Since it went live on 19th November, Universal Jobmatch has encountered various problems, such as the advertising of bogus vacancies, and is attracting wider public interest.
Following our initial discussions with DWP, the background to the new service was given in DWP/BB/153/12. In response to critical press coverage and enquiries from campaign organisations members and branches PCS pressured DWP for clearer information about the current difficulties with Universal Jobmatch. Additionally, PCS is receiving reports and queries from members concerned that some local managers appear to be putting pressure on advisors to misrepresent the mandatory nature of signing up to the new service.
Non Mandatory
At the recent meeting, DWP management confirmed that the use of Universal Jobmatch is non-mandatory. On the security issues, management acknowledged that there had been ‘teething issues’ but that these were being resolved. PCS has put pressure on management to ensure a human rather than an automated IT check for the placing of vacancies by employers, to avoid the embarrassment of the bogus MI6 vacancy being repeated.
PCS believes that it is essential for the future of the new service that jobseekers can have full confidence in the security of the system and trust and respect their employment adviser. It is therefore extremely damaging that some managers are putting pressure on jobcentre staff to tell jobseekers that they must register or
grant their adviser access to their Universal Jobmatch account. This is clearly not currently the position and to suggest that it is would amount to official misdirection. PCS is now seeking to establish exactly what the legal position is and in the meantime strongly advises members not to put themselves in the position of misinforming the public about Universal Jobmatch.
This is the same nonsense people were spouting when the Work Programme was introduced. I posted at the time, asking that people refrain taking the chance of losing their benefits, because of listening to people playing politics on forums. I rarely post, but if my warnings then stopped just one person from being hammered it was worth it.
And now the wheel turns full circle again...
and yes, the WP turned out to be mandatory. And yes, 1000's were sanctioned...
Yep, the OP and the PCS are right, the UJM is non-mandatory.
What they do not tell you is that you can be mandated under a jobseekers direction - if you then fail to register you will, potentially, lose a months money. Next time, 3 months, 3rd time (I think) is 1 year.
The new sanction regime of 22nd Oct onwards is very oppressive - 1wk sanctions are now 1 month - further sanctions can lead to a 1 - 3 yr sanction !
Now if any Lone Parents, or others on the breadline, want to take that chance with their benefit it's up to them, but it is frankly irresponsible to encourage people to take actions which could potentially lead to the vulnerable becoming destitute.
This is the same nonsense people were spouting when the Work Programme was introduced. I posted at the time, asking that people refrain taking the chance of losing their benefits, because of listening to people playing politics on forums. I rarely post, but if my warnings then stopped just one person from being hammered it was worth it.
And now the wheel turns full circle again...
and yes, the WP turned out to be mandatory. And yes, 1000's were sanctioned...
Yep, the OP and the PCS are right, the UJM is non-mandatory.
What they do not tell you is that you can be mandated under a jobseekers direction - if you then fail to register you will, potentially, lose a months money. Next time, 3 months, 3rd time (I think) is 1 year.
The new sanction regime of 22nd Oct onwards is very oppressive - 1wk sanctions are now 1 month - further sanctions can lead to a 1 - 3 yr sanction !
Now if any Lone Parents, or others on the breadline, want to take that chance with their benefit it's up to them, but it is frankly irresponsible to encourage people to take actions which could potentially lead to the vulnerable becoming destitute.
It will only be part of a jobseekers agreement if agreed between the advisor/job centre and the claimant.
If a claimant knows it is not mandatory, and has no desire to sign up, then it cannot be part of the jobseekers agreement, and if an advisor states it is mandatory, they are lying.
If they tried that with me, I would refuse to sign the new agreement. I would put my complaint in writing, that I know signing up for UJM and allowing advisor access, it NOT mandatory (and would state the PCS statement above, as well as the relevant DWP guidlines that also state it is not mandatory). But I would state I am quite prepared to sign a new job seekers agreement, as long as there was no section on mandatory signing up to UJM.
As it currently stands I am not prepared to provide all of the information required while there are some major security concerns.
And don't think it's just the UK's DWP/Job Centre Advisers who will have access either:
The US Patriot Act gives authority for US Government Agencies to access any data stored on cloud services that are based in the US, or where a company is a subsidiary of one based in the US.
