DWP and the confusing WP payments

Submitted by sh1tbrick on Sun, 15/02/2015 - 5:47am

Recently I came across DWP payments for June 2014 and going back 6 Months,thousands of entries,but a pattern evolved. JSA sustainment payments,which are based on job outcomes,each Provider can claim for each Month that a claimant remains employed,so far so good,but how is it possible that A4E can be paid for outcomes in London and be paid the exact amount (to the penny) for outcomes in the midlands and 2 weeks later G4S receives the exact amount at another location,these are listed as outcome payments,not service fees,the chances of such a diverse group having exactly the same amounts of clients is just not possible,something is just not right! Any ideas?

‹ Declining Caseloads No News is Good News? ›
  • Login or register to post comments
  • 1909 reads
Submitted by Paul.Bivand on Mon, 16/02/2015 - 12:21pm.

Hi again.

The ways of DWP accounting may be difficult to follow....

However, it would be logical to batch up payments to make similar amounts - maybe round in some version before or after VAT.

At this stage of the programme, we would expect providers to have become cash-positive and be paying back the money they had to put in to run the service before job outcomes and sustainments came through in numbers.

Over the programme to date, taking into account the money they might have borrowed to cover the first couple of years, they may be just about breaking even (depending on performance etc).

  • Login or register to post comments
Submitted by sh1tbrick on Mon, 16/02/2015 - 1:04pm.

@Paul,I do understand that,google DWP expenses and put a date from June 2014 and backwards.follow the trail and you will see that it makes no sense,even if they sub-contracted the DWP would not split payments,if the DWP are guestimating payments that is questionable I am unaware of any accounting practices that would allow this.

  • Login or register to post comments
Submitted by Paul.Bivand on Tue, 17/02/2015 - 12:29pm.

Hi again.

I think the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee are looking at all this. Sure I saw something related from Taxpayers Alliance or some such.

However, they have bigger fish to fry.

Think making on account payments and reconciling later is fairly normal with large contracts.

It's if they don't reconcile and recover overpayments that there may be issues.

  • Login or register to post comments