Turas nua

Eclipse510

I was wondering what happens once you've completed the year with turas nua? Do they automatically delete the personal information or do they still try to contact you and if you don't engage i.e don't answer the phone do they go to social welfare about it. People just don't know where they stand or what their rights are re insisting their personal information be deleted once they've completed their year. Thanks.

Nokia6230i

Eclipse510 wrote: »

I was wondering what happens once you've completed the year with turas nua? Do they automatically delete the personal information or do they still try to contact you and if you don't engage i.e don't answer the phone do they go to social welfare about it. People just don't know where they stand or what their rights are re insisting their personal information be deleted once they've completed their year. Thanks.

Interesting one; in my case I began my 2nd Go on their Merry go Round/Charade a while back & they'd kept my details on file; think I finished up in the Springtime of 201X & began again 3-6 Months later in Autumn of 201Y.

Was far less co-operative at all turns & frustrated them to point they referred me back on more than one occasion despite my tacit/full co-operation but turning up & signing on on each occasion.

Should I be recalled in the Springtime as I expect I will for a 3rd Time I will be challenging their data retention.

Have already won 1 case in 2019 with another recently opened also in terms of data sharing without my consent and'm optimistic data retention by a private company such as Turas Nua are, would be another easy win; the DEASP, Working Links & FRS Recruitment would be notice parties also & Min. for EASP too I guess?

Eclipse510

I read on another forum that people who are referred back to them for a second or third time refused to sign the personal progression plan that they ask you to sign each time and after that happened turas nua left them alone even when the people told them they are willing to attend any meetings etc but just were not willing to sign the ppp plan as they are a private company and they didn't want to give over their info. As far as I know, people are within their rights to refuse to sign it. I just don't know what happens once you have signed it and they already have your personal information.

ghost of ireland past

People on social welfare or unemployment assistance just have to satisfy the conditions of receiving benefits which are that you are looking for work and that you are available for work.


You don't have to accept help from private companies and you don't have to sign contracts which contain more onerous conditions than those two I've given above, of being available for work and actually looking for work.

You can accept help from Turas Nua while it is helpful but you don't have to commit to a particular period of time nor do you have to sign contracts.

Eclipse510

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

People on social welfare or unemployment assistance just have to satisfy the conditions of receiving benefits which are that you are looking for work and that you are available for work.


You don't have to accept help from private companies and you don't have to sign contracts which contain more onerous conditions than those two I've given above, of being available for work and actually looking for work.

You can accept help from Turas Nua while it is helpful but you don't have to commit to a particular period of time nor do you have to sign contracts.

While I am looking for work and have had a few interviews I did sign the personal progression plan with them as I didn't know at the time that it is actually a legal contract or that I actually was within my rights not to sign it, these are things I've had to find out for myself. I am near the end of my year with them but I'm just not sure where I stand now re my personal information that they have from when I signed the contract. I would assume that once my year has finished they will delete my information and not contact me again? Can I insist that they delete my information since they are a private company and I didn't really know what I was signing? It's hard to know who to ask about what your rights are when it comes to Turas nua.

Nokia6230i

Eclipse510 wrote: »

While I am looking for work and have had a few interviews I did sign the personal progression plan with them as I didn't know at the time that it is actually a legal contract or that I actually was within my rights not to sign it, these are things I've had to find out for myself. I am near the end of my year with them but I'm just not sure where I stand now re my personal information that they have from when I signed the contract. I would assume that once my year has finished they will delete my information and not contact me again? Can I insist that they delete my information since they are a private company and I didn't really know what I was signing? It's hard to know who to ask about what your rights are when it comes to Turas nua.

I would assume that once my year has finished they will delete my information and not contact me again?

You'd be right to assume it should; my experience is that it wasn't; I had to go back a 2nd Time; I think there was a 6 month gap.

They presented my PPP as a fait accompli; I'd armed myself with facts from 1st time round & declined the e-Signature they wanted; in the end they signed it on my behalf and so began a year of correspondence with the *******; you e-mail them, they'll send you a reply.....by post for some reason.

