BristolUK

Apologies if it came across that way. It wasn't intended, I was only taking your post as a starting point on the Swaddling subject

There have been many people in other threads effectively suggesting that merely mentioning the decision is the answer to every situation.

Fleaflyfloflum

Who are these many people suggesting that?
I am thankful someone told me about it, as i had no idea. I did not mention this decision when i went there, just simply asked if they could help me and they said yes.




I ended up being one of these "bludgers" myself recently. I feel i was entitled regardless of the fact I have been out of the country for a few years. The reason being, when I was living there I paid huge taxes and contributions over the years when I was a high earner.
The whole point of that system is to help people who fall on bad times. I was one of them due to a chronic illness. Thank god for it i say!

crystal23

But you're not a bludger Flea. Neither is Cherry6, neither will Ezzie be. You've all lived in the UK and paid contributions and quite rightly are entitled to help when you get back. And from what I read sometimes you have to jump through hoops to get anything.

It's people who haven't contributed and who go running up to the benefits office for a handout that piss me off. Asylum seekers and citizens of European Union countries, I guess, come under different rules.

I once worked with a couple. She was Ozzie, he was Kiwi. He had moved to Oz to be with her and boasted about how he didn't have to work in Oz because the Govt gave him benefits by virtue of having a NZ passport. (I think that scam has stopped now)

They then rocked up to the UK, having never been there before, and were extremely hacked off that they weren't entitled to any benefit and had to work instead of having their OE funded by the UK Govt. We didn't hear the last of it at work every day.

Why they even thought they could get money I have no idea but those are the sort of tossers who take the P out of the system.

And as I said in my post to Lobby Lou, she needs to stop generalizing and thinking that everyone who returns home is grabbing handouts.

BristolUK

Nothing to be gained from naming names. I do remember you posting in one of the many threads about it and I remember being glad things worked out for you. But there are several threads about it and in each there are several posts from people saying that the Swaddling decision means nobody will have a problem.

This thread shows problems continue because it's not as straightforward as those comments suggested.

Fleaflyfloflum

Ok.. so what are the complications?

I really do want to know under what circumstances a returning UK citizen that has previously lived and worked in UK would have problems in getting eligibility for beneifits if they are genuine returnees?

lobby lou

We may well move back one day as we own a house there.......we are working abroad ...did not emigrate to greener pastures..and keep a house to be safe !!!!
I have never banged on about how much money we have as we are not rich LOL ......just careful and save just incase we need to return...as i would not assume after living and paying taxes in uk for over 40 yrs and is uk's job to support me when i decide i want to return!!!!!
i dont agree with all the handouts and i do believe if uk had been firmer with who it let in and gave handouts to it would not be in such a mess...
I also agree it shoule be hard to just return cap in hand ....maybe they could offer relocation loans etc,but where do you draw the lines in giving out money houses etc
As for citizenship post ,,,,,reading that the majority want to go home as they dilike it etc .....Why would you go back ???? because uk is not what you wanted really????so should you be given benefits then ???NO.....
FORUMS are for opinions and these are mine ....as i say we save for any crisis ...................hve a nice day......

BristolUK

One is ignorance of the ruling on the part of staff. Some offices will rarely come across this aspect of a claim, so staff won't necessarily be up to date.

Now, of course, mention of the ruling should help. Staff could look it up when prompted. But with the impression given that it will not be a problem, some people applying may not even mention it.

In unrelated issues regarding benefits, there are some really obvious factors that have relevance but people don't mention them. Perhaps that's because, to them, they are so obvious they feel it's not worth a mention.

Then of course there are the staff who don't like to be made to look uninformed and who will then look for other ways to make things awkward. I knew several like that.

Whether it be ignorance of the ruling or staff allowing personal opinion or even prejudice to influence matters (and there are plenty of people like that in the department) once it gets to a refusal, there will be people who just accept it. They'll take the view that a gov dept knows what it's doing. They might even say "I told you not to believe everything you read on a forum."

Some people are just not ready for the battle and don't challenge a decision. Perhaps if they get work quickly, they don't follow through. Lots of reasons for acceptance of a bad decision.

You used the phrase "genuine returnees" but that needn't be straightforward either. I referred to the case that seemed genuine but wasn't; the person having left after their UK visit.

The questionnaire - whatever it looks like now - may identify some grey areas.

How about the person who wants to settle back in the UK but indicates they'll go back to whatever country if they don't find a job or somewhere to live within a given time? Having read "it won't be a problem" they may innocently refer to something like that.

What if they still own property there? That's less cut and dried then. Or if the rest of the family are not in the UK. That could be a perfectly sensible plan for the family to join up in the UK later - or it could look like one person is simply on a recce to check things out.

These are not my fanciful theoretical ideas. They've all happened in my experience. Unfortunately.

I've not worked in the dept for 4 years but I doubt things have changed that much.

A poster on this latest thread said they hadn't succeeded yet.

BristolUK

As an aside, that shouldn't be relied upon.

As the term suggests, it's a loan and has to be repaid. It's also for "one off" short term needs until the next income.
If there is no income (there being no confirmation of benefit entitlement) there is no means of repaying the loan and it's an ongoing need.

Very difficult to get one in that situation, although sometimes one can find a sympathetic crisis loans staff member who persuades someone on the benefits side (after all, they do have friends at work) to "do the decent thing" and pay the claim.

