Karrie72

Well Jay bird I'm certainly glad for you that you landed on your feet through your hard work and initiative. However in Charley girls case and others including myself who trained as nursery nurses via the NNEB, apparently that qualification is being phased out and it is now near impossible to obtain a job with that qualification which used to be a recognized training. Certainly no one is saying that you should be able to land at Heathrow and then get handed housing, child, unemployment benefit etc. But for someone who is truly in a position of need and vunerability, thank goodness it's there. Sure beats the 'let them starve and live in a cardboard box' mentality I see here in the states.

Gabgoeshome

I agree!

formula

I work in an industry that develops tech to detect fraud and I'm always interested in new angles. There is no time barring for benefit fraud, so that's always a good market.

If you had ticked "yes" to the question 'Have you ever owned a house in this country or in a foreign country' then they would have asked for further information to see if you were allowed the income based benefits you receive. I'm surprised you can't remember giving them that further information.

formula

You can't use capital for "paying debts" (for benefit purposes) when you could have just paid off the minimum amount each month.

Buying cars and "living on proceeds initially" all have limits/calculations, if the person then wants to claim income based welfare in the UK.

It's not up to the government to prove the person can't have welfare: it's the other way around. It's the claimant who wants something, not the government wanting something.

formula

To be fair, JSA claimants only get a small amount of cash (plus their housing and council tax). JSA cash alone is not enough to survive on long term and it's a miserable existence. It's about £70pw to pay for everything (except their rent and council tax). As benefits for rents have been lowered this year, many have to use their welfare payments to top up their rent and if JSA is the only cash they get, then there is not much left.

It's those with children who are reluctant to keep their families, that get the most welfare money: Tax Credits are a massive drain on the countries finances.

That's why this government are continuing the last government's 'work programmes' for income based welfare claimants of working age. JSA claimants are the ones who are now piloting this new scheme.

Then this government went one further to return the welfare system to the safety net it was intended for and not the way of life it has become for many parents' and parliament passed the Welfare Reform Bill.

From next year other able bodied income based welfare claimants, will also be made to do more to look after themselves and their children, instead of relying on welfare payments like Tax Credits (Tax Credits are being phased out), or those parents will be joining the JSA claimants on the mandatory work programmes.

The days of able bodied adults using their children as a reason to claim benefits instead of working enough hours to keep their family, are over. The days of people pretending to be ill in order to claim welfare, are over too. Great news for those who work hard, not so good for those who don't.

morayeel

It seems like some people will purposely take advantage of benefits. It's true of people of who lived all their lives in the uk. I know some people who have never worked a day in their lives in the u.k, even though they are physically capable of holding a job. I am returning in a couple of weeks. Sad to hear about the Nursery Nurse NNEB not being recognized as that is what I have and was hoping I could secure employment that way, but having lived in the USA for 25 years and ALWAYS holding a full time job in some industry I have a good work record so maybe that work in my favour. I do think there has to be some kind of "safety net" as who knows when you are going to fall on hard times. I understand peoples frustrations about the system though. Here in America, being a cashier at walmart is annoying with the Food Stamp system. I have a majority of customers who have food stamps. They buy the best of food. Steaks, lobster, crab legs( I currently live in Gulfport, MS), tons of snack cakes, sugary drinks etc. I always know without seeing the foodstamp card who will be paying with govt aid based on what is on the conveyer belt. Some customers get between $100 to over $1,400 per month to use for food! I on the other hand, the working poor, eat sandwiches, soup and haven't had a steak in YEARS. My neighbor tells me how she beats the system, tell me she recieves $450.oo per month in food stamps. She doesn't work, but tells the food stamp office she is seperated! I smell steaks being grilled over them and I get resentful!! On the other shoe, some eldery come through who can't afford their meds. It's common for them to leave their medicine when I ring it up as some of it is very expensive. They may receive $10.oo a month on food stamps and buy only the generic variety of foods so it happens over here in the us too. You can try to do the "right" thing, but it doesn't always work out. My daughter went to college here. While she was in college she was on my health insurance. She was diagnosed with Intercystial cystitis. She got out college, found a job and pays $250 a month for health insurance, that is with a $500.oo deductible. Her visits to the urolgist are not covered because her diagnosis was made while she was on my insurance, therefore its classified as a pre-exisiting condition. To date this year her medical bills are over $6,000. That includes meds which cost her $200.oo per month so at a young age she is already deep in debt due to illness. She was also hit by a car last week. Not her fault. I met her at the accident scene. She was scared to go to the hospital in the ambulance because at the time we didn't know whose fault it was. I encouraged her to go as she was crying and in pain. The paramedics said to her you have to give us the go ahead. I advised her to go and try not to worry about the cost, so she went by amubulance and I followed in my car and met her there. Anyway to cut a long story short, her bills have started to pile in! $976.oo for the ambulance, $4,800 for the ER visit etc Luckily the man who hit her had car insurance and it will pay for her medical bills. She chipped a bone in her foot and tore some knee muscle and has whiplash. She is hobbling into work on crutches. The orthopedic surgeon gave her a note for work saying she has to sit 45mins out of every hour. SHe is scheduled for an MRI next week, but each time she has to see the docs she has to wait until the other persons insurance sends a check to the doctors office until they will see her. Monday it was $500.oo for the orthopedic surgeons follow up!!! So in essence, a safety net as far as the NHS is so wonderful. If you don't have good health insurance over here, you are pretty much in trouble. I dont know the answer to make it a balanced system. If everyone could be honest, work if you can and try to to cheat any countries "system" or "safety net" that would be a start.