Not with them now but if they call me back for a THIRD time I'll be getting onto DPC; I've already won a case against a national cinema chain & am waging one against a sports club & associated minority association involved with many members of former; I may even do it over weekend as I don't **think** there's a statute of limitaitons in these cases; for me it was Feb. 2017-Feb. 2018 & then Sept. 2018-Sept. 2019.

swarlb

A relative of mine was recently called by Turas Nua. He was already on jobseekers and had a 'case officer' looking after him already with Intreo.
He couldn't understand why he had to be in contact with two separate institutions.
From reading the posts on here am I correct in that Turas Nua is a private company, working for profit wheras Intreo is part of Revenue.
This will probably make you laugh but my relative is retired, but has to apply for jobseekers till he reaches 'pensionable age'. He does not want to work and can support himself till the pension kicks in. I'm not going to state the job, but put it this way, he's been doing it since 1969, and basically is 'worn out'....

Are you required by law to attend Turas Nua ? Is it a scam ? I read on some of the early posts on this thread that it was even shutting up shop !!

Peregrinus

swarlb wrote: »

. . . He does not want to work and can support himself till the pension kicks in . . .

So why is he applying for jobseekers allowance? The qualifying conditions include being available for work and genuinely seeking work, so it would seem that he doesn't qualify.

swarlb

Peregrinus wrote: »

So why is he applying for jobseekers allowance? The qualifying conditions include being available for work and genuinely seeking work, so it would seem that he doesn't qualify.

Because he doesn't qualify for pension till he is 67, he is now just 65. There was actually a debate on Liveline during the week about it, which we both heard and discussed.
I'm due to retire myself on the next year or so, and this will probably apply to me as well.
The 'jobseekers' is basically a stopgap till the pension kicks in, they know quite well he is not 'seeking work'. However it's the second year when jobseekers ends is what concerns me (and him).

whippet

Either he is retired or he his not .... either he is job seeking or is not

Jobpath / seetec / turns nua .. has been quite good identifying people who are on the wrong social welfare claim. People who get most animated about the scheme tends to be those who are claiming incorrectly

Nokia6230i

whippet wrote: »

Either he is retired or he his not .... either he is job seeking or is not

Jobpath / seetec / turns nua .. has been quite good identifying people who are on the wrong social welfare claim. People who get most animated about the scheme tends to be those who are claiming incorrectly

Turas Nua don't direct the claimant who YOU say is on wrong claim to do so; they don't really identify them at all to be honest.

They don't care so long's you're in employment as this is their remit; they get their kickbacks from employers/the State for each 13 weeks you retain employment up to 52.

Mrs OBumble

swarlb wrote: »

Because he doesn't qualify for pension till he is 67, he is now just 65.

But you've said he can support himself. If he doesn't want to work, then he needs to support himself.

splinter65

swarlb wrote: »

A relative of mine was recently called by Turas Nua. He was already on jobseekers and had a 'case officer' looking after him already with Intreo.
He couldn't understand why he had to be in contact with two separate institutions.
From reading the posts on here am I correct in that Turas Nua is a private company, working for profit wheras Intreo is part of Revenue.
This will probably make you laugh but my relative is retired, but has to apply for jobseekers till he reaches 'pensionable age'. He does not want to work and can support himself till the pension kicks in. I'm not going to state the job, but put it this way, he's been doing it since 1969, and basically is 'worn out'....

Are you required by law to attend Turas Nua ? Is it a scam ? I read on some of the early posts on this thread that it was even shutting up shop !!

Intreo is not part of revenue. Intreo is DEASP. If he can support himself until pension age then he should sign off his Jobseekers payment and then he won’t have to engage with TN.

ghost of ireland past

People should not be tricked into signing documents, contracts or other paperwork.

The only requirements when claiming are.
1. Available for work.
2. Genuinely looking for work.

Turas Nua like to offer help as they get paid to do so. Turas Nua will try to encourage you to sign up for their help. Turas Nua will try to portray any refusal to accept their help as being inconsistent with your two requirement above.

But it is not inconsistent with the two requirements to refuse their help. In other words, you don't have to accept help from people you don't like, and you can't be forced to accept help from people you don't like, and there are good reasons for not liking Turas Nua.

Turas Nua have been described as bullies in the Dail if I recall correctly.

