The DEA spoke to Mr D who explained that he was interested in part-time casual work with the district or county council, or a government department. In view of Mr D’s limited experience the DEA offered him a clerical work placement, but he declined. The DEA also alerted Mr D to a vacancy which was about to be advertised for a sessional supervisor with the probation service.
According to the DEA she asked Mr D to contact her if he was interested in the post. The DEA notified Mr D of a vacancy as a car park attendant based in a city (some 60 miles away) but he declined to apply. According to the Building Report DEA, during the discussions Mr D said that he did not want ES to identify jobs for him. The PACT manager told Mr D that I had decided not to bring a prosecution against the district council. The DEA notified Mr D of a seasonal vacancy as a car park attendant with the district council, but he declined to apply.
The second PACT manager told the Member that, following lengthy discussions with the probation service, he had secured for Mr D a job interview as a community service supervisor on 2 May. Mr D asked the DEA to intervene because, even though he was suitably qualified, he had not been offered an interview for the post of court usher. The second PACT approved a bulk permit for the period ending 30 June for the county council to recruit 369 persons who were not registered as disabled.
The application was specified 56 different job titles, the number of posts for each and their locations. The DEA replied to Mr D. She said that his declared interest in the post of court usher had been made on the closing date for applications (ie 31 May) which had left insufficient time for her to assess his suitability and to make representations on his behalf.