You need to get an SSP1 form from your employer which tells you when the SSP runs out - you need this form to claim ESA while employed. You can't claim ESA until you've had your 28 weeks of SSP. You can claim ESA while still receiving company sick pay, as long as SSP has ended.

The only way is to get the son to agree to the money being paid into her bank (he would need to sign a form), and they she takes the board money and gives him the rest. If he wants to live at home, then he agrees to the arrangement.

Did you get a proper decision or did they say they couldn't do it? If it was a proper decision you can request a review which they usually do within 24 hours. If that is refused to can ask to appeal to the independant review service. If you didn't get a proper decision then apply again for a crisis loan, this time saying you want an official decision, even if the answer is no. CAB can help with challeging the decision, or you can take something in writing to the jobcentreplus detailing why you are in crisis, how your last loan has been spent, what expenses you now need it to cover - and what implications will be to your health if you don't have the living expenses to get treatment.

Having worked for a small charity, their main monetary concern was to secure funding to stay open - so people in need of benefit, housing, debt, immigration advice etc could be given a service they badly needed, which was made increasingly difficult - they will probably close when the legal aid reforms come in. Many of the staff, including myself worked long hours, which we weren't paid for, because there were people we were helping who if we didn't help them, had nowhere else to turn. 'Profit' was never, ever a concern. The main concern was staying afloat following the last changes to legal aid funding.

OK. This is how it works. The Tribunal hearing is to decide whether the benefit overpayment is lawful or not. They get lots and lots of overpayment cases to hear that have had IUC's with prosecution pending. If the Tribunal decides, based on facts of law that there is no overpayment - ie the law has been misapplied by the DWP, LA or HMRC (which happens quite a lot), then there is no criminal case, because no fraud has been committed. When you say you don't have a good case at Tribunal - is this bacause there is obvious guilt, or because innocence is difficult to prove? Overpayments can be caused in