The way to get rid of Turas Nua is to refuse to co-operate with them, as I do, and have done for years.

swarlb

swarlb wrote: »

A relative of mine was recently called by Turas Nua. He was already on jobseekers and had a 'case officer' looking after him already with Intreo.
He couldn't understand why he had to be in contact with two separate institutions.
From reading the posts on here am I correct in that Turas Nua is a private company, working for profit wheras Intreo is part of Revenue.
This will probably make you laugh but my relative is retired, but has to apply for jobseekers till he reaches 'pensionable age'. He does not want to work and can support himself till the pension kicks in. I'm not going to state the job, but put it this way, he's been doing it since 1969, and basically is 'worn out'....

Are you required by law to attend Turas Nua ? Is it a scam ? I read on some of the early posts on this thread that it was even shutting up shop !!

Nonsense. Once over 62 those unemployed and claiming benefits don’t have to engage with those agencies! https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/older_jobseekers.html

swarlb

Deleted User wrote: »

Nonsense. Once over 62 those unemployed and claiming benefits don’t have to engage with those agencies! https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/older_jobseekers.html

I'll tell him to seek advice. He is over 62 but got a letter from Turas Nua inviting him to attend a 'consultation meeting'

JustAThought

swarlb wrote: »

I'll tell him to seek advice. He is over 62 but got a letter from Turas Nua inviting him to attend a 'consultation meeting'

I’d be concerned that they would make him do free ‘professional’ work for a company and thereby prevent that company from hiring a new graduate or paying n unemployed person looking for and wanting work to do the same job. Lots of exploitation by employers of these free labour schemes .

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

I’d be concerned that they would make him do free ‘professional’ work for a company and thereby prevent that company from hiring a new graduate or paying n unemployed person looking for and wanting work to do the same job. Lots of exploitation by employers of these free labour schemes .

The scheme you’re on about has been stopped.

Eclipse510

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

People should not be tricked into signing documents, contracts or other paperwork.

The only requirements when claiming are.
1. Available for work.
2. Genuinely looking for work.

Turas Nua like to offer help as they get paid to do so. Turas Nua will try to encourage you to sign up for their help. Turas Nua will try to portray any refusal to accept their help as being inconsistent with your two requirement above.

But it is not inconsistent with the two requirements to refuse their help. In other words, you don't have to accept help from people you don't like, and you can't be forced to accept help from people you don't like, and there are good reasons for not liking Turas Nua.

Turas Nua have been described as bullies in the Dail if I recall correctly.

The way to get rid of Turas Nua is to refuse to co-operate with them, as I do, and have done for years.

If you refuse to co-operate with them by not signing the personal progression plan do they not report that to the social welfare who can then stop your payment? I have read differing accounts, some people say they refused to sign the contract and turas nua left them alone and others say they refused to sign the contract and their payment was affected.

Nokia6230i

Eclipse510 wrote: »

If you refuse to co-operate with them by not signing the personal progression plan do they not report that to the social welfare who can then stop your payment? I have read differing accounts, some people say they refused to sign the contract and turas nua left them alone and others say they refused to sign the contract and their payment was affected.

I didn't sign my PPP 2nd time round; Centre Manager signed it "on my behalf" and I let fly; this would've made them money I think and also by implication confirmed my engagement/participation consenually.

Didn't quite turn out that way; I e-mailed Turas Nua on this and lots of other issues; for some reason they don't do e-mail replies, letter only.

Was referred back on TWO occasions; the 1st One I attended but the 2nd time I delayed it due to waiting for communicaiton being awaited from Turas Nua; that was in April & I got released in September/October without having had to fulfill this engagement.

ghost of ireland past

Eclipse510 wrote: »

If you refuse to co-operate with them by not signing the personal progression plan do they not report that to the social welfare who can then stop your payment? I have read differing accounts, some people say they refused to sign the contract and turas nua left them alone and others say they refused to sign the contract and their payment was affected.

Yes, they will try to portray your refusal to sign their document as 'non-cooperation' but that's not entirely true.

You only have to comply with the two requirements, of being available for work, and actively seeking work. Neither of those requires you to sign up to third party services.

Turas Nua are bullies and have been described as such by politicians in the Dail. You can refuse to sign on that basis alone and they can do nothing.


If you have signed bacause you thought you had to, because you were lied to by Turas Nua staff, then your signature is not valid. You cannot be tricked into signing their documents and if you have been tricked, (by being lied to), then your signature is not valid.
It is not compulsory to sign the contract document and that is what Turas Nua appear to sometimes tell people.