morayeel

ps. for what it matters her insurance deductible is $5,000 not $500.oo!

fulwood

Im glad you clarified that. I need new insurance as i left my job. My ins that cost me only 60 bucks is now nearly $320. I can either pay like $91 for a 10k deductible or nearly 200 or more for deductible between 5k and 10k. ridiculous.. no wonder folks dont carry health insurance in this country. im gearing more towards cheaper monthly insurance just to at least have something..sorry to hear about your daughter and hope she gets well..

BristolUK

From a general point, yes, it's up to the person applying.

But for the benefits department to rule deprivation of capital applies and treat that person as still having it, or some of it, they do have to show the person did it so as to receive benefit or more of that benefit than they would have done if they'd still had the money.

That's the way it was from before my time there, right through the 30+ years I was doing the job (including those decisions) until 2004 when I left.

I have no reason to think it's changed. Do you or are you, once again, applying your theory?


Of course you can pay off a debt instead of making minimum payments. It's cheaper. It's encouraged. If, however you made an advance enquiry then it might be shown that it was done to get benefits not otherwise due.

In reality it was quite normal for people to receive reduced benefit because their capital attracted a "tariff income" (similar to interest on savings). If they subsequently spent capital clearing a debt, that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do since it reduced their outgoings. Their reduction in capital meant a reduction in tariff income and an increase in benefit.

If the purpose in clearing the debt was to reduce outgoings/save money then the purpose was not to receive more in benefits. The effect of receiving an increase is not the same as intention.

If one was to buy a Rolls Royce then, yes, it might be regarded as unreasonable.

If one spent money at a rate exceeding benefit levels a few times over, one might start considering that was unreasonable.

formula

I wish it was only these people. There are plenty coming into the country and wanting benefits and/or free NHS, even though they haven't paid any taxes/or not much in taxes, to the UK.

Some people even plan to retire to the UK for free healthcare, when they have been paying their taxes to another country for most of their working years.

formula

From reading posts on MSE from those working in HB departments and DWP, it seems the system has changed. You can pay off your debts if you want to, but for benefit purposes, you will be treated as still having that money if you could have continued to pay off the minimum payment each month.

The staff just at the desks at job centres don't make that call; they have decision makers for that now as the staff at the desks kept getting it wrong.

BristolUK

Some research confirms it's not changed.

From Age UK (formerly Age Concern)

Lots of similar stuff on other sites too, including Local Authority and DWP sites.

Easier to locate and reproduce from this one.

BristolUK

I repeat. ONLY IF it is shown you did it to get benefit or benefit at a higher rate.

God, just how patronising are you? You think in 30+ years I don't know that? Good grief.

And there have always been decision makers behind the scenes...they just had different names. Strewth!!

formula

I was just doing the same for you If you look further on about the repaying of debts, it goes into the reasons why the debt needed to be paid straight away.

The guide for councils on housing benefits.

"Reasons for Disposing of Capital Asset

W1.732 When capital has been used to repay a debt, give careful consideration as to whether the debt needed to be repaid at that time. If there was no legal obligation to do so then it may be that part of ther claimant's purpose was to obtain or increase the amount of benefit."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...PRZ6aPZyvxhtDQ

Which is what all the advisors on the forums tell people when they want to pay off debts such as credit card bills. There is no legal obligation to pay off that debt.

The HMRC website said the same as this.

That manual linked above, then when on to talk about conclusions being drawn as claimant's are unlikely to admit that securing benefits was a significant reason behind their actions.

BristolUK

From the current Decision Makers Guide current at February 2012.

Not so cut and dried is it?