Jump to content

GrooverGrover

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About GrooverGrover

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. About £30 SMI versus £400 in housing benefit. They wouldn't be 'buying the home for me' either, I'd personally be taking on a mortgage debt which I would always be liable for. I admit though that the right to buy would in a way.
  2. No problem. Thanks I also get housing benefit too, so (if you exclude the right to buy discount) owning my own home would save the government money in that way as it would remove me from their housing benefit books.
  3. Regards the saving threshold. I am not over the 6k threshold and never have been. I have some savings yes, but nowhere did I state I had more than the threshold.
  4. I forgot to make clear that I don't have any outstanding debts. I have a good/excellent credit score. I have never defaulted on any money I've borrowed and haven't missed a payment on the credit cards I've used for the last 15 years. Thanks for your response, I can't find the criteria you refer to. Is it online somewhere?
  5. Hi, I am currently on ESA Support Group and also have an award for DLA which doesn't technically need to be renewed until over five years from now. I have the right to buy and could buy my current home for about 35k. I have some savings and may also be able to borrow some money from relatives to add to my deposit. I cannot find a single lender that's willing to lend me any money toward this on a secured basis whatsoever. Iroonically they all seem to be falling over themselves to lend me money on credit cards on an unsecured basis but not enough to buy the property. It seems to me they're basing this refusal to lend on their 'affordability criteria', ie- that this lending is un-affordable because I'm not in receipt of any income from paid employment. I find this utterly laughable because at current rates the mortgage would cost about £100/month and could be fixed for between five and ten years.... Also that the mortgage interest would be paid by the DWP under SMI anyway. I suspect this is indirect discrimination, in that they are applying this rule to all applicants and it's indirectly discriminating against disabled people who are much less likely to have income from work owing to the disabilities that they have. I just wondered if anyone here could indicate as to the likelihood of this being deemed indirect discrimination under the Equality Act if it were taken to court and any recent judgements that may be relevant, case law etc?
  6. You're basically repeating what I said yo them. They were all adament that 'attending a medical is mandatory' unless you're terminally ill. Actually I'm not sure if you are correct when you say everyone gets referred for a 'medical opinion'. People are awarded ESA based on the ESA50 alone. Some with the ESA50 + medical evidence submitted by doctor or patient. That info gets sent to Atoms/crapita and if they think you will pass the WCA medical then they don'tvask you to attend one and everything then gets sent to the decision maker at the DWP. This is toncut costs as sending people for medicals who are vert likely to pass them is costly especially if they get declared for for work then appeal and win. I very much doubt the person at Capita who makes that decision has many medical qualifications but I may be wrong
  7. Hi, I have called the DWP on a number of occasions now in relation to ESA and everytime I've ended up in an argument with them about whether medicals are largely a mandatory part of the process. Some staff state categorically to me that everyone has to go for a medical, some say that only the terminally ill don't have to attend them. I have generally remained calm when they've stated this but it really infuriates me when they keep pushing the point. I have been awarded ESA a couple of times without having to attend a medical at all and I am not terminally ill. I state this to them and they still tell me I'm wrong.... I know that many people are awarded ESA simply on the basis of the ESA50 or that plus medical evidence which is obvious just from a quick internet search. please check this benefits and work link (what's all this Disney busines?) co.uk/news/2706-no-wca-medical-for-almost-three-quarters-of-esa-claimants Have the rules recently been changed? I was awarded ESA without a medical a couple of years ago. It really infuriates me when DWP staff will not listen to what you're saying and are adamant that what they're saying is true, even when presented with figures to the contrary. Their general tone from the outset is incredibly disrespectful and argumentative. At first I thought this was a one off case but whenever I call I get the same sort of response and normally they just end up hanging up the phone.
  8. That's a nice idea trebor but unless you're the Ray Mears type, you can not separage yourself off from society like that, thus that bestows an element of societal responsibility onto your shoulders to contribute in some way, be that some voluntary work. The onlybexceptiok are those who are sick and disabled although even there I know that many of those people feel a sense of civic duty to help people, be that on these forums for example. Sanctions are very nasty, totally unnecessary and counterproductive in my opinion. They create a climate of fear and distrust between government departments and people such that many people are scared to death to interact with them. It would be much better to get rid of the coercian entirely. I think everyone accepts that there are people who claim JSA have no intention of ever working and they will always exist, regardless of sanctions being there or not. I'm in favour of a modest basic income myself as that would ensure the most vulnerable always had a basic level of income. I honestly think it aould encourage people to be a more active part of society, as many i think would feel more confident doingso.
  9. What law is he trying to sue you under? His claim has to have some basis in law otherwise he's wasting the courts time.
  10. Tell your employer not to confirm anything to them. They will get thousands of pounds in kick backs if you stay in the job for six months and even more if you stay in it for two years and they can prove it.
  11. Hi, Apologies as I can't be of much help to you. I just wondered though what the job is? I'm in my mid thirties myself and I worked throughout almost my whole teenage life in various jobs. Was paid £1.70/hour when I was thirteen but had decent jobs from 15 to 18 and was paid a reasonable wage - about £3.30 an hour and this was in the mid 90s. I just imagine that these jobs would now be apprenticeships and paid poorly. It does my head in. I'm told there are 1.8 million of these 'apprenticeships'.. How does the government expect young people to live on £2.50 ish an hour? I even had holiday pay from the job I worked at 16 and I was doing A levels at the time too.
  12. Fortunately they've agreed to pay up, which is awesome. No need to go through legal shenanigans. They want it refunded to the same card though but it's been so long that the card number has changed so that may make things interesting.
  13. I'm not sure if that's been applied properly looking at some of the requirements to dispose of the goods. At no point have I been contacted by B&Q and they've always had my address and telephone number. ukbusinessforums.co.uk/threads/disposal-of-customers-uncollected-goods.276630/
  14. It was B&Q sorry. Apparently this isn't that unusual, I was told at the time it was 'putting the item on pick'. The timeframe is unusual I guess, although they indicated they still had it, when I came back 2 months later. I know this sounds crazy but I had intended to pick it up a couple of weeks later, as I was buying a bicycle trailer but it was faulty when it arrived, managed to fix it but then I found I'd lost the little thing that connects it to the bike, so it's stayed in my shed ever since.
×
×
  • Create New...