Ultimately you have to be strong with Social Welfare and you must know your rights, or you may be taken advantage of.


Also, you only have to look for suitable work. It could be that no work is suitable, in which case you don't have to look. That would mostly be the case if you suffer from mental illness and you cannot receive treatment.

If you suffer from untreated mental illness which affects your life then most work could be unsuitable.

splinter65

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Yes, they will try to portray your refusal to sign their document as 'non-cooperation' but that's not entirely true.

You only have to comply with the two requirements, of being available for work, and actively seeking work. Neither of those requires you to sign up to third party services.

Turas Nua are bullies and have been described as such by politicians in the Dail. You can refuse to sign on that basis alone and they can do nothing.


If you have signed bacause you thought you had to, because you were lied to by Turas Nua staff, then your signature is not valid. You cannot be tricked into signing their documents and if you have been tricked, (by being lied to), then your signature is not valid.
It is not compulsory to sign the contract document and that is what Turas Nua appear to sometimes tell people.



Ultimately you have to be strong with Social Welfare and you must know your rights, or you may be taken advantage of.


Also, you only have to look for suitable work. It could be that no work is suitable, in which case you don't have to look. That would mostly be the case if you suffer from mental illness and you cannot receive treatment.

If you suffer from untreated mental illness which affects your life then most work could be unsuitable.

A condition of Jobseekers is that you be “fit for work”. If you are mentally ill then you are not “fit for work” and are thus disqualified from Jobseekers. You can apply for Disability Allowance instead.
Regarding Your comment regarding suitable employment please read this below from the welfare website.
Suitable full-time employment
The person must be available for suitable full-time employment. In determining what constitutes "full-time" employment regard should be had to the normal working week (or normal working pattern) in the employment for which the person is holding him/herself available.

When deciding whether the person is available for suitable full-time employment, the Deciding Officer should take into account:

the person's skills, qualifications and experience
the length of time that the person has been unemployed and
the availability of job vacancies in the locality
The Deciding Officer should have particular regard to the period of unemployment when deciding on availability. A person who has recently become unemployed (e.g. within the last 3 months) would be regarded as available where s/he is seeking to become re-employed in his/her usual employment, provided there is a reasonable prospect of this. However, if it was immediately obvious that there was no employment available within a specialised field in the local area, the person could be expected to broaden the search - either to a wider area or to other types of employment within a shorter period.

For example, a computer programmer who indicates that s/he will only work at programming may stand a reasonable chance of securing employment despite such a restriction. However, such a restriction would not be reasonable if the person still had no employment after 3 months on the Live Register.

If a person has not found employment within his/her chosen field or industry within a reasonable period (e.g. 3 months), and the person is not broadening the range of employment sought, the onus is on the person to demonstrate that s/he still has a reasonable chance of obtaining employment in that field despite failure to do so to date. For instance, in a situation where a person is promised permanent work in the near future on the basis that s/he must be free to take it up immediately, it may then be considered reasonable to refuse an offer of short term employment in the interim. Physical health may be a legitimate reason to restrict the range of work for which a person holds him/herself available. This is particularly so where physical build/health is a condition upon which an offer of work is dependent.

If there is any doubt about the person's availability, the Deciding Officer should seek further information from the person such as:

the type of work which s/he is seeking and the reason(s) for any restrictions placed on the type of work which s/he is prepared or able to accept
whether there are domestic or other commitments which limit his/her ability to accept a suitable job offer
Unreasonable Restrictions

A person may be regarded as not being available for work if s/he imposes unreasonable restrictions on:

the nature of the employment
the hours of work
the rate of pay
the duration of the employment
the location of the employment, or
any other conditions of employment which s/he is prepared to accept
In any case where a Deciding Officer is of the opinion that the person has placed unreasonable restrictions, s/he should be interviewed and given the opportunity to respond. In some cases, a person may demonstrate that the restrictions are not unreasonable and that s/he has a reasonable prospect of getting full-time employment despite such restrictions. For example, a person may be qualified as a baker, but may have ceased seeking work in that field upon developing dermatitis. Employment which would bring that person into contact with agents that trigger the condition would obviously not be suitable employment. Such a restriction on availability may, in the circumstances, be regarded as reasonable.