Entirely relevant to our own Universal Job Match given that Monster is a US company and data entered is stored in the cloud on Monster's US based servers. So your data can be access by US Government Agencies, without your knowledge and you do not have any say in the matter.
Of course it's 99% unlikely the US is going to be interested in your hobbies and what jobs you search for, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.
Oh and from what I remember, it wasn't the fact the Work Programme was mandatory that wad disputed, it was the belief that work placements as part of the Work Programme were mandatory. It turned out work placements as part of the Work Programme are NOT mandatory at all and there is no requirement to attend one. Work Placements ARE mandatory for WorkFare, but that is an entirely different programme aimed at a different set of claimants.
Well ive had a interesting day. Went to sign on and first thing asked was if i had registered for universal jobmatch. I said yes and have applied for numerous jobs on the site. Oh said the adviser, then i can access it to confirm it. No i said , i have not given my permission for my personal details to be given to a third party.
I then gave her photocopies of all jobs applied for on universal jobmatch. Oh thankyou she said and then called over a superviser. She said you have joined the site but refuse to give DWP access to your data is that correct. Yes i said. She then said i will have to register that. Okay i said but here is a letter that i have drafted to the jobcentre why i have not given permission to give up my personal data to the DWP. Oh she said when reading it i shall have to call the manager. The manager was called and read the letter. With a dropped face he said i could go now and see me in 2 weeks. ( do i need permission to leave now. )
I left and then at 5-0 clock i had a phone call from the job centre. She explained that she had read my letter and then confirmed that there was no commitment for any jobseeker to sign away their rights as long as you have registered on the site.
So I suggest to anyone who doesent want to be snooped on to join universal jobmatch but do not tick that box giving your rights away. When you apply for jobs just photocopy and you will be in your rights.
Krok.
Here is the letter
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am trying to find a job. I search for jobs. I apply for any for which I am qualified. I even apply for some for which I am not qualified but which I believe I could do. I have applied to register on the Universal Jobmatch site. But I do not consent to have my personal details given to a third party.
You must be aware that the internet is used by malicious and mischievous people who try to trick others into giving up valuable personal information which can be used for criminal purposes.
The first Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998, gives me the legal right to withhold personal information. I do not give my consent for my personal information to be given to commercial organisations which I choose not to give it to. It is not necessary for me to give away this right for the purposes of searching for a job. This is particularly important in offering protection against my personal information being used by criminals.
Monster Jobs has been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.
Government sites have been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.
Information held by the Government, and supposedly kept secure, has been lost and made public - and will be again.
I have no faith in the ability of Monster Jobs or in the Government to keep my personal information safe.
There is an admittance on the Universal Jobmatch site that the security of personal information cannot be guaranteed.
There is no guarantee that personal information cannot be transferred to any country in the world, which is against the Eighth Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998.
My rights to the privacy of my personal information are also guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.
Anyone registering with the Universal Jobmatch site could be open to exploitation by unscrupulous and fake employers. To get a job, one needs to give the potential employer their name, address, date of birth, NI number and bank details. Job seekers will be forced to hand over this information to anyone who claims to be an employer and who claims to be offering a job to the job seeker. We have already seen bogus job advertisements, including one supposedly for MI6 and another one with a Thailand email address which was a clear attempt at identity theft, and which were not intercepted before appearing on the Universal Jobmatch site. The administrators of that site are clearly incapable of running it correctly and there is no guarantee that matters will improve: every Government-sponsored computerised system has been found to be faulty, and this one follows that pattern.
Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.
Because of everything alluded to above I most strongly object to being forced to sign my rights away with Universal Jobmatch. It is an infringement of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and will not enhance my ability to find a job. It will leave me vulnerable to criminal activity and could put me in danger in ways that are yet to be determined.
I would only sign my rights away by giving permission to the dwp to see my personal data with the Universal Jobmatch site if I receive a signed letter from a member of the Job Centre or the Department for Work and Pensions which acknowledges my objections and which states that I am being forced or compelled to register on the Universal Jobmatch site under the threat of sanctions.
