Work Programme, or even being denied access altogether, should need to try to establish a tort. The very fact that the Work Programme provider is refusing to provide the service should be enough.
It would not be necessary to create a specialist tribunal, as the same tribunals which cover employment issues could also cover Work Programme issues. The politicians are quick to take actions which have a devastating impact on the lives of innocent people, but slow to take actions which are necessary to give those innocent people the rights they need to have.
A huge fortune has been wasted on the Work Programme, and due to the gross incompetence of Ingeus (UK) Ltd much of that waste is irrecoverable. Access to a tribunal would not only give people like myself a potentially life-saving means of asserting our rights, it would also give an incentive to the gutter-standard Work Programme providers to try to get their acts together.
Politicians, get your hats out of your backsides.