Sometimes it's all about tactics.

Celtic Princess

You have more chance of turning lead into gold than getting a crisis loan. I applied for one after I escaped from an abusive marriage. I was pretty much destitute with a small baby and little more than the clothes on our backs. We moved into an unfurnished house so applied for the loan to get some stuff. They would only allow essential items and so rejected everything I applied for.

The woman at the DSS told me that a cooker was a non essential item because I could buy salads. And crockery and cutlery were also non essential items because if I bought ready made salads at M&S then I got free plastic ones included. She obviously thought benefits were far higher than they actually were.

crystal23

A predictable reply. As usual I had to read your incomprehensible ramblings 3 times to actually understand your post.

I struggle to believe you are a middle aged granny living in Abu Dhabi, as you say, because of the way you write. You write like an uneducated 14 year old chav, you have no awareness of world affairs as a high ranking army officer's wife would have and you are totally unable to engage in a coherent debate.

Your posts are inconsistent - you say you are a teacher (god help us) and then you say you don't work.

You were challenged by Grayling over the banning of a nativity play in Oxford but couldn't justify your comments. You posted about the story of the teacher being jailed for naming a teddy bear Mohammed but you couldn't even get the country correct and that was headline news all over the world. You had to be corrected by NorthernBird.

Your feigned indignation when you are challenged is characteristic of a troll and something does not ring true about you. You have been asked a couple of times whether english is your native language and I don't think it is because of the way you write.

Take a look back at your posts. 90% of them go on about your luxurious life, how rich you are, what you have - seriously, do you think anyone on here cares what you have - if it's true.

Lots of posters have 2nd homes and a luxurious lifestyle - you aren't the only one. Thankfully they don't go on about it in every post.

Your nastiness is staggering and as I said yesterday dressing your vitriol up with kisses and wubs fools no-one.

If you are that bothered about people claiming benefits I've got a little project for you. Why don't you trawl the forums for people moving to Australia, NZ, Canada or anywhere else in the world, identify those who say they are going to claim child benefit in their new country AS WELL AS STILL CLAIM IN THE UK and have a go at them for fraud. That should keep you busy.

Just another observation xxxxxxx

Ozzidoc

Would you still have had to pay full whack had you moved to another EU country? You are comparing apples with pears.

dunroving

Well, as others have already taken this thread off tangent, I feel I have to throw my six pennyworth in the ring, too. Haven't had a rant in here for a while.

It's fascinating to me that, in the US election, a candidate who suggests raising income tax by 2% for anyone earning more than $250k p.a. (last time I did the calculations, that was a quarter of a million) is branded a "socialist" ...

In over 35 years of working, I've never once claimed any kind of benefit, and it really does tick me off when people who could work simply sponge off the state for years on end (I know some of them, they are in my distant family). And I approve in principle of looking closely at some of these people to assess whether they are even considering reasonable offers of work (and I'd even support community service for people on the dole - heck, put them to work! They might even earn some self-respect!). As a student, I worked at the dole office two summers in a row and the conversations I had with the fraud department made very interesting listening ...

HOWEVER, I think the least a country can do is help out the poor, huddled masses when they reach this shore, regardless of where they came from, and especially if they have kids in tow. That is the sign of a compassionate country. If they are illegal, or ineligible for long-term benefits, fair enough, in time you work on getting them employed, deported, whatever. But no civilised country refuses basic shelter and supplies to those in genuine need, regardless of where they came from or what their immigration status is.

Sorry, meandering a bit between topics there, but hopefully you get my drift.

ezzie

Here, here Dunroving! Couldn't agree more. I also know quite a few who are 'on the sick'. I couldn't believe some of the reasons...'a bit of arthritis in my feet', 'get tired quickly' etc. And these people have been on benefits for most of their adult life. Benefits should be there to support those who are unable to work due to real disabilities or those who require a safety net to get them through a crisis.

Unfortunately, there's too many doctors, social workers etc willing to sign off a good many people as not capable of work rather than acuse them....and have to back up their claim - that they are in fact quite capable.

Fleaflyfloflum

Actually, in a back handed way I can vouch for this. I hadnt thought about it until i read your post.

When I was discharged from hospital when I had the pnuemonia, I was in the middle of changing GPs. All my hospital notes would have been sent to my old docs, but as I was now staying with my other daughter so I registered at her GP clinic. I had to go in there to get a continuing sick note to claim benefit as the one the hospital didnt give me one. This doc did not even question me and wrote one out with NO evidence whatsoever other than my wheezing chest. Stating I had pneumonia. Well, how did he know!!

Millie11

HOWEVER, I think the least a country can do is help out the poor, huddled masses when they reach this shore, regardless of where they came from, and especially if they have kids in tow. That is the sign of a compassionate country. If they are illegal, or ineligible for long-term benefits, fair enough, in time you work on getting them employed, deported, whatever. But no civilised country refuses basic shelter and supplies to those in genuine need, regardless of where they came from or what their immigration status is.

Sorry, meandering a bit between topics there, but hopefully you get my drift.[/QUOTE]


As a former UNHCR worker I could not agree more. I have worked in the most awful places on earth and if I had lived there I would have done anything possible to flee.