The following are some of the circumstances where a person may be considered NOT to be available for work:

s/he is looking for a particular type of work only. As previously stated, after a period of unemployment, a person must be prepared to accept any employment for which s/he is qualified
if a person is unwilling to accept an offer of suitable employment for which s/he holds him/herself available because s/he is unhappy with the going rate for the job this could be regarded as imposing unreasonable restrictions on his/her availability. Where a person has refused to take up employment because s/he is unhappy with the rate for the job, s/he should be interviewed by the Deciding Officer regarding the reasons for such refusal.
If for example, taking up such employment would leave a person in a worse financial position, taking into account the various other income supports available to him/her, then it may be reasonable not to accept an offer of such employment. However, weight should also be given to the longer term benefits that accrue to a person by virtue of being in employment.

if a person states that s/he is unwilling to take up full-time work but is looking for part-time work only, e.g., 3 days per week or morning/evening work only, this could be regarded as an unreasonable restriction on his/her availability in terms of the hours of work s/he is prepared to accept.
It should be noted that this does not preclude a person from accepting part-time work in the absence of suitable full-time employment if the person demonstrates that s/he continues to be available for work in respect of the remaining days of unemployment

it is expected that the person in part-time employment would continue to take steps which demonstrate that s/he is genuinely seeking full-time employment
if s/he is only available during hours which are not typical of the employment sought, e.g. clerical office work in evenings only
if s/he is unwilling to accept an offer of suitable employment for which s/he holds him/herself available because s/he is unhappy with the going rate for the job this could be regarded as imposing unreasonable restrictions on his/her availability. Where a person has refused to take up employment because s/he is unhappy with the rate for the job, s/he should be interviewed by the Deciding Officer regarding the reasons for such refusal
If for example, taking up such employment would leave a person in a worse financial position, taking into account the various other income supports available to him/her, then it may be reasonable not to accept an offer of such employment. However, weight should also be given to the longer term benefits that accrue to a person by virtue of being in employment,

the person is unwilling to take up an offer of reasonable short-time employment e.g. relief work or employment under a short-term contract
the person moves to a location where his/her prospects of getting suitable employment have been significantly reduced. In deciding whether a move to a location imposed unreasonable restrictions on availability for work, regard should be had to the reasons for the move. For example, people who relocate to be near family or relatives or under a resettlement programme would be regarded as indigenous residents
the person is placing unreasonable restrictions on the distance which s/he is willing to travel to find work having regard to the availability of public/private transport
s/he is placing unreasonable restrictions on his/her ability to take up work due to domestic commitments, e.g., caring for an elderly/sick relative or young children. If the person can show that s/he has made alternative domestic arrangements then s/he may be considered to be available for work

runawaybishop

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

People should not be tricked into signing documents, contracts or other paperwork.

The only requirements when claiming are.
1. Available for work.
2. Genuinely looking for work.

Turas Nua like to offer help as they get paid to do so. Turas Nua will try to encourage you to sign up for their help. Turas Nua will try to portray any refusal to accept their help as being inconsistent with your two requirement above.

But it is not inconsistent with the two requirements to refuse their help. In other words, you don't have to accept help from people you don't like, and you can't be forced to accept help from people you don't like, and there are good reasons for not liking Turas Nua.

Turas Nua have been described as bullies in the Dail if I recall correctly.

The way to get rid of Turas Nua is to refuse to co-operate with them, as I do, and have done for years.

You also believe it may be illegal for doctors to see a patient's genitals and that we are legally allowed to grow pot in our own homes. Stop giving legal advice mate.

ghost of ireland past

Stop telling me what to do. Debate with me instead if you can.

I would not plead guilty to cannabis offences inside my home. It should be legal.



Splinter65, your long post does not say that people with undiagnosed mental illness have to sign off Unemployment Assistance and take up Disability instead. In fact, mental illness appears to be ignored.

If a person is disabled, but they cannot prove that point, as is common with mental illness, then they have no choice but to sign onto Unemployment Assistance. Perhaps the government should provide mental health services to people instead of leaving it up to the Gardai and the Courts.


Your post does use the word 'suitable' many times. People only have to take up suitable employment, and it could be that no employment is suitable, if you're mentally ill, but you cannot prove that point.