The letter must contain a complete copy of this letter and must allude to it. It must also agree that I will be entitled to compensation if my personal details are used for criminal purposes or in some way that harms me, my reputation or my prospects.
If I do not receive that letter it will be obvious that there is no legality in the compulsory registration on the Universal Jobmatch site.
If I receive that letter, it will be tacit agreement that the one signing it, or the organisation they represent, will be liable for the payment or provision of any compensation or any other form of redress obtained by me, or by others on my behalf, for the forced loss of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and/or under the European Convention on Human Rights, or for any loss or inconvenience caused by criminal or mischievous activity because of my personal details being on the Universal Jobmatch site.
I repeat that I am trying to find work, I search in various ways and places and I do not need to give permission to the dwp to see my data on the Universal Jobmatch site but would do so under protest (and maintaining my rights) if given the guarantees I have asked for in this letter and the acknowledgement that I was being coerced by threat of sanctions.
Actually I put a lot of effort into finding a job.
But I wont sign up for the site the way it currently is, with it's security holes, lack of clarity on where the data is stored (it appears to be in the US, which means it is not subject to our stronger data protection laws for example), it has a myriad of false jobs some, it appears, designed to steal data from people and the fact it has far less jobs than other job search sites. The previous site was actually perfectly usable too, and had many more relevant jobs in this area too. Sort that lot out and I will probably reconsider.
Just because I am concerned about my privacy, how my data is used and who has access to it in no way means I am trying to avoid getting a job, at all.
Online seems to be the only way at the moment as most of the local papers are now redirecting people to various websites to find jobs
Put my name down for a few jobs on the UJM site lately, I just really hope they will have compassion on people with Xmas approaching
I too am concerned about the privacy and security of UJM, god knows what they look at because they are just trying to find ways to sanction us
I am trying blooming hard to find work as I am going to be affected big time by those savage cuts looming in April 2013 and can't afford to be sanctioned or I more than likely lose this roof over my head sooner rather then when I myself decide to move
The adviser at the Job Centre showed me what happens when you tick the box allowing them access to your account. I underestimated it. They get their own username and password and can log straight into your account. I imagined that they'd only be able to see your activity log but everything comes up just the same as when you log in yourself.
Oh, the government had them closed by cutting funding.
Actually they couldn't. A jobseeker agreement is about seeking work. As long as your printing off the right ammount of jobs in the Jobcentre to fill your agreement they've got nothing.
If you GENUINELY want to work, then why would you worry about anything as long as you are doing your jobsearch correctly?
I've signed on in the past and it was far too easy to completely bullsh!t on your jobsearch stencil, I wonder why people are surprised and/or complaining that the dwp are tightening up?
If you GENUINELY want to work, then why would you worry about anything as long as you are doing your jobsearch correctly?
I've signed on in the past and it was far too easy to completely bullsh!t on your jobsearch stencil, I wonder why people are surprised and/or complaining that the dwp are tightening up?
It's not the having to provide evidence and tightening up people have problems with, it's the insecurity of the site, the fact the old site did a better job and was more accurate, the false job adverts that seem to be prevalent at the moment and the fact the data appears to be stored in the US, so not subject to our stronger data protection laws that I have a problem with. Although the new site is run by Monster you have to supply much more information to the new site than you do to Monster's own site.
Sort that out and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Can I just ask a question without trailing through all these posts to get the answer?
As it stands, is it absolutely ESSENTIAL to sign up for UJM? Because my adviser is making me do so, practically saying if I don't then my benefit could be in jeopardy.
Can I just ask a question without trailing through all these posts to get the answer?
As it stands, is it absolutely ESSENTIAL to sign up for UJM? Because my adviser is making me do so, practically saying if I don't then my benefit could be in jeopardy.
No.; The DWP have stated that UJM is NOT mandatory and there is no threat to benefits if you do not sign up for it. Your adviser is lying to you I am afraid.
No.; The DWP have stated that UJM is NOT mandatory and there is no threat to benefits if you do not sign up for it. Your adviser is lying to you I am afraid.
You could I guess, print this off and show it to your adviser.
I could yes but this is going to sound pathetic but how on earth do I explain to a person who is in authority that she's wrong (or not wrong, lying). It's going to be awkward.