Most people with Aspergers are unemployed for example. Are there any services?

splinter65

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Stop telling me what to do. Debate with me instead if you can.

I would not plead guilty to cannabis offences inside my home. It should be legal.



Splinter65, your long post does not say that people with undiagnosed mental illness have to sign off Unemployment Assistance and take up Disability instead. In fact, mental illness appears to be ignored.

If a person is disabled, but they cannot prove that point, as is common with mental illness, then they have no choice but to sign onto Unemployment Assistance. Perhaps the government should provide mental health services to people instead of leaving it up to the Gardai and the Courts.


Your post does use the word 'suitable' many times. People only have to take up suitable employment, and it could be that no employment is suitable, if you're mentally ill, but you cannot prove that point.

Most people with Aspergers are unemployed for example. Are there any services?

It’s very easy to provide medical evidence that you are mentally ill if you are indeed mentally ill.
If you cannot provide sufficient proof that you are mentally ill then SW must assume that you are medically fit for work. That would then preclude you from using the allegation of your mental illness as a reason why a job would not be suitable.

Mr. Karate

Anybody else dealing with them during this pandemic? I'm on the phone with them every couple of weeks during this. And ofcourse they have to get the dig in about reporting us to the Dept. of Social Protections [considering how scummy they can be who protects us from the Dept. of Social Protections?] to cut our payments for non compliance.

Tedious Bore

What's the normal course/sequence of interactions with this crowd.....
like after the initial taking of details and whatever form-filling stuff, do they just try refine your CV a little and then follow up with you every couple weeks for a year of asking to see some evidence you applied for stuff?

Anyone find they just try steer you toward certain work regardless of your education&skillset ?

Dempo1

I could but won't waste my time writing a book about this shower. It's been a few years but my god, what an outrageous waste of taxpayers money. Basically the state financing a private Recruitment Agency. My one was Midlands based, plush offices, about 20 full time staff (some younger than socks I own), there was absolutely no way the cost of running this circus was less expensive than paying rates of welfare for the area it served. I rarely saw anyone but staff twiddling their thumbs or fixing their make up.

I was actually on reduced hours, claiming a measly 2 days SW and was referred.

Nonsensical CV preparation, computer skills, rather personal probing into personal matters were all part of the course. Essentially a CV harvesting exercise for a company affiliated to a well known recruitment company (let's just say a farming background).

Despite being employed, they tried every trick under the sun to get me to take another job, when that failed they actually almost lost me my job due to harassment of my employer, in fact the most outrageous thing that happened was them trying to get me sign a form stating they had got me the job I actually had for near 6 years, this when I finally ended with them. Absolutely no regard for data protection, CV sent without consent, open office were I could recite entire conversations other victims were having with staff of this odious organisation.

The travel expenses was hilarious, I lived beyond the KM rule and was supposed to get an allowance, in the entire year I received €4.50 and in coins, it was just an appalling experience. On exiting SW call you in for interview, opinions etc, I told the truth and was basically told, "yes we've heard stories"

I'm all for anything that helps people get into work but engaging recruitment companies at enormous costs is not the answer, when there motivation is only income and not giving a damn how they earn it. Out of the 10 in the group I started with none progressed and all I achieved was an insight on how not to do something, I'm still in my same job, hours increased albeit this Covid-19 may change that, god forbid this government let Turus Nua or Seetac for that matter loose again, well over €100 million of taxpayers money wasted to date.

Tedious Bore

Hey thanks for informative reply of your experience with them. I'm just starting out with them now and some the Qs were just blanket questionnaire stuff that wasn't really applicable....
Q: To what would you attribute your lack of success in finding work these last few months?
A: Well maybe the fact that I was never meant to be looking for any while completing a fulltime college course on BTEA!

even asked me why my CV is so light on work experience these last few years?
Yeah well AGAIN... with full knowledge, approval and assistance of SocialWelfare, I've been in fulltime education for the period you're quizzing me on. - And learning skills I hope might help me toward a job.

Pleasant enough to deal with so far, but a lot of it just felt like some very amateur box-ticking nonsense. I can hack all that stuff, but bit concerned they're gonna start sending out my CV to just anywhere and everywhere after I've spent last few years studying for degree.
Anyway, I gather we're entitled to a few months searching for 'suitable work' as per post above ...so fingers crossed!