I might just say I don't have a computer. Or say I do but only use it for medicinal purposes or something.
I could yes but this is going to sound pathetic but how on earth do I explain to a person who is in authority that she's wrong (or not wrong, lying). It's going to be awkward.
I might just say I don't have a computer. Or say I do but only use it for medicinal purposes or something.
Perhaps it would be easier to put your concerns in writing then.
Write them a letter stating that your adviser is insisting you sign up for UJM, he/she told you it was mandatory and threatened you with sanctions if you did not sign, but that you are fully aware UJM is not mandatory and indeed the DWP's own information leaflets and guidelines state this. You feel it is both wrong and unprofessional for Job Centre Advisers to attempt to pressure clients into signing up, under threat of sanctions, when they have no right to do so.
I signed somthing yesterday after 2 of the advisors said i had to do it. One of them even got the site up for me, I still don't bloody understand how to use it though... Or the point ? What was wrong with the normal way of looking and applying for jobs
Well whilst I was at the joke shop today the woman said thought I had signed up for it (because I said I would a fortnight ago) but I read this thread and have never bothered, glad I found this.
She wasn't the slightest bit bothered that I hadn't signed up, and didn't try to claim it was mandatory, quite the opposite.
Comments
Since it went live on 19th November, Universal Jobmatch has encountered various problems, such as the advertising of bogus vacancies, and is attracting wider public interest.
Following our initial discussions with DWP, the background to the new service was given in DWP/BB/153/12. In response to critical press coverage and enquiries from campaign organisations members and branches PCS pressured DWP for clearer information about the current difficulties with Universal Jobmatch. Additionally, PCS is receiving reports and queries from members concerned that some local managers appear to be putting pressure on advisors to misrepresent the mandatory nature of signing up to the new service.
Non Mandatory
At the recent meeting, DWP management confirmed that the use of Universal Jobmatch is non-mandatory. On the security issues, management acknowledged that there had been ‘teething issues’ but that these were being resolved. PCS has put pressure on management to ensure a human rather than an automated IT check for the placing of vacancies by employers, to avoid the embarrassment of the bogus MI6 vacancy being repeated.
PCS believes that it is essential for the future of the new service that jobseekers can have full confidence in the security of the system and trust and respect their employment adviser. It is therefore extremely damaging that some managers are putting pressure on jobcentre staff to tell jobseekers that they must register or
grant their adviser access to their Universal Jobmatch account. This is clearly not currently the position and to suggest that it is would amount to official misdirection. PCS is now seeking to establish exactly what the legal position is and in the meantime strongly advises members not to put themselves in the position of misinforming the public about Universal Jobmatch.
And now the wheel turns full circle again...
and yes, the WP turned out to be mandatory. And yes, 1000's were sanctioned...
Yep, the OP and the PCS are right, the UJM is non-mandatory.
What they do not tell you is that you can be mandated under a jobseekers direction - if you then fail to register you will, potentially, lose a months money. Next time, 3 months, 3rd time (I think) is 1 year.
The new sanction regime of 22nd Oct onwards is very oppressive - 1wk sanctions are now 1 month - further sanctions can lead to a 1 - 3 yr sanction !
Now if any Lone Parents, or others on the breadline, want to take that chance with their benefit it's up to them, but it is frankly irresponsible to encourage people to take actions which could potentially lead to the vulnerable becoming destitute.
It will only be part of a jobseekers agreement if agreed between the advisor/job centre and the claimant.
If a claimant knows it is not mandatory, and has no desire to sign up, then it cannot be part of the jobseekers agreement, and if an advisor states it is mandatory, they are lying.
If they tried that with me, I would refuse to sign the new agreement. I would put my complaint in writing, that I know signing up for UJM and allowing advisor access, it NOT mandatory (and would state the PCS statement above, as well as the relevant DWP guidlines that also state it is not mandatory). But I would state I am quite prepared to sign a new job seekers agreement, as long as there was no section on mandatory signing up to UJM.
As it currently stands I am not prepared to provide all of the information required while there are some major security concerns.
And don't think it's just the UK's DWP/Job Centre Advisers who will have access either:
The US Patriot Act gives authority for US Government Agencies to access any data stored on cloud services that are based in the US, or where a company is a subsidiary of one based in the US.
Entirely relevant to our own Universal Job Match given that Monster is a US company and data entered is stored in the cloud on Monster's US based servers. So your data can be access by US Government Agencies, without your knowledge and you do not have any say in the matter.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...riot-act.shtml
Of course it's 99% unlikely the US is going to be interested in your hobbies and what jobs you search for, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.
Oh and from what I remember, it wasn't the fact the Work Programme was mandatory that wad disputed, it was the belief that work placements as part of the Work Programme were mandatory. It turned out work placements as part of the Work Programme are NOT mandatory at all and there is no requirement to attend one. Work Placements ARE mandatory for WorkFare, but that is an entirely different programme aimed at a different set of claimants.
I then gave her photocopies of all jobs applied for on universal jobmatch. Oh thankyou she said and then called over a superviser. She said you have joined the site but refuse to give DWP access to your data is that correct. Yes i said. She then said i will have to register that. Okay i said but here is a letter that i have drafted to the jobcentre why i have not given permission to give up my personal data to the DWP. Oh she said when reading it i shall have to call the manager. The manager was called and read the letter. With a dropped face he said i could go now and see me in 2 weeks. ( do i need permission to leave now. )
I left and then at 5-0 clock i had a phone call from the job centre. She explained that she had read my letter and then confirmed that there was no commitment for any jobseeker to sign away their rights as long as you have registered on the site.
So I suggest to anyone who doesent want to be snooped on to join universal jobmatch but do not tick that box giving your rights away. When you apply for jobs just photocopy and you will be in your rights.
Krok.
Here is the letter
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am trying to find a job. I search for jobs. I apply for any for which I am qualified. I even apply for some for which I am not qualified but which I believe I could do. I have applied to register on the Universal Jobmatch site. But I do not consent to have my personal details given to a third party.
You must be aware that the internet is used by malicious and mischievous people who try to trick others into giving up valuable personal information which can be used for criminal purposes.
The first Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998, gives me the legal right to withhold personal information. I do not give my consent for my personal information to be given to commercial organisations which I choose not to give it to. It is not necessary for me to give away this right for the purposes of searching for a job. This is particularly important in offering protection against my personal information being used by criminals.
Monster Jobs has been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.
Government sites have been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.
Information held by the Government, and supposedly kept secure, has been lost and made public - and will be again.
I have no faith in the ability of Monster Jobs or in the Government to keep my personal information safe.
There is an admittance on the Universal Jobmatch site that the security of personal information cannot be guaranteed.
There is no guarantee that personal information cannot be transferred to any country in the world, which is against the Eighth Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998.
My rights to the privacy of my personal information are also guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.
Anyone registering with the Universal Jobmatch site could be open to exploitation by unscrupulous and fake employers. To get a job, one needs to give the potential employer their name, address, date of birth, NI number and bank details. Job seekers will be forced to hand over this information to anyone who claims to be an employer and who claims to be offering a job to the job seeker. We have already seen bogus job advertisements, including one supposedly for MI6 and another one with a Thailand email address which was a clear attempt at identity theft, and which were not intercepted before appearing on the Universal Jobmatch site. The administrators of that site are clearly incapable of running it correctly and there is no guarantee that matters will improve: every Government-sponsored computerised system has been found to be faulty, and this one follows that pattern.
Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.
Because of everything alluded to above I most strongly object to being forced to sign my rights away with Universal Jobmatch. It is an infringement of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and will not enhance my ability to find a job. It will leave me vulnerable to criminal activity and could put me in danger in ways that are yet to be determined.
I would only sign my rights away by giving permission to the dwp to see my personal data with the Universal Jobmatch site if I receive a signed letter from a member of the Job Centre or the Department for Work and Pensions which acknowledges my objections and which states that I am being forced or compelled to register on the Universal Jobmatch site under the threat of sanctions.
The letter must contain a complete copy of this letter and must allude to it. It must also agree that I will be entitled to compensation if my personal details are used for criminal purposes or in some way that harms me, my reputation or my prospects.
If I do not receive that letter it will be obvious that there is no legality in the compulsory registration on the Universal Jobmatch site.
If I receive that letter, it will be tacit agreement that the one signing it, or the organisation they represent, will be liable for the payment or provision of any compensation or any other form of redress obtained by me, or by others on my behalf, for the forced loss of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and/or under the European Convention on Human Rights, or for any loss or inconvenience caused by criminal or mischievous activity because of my personal details being on the Universal Jobmatch site.
I repeat that I am trying to find work, I search in various ways and places and I do not need to give permission to the dwp to see my data on the Universal Jobmatch site but would do so under protest (and maintaining my rights) if given the guarantees I have asked for in this letter and the acknowledgement that I was being coerced by threat of sanctions.
Yours faithfully
You dont need to worry about signing up - its not mandatory.
I told the advisor i would just keep looking using various other websites and she said that was perfectly fine
Although i think at some point nect year we are all going to be forced onto it by law
Lets make a stance before that happens fellow seekers!
They can't make it a rule for everyone. Not everyone has internet access.
They could send you to a library.
Oh, the government had them closed by cutting funding.
But I wont sign up for the site the way it currently is, with it's security holes, lack of clarity on where the data is stored (it appears to be in the US, which means it is not subject to our stronger data protection laws for example), it has a myriad of false jobs some, it appears, designed to steal data from people and the fact it has far less jobs than other job search sites. The previous site was actually perfectly usable too, and had many more relevant jobs in this area too. Sort that lot out and I will probably reconsider.
Just because I am concerned about my privacy, how my data is used and who has access to it in no way means I am trying to avoid getting a job, at all.
Put my name down for a few jobs on the UJM site lately, I just really hope they will have compassion on people with Xmas approaching
I too am concerned about the privacy and security of UJM, god knows what they look at because they are just trying to find ways to sanction us
I am trying blooming hard to find work as I am going to be affected big time by those savage cuts looming in April 2013 and can't afford to be sanctioned or I more than likely lose this roof over my head sooner rather then when I myself decide to move
Actually they couldn't. A jobseeker agreement is about seeking work. As long as your printing off the right ammount of jobs in the Jobcentre to fill your agreement they've got nothing.
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=21676
If you GENUINELY want to work, then why would you worry about anything as long as you are doing your jobsearch correctly?
I've signed on in the past and it was far too easy to completely bullsh!t on your jobsearch stencil, I wonder why people are surprised and/or complaining that the dwp are tightening up?
Why should we have to worry about having our identity stolen?
It's not the having to provide evidence and tightening up people have problems with, it's the insecurity of the site, the fact the old site did a better job and was more accurate, the false job adverts that seem to be prevalent at the moment and the fact the data appears to be stored in the US, so not subject to our stronger data protection laws that I have a problem with. Although the new site is run by Monster you have to supply much more information to the new site than you do to Monster's own site.
Sort that out and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
As it stands, is it absolutely ESSENTIAL to sign up for UJM? Because my adviser is making me do so, practically saying if I don't then my benefit could be in jeopardy.
No.; The DWP have stated that UJM is NOT mandatory and there is no threat to benefits if you do not sign up for it. Your adviser is lying to you I am afraid.
Here's the DWPs own information leaflet that state it is not mandatory:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-jobmatch-faqs.pdf
You could I guess, print this off and show it to your adviser.
I could yes but this is going to sound pathetic but how on earth do I explain to a person who is in authority that she's wrong (or not wrong, lying). It's going to be awkward.
I might just say I don't have a computer. Or say I do but only use it for medicinal purposes or something.
Perhaps it would be easier to put your concerns in writing then.
Write them a letter stating that your adviser is insisting you sign up for UJM, he/she told you it was mandatory and threatened you with sanctions if you did not sign, but that you are fully aware UJM is not mandatory and indeed the DWP's own information leaflets and guidelines state this. You feel it is both wrong and unprofessional for Job Centre Advisers to attempt to pressure clients into signing up, under threat of sanctions, when they have no right to do so.
She wasn't the slightest bit bothered that I hadn't signed up, and didn't try to claim it was mandatory, quite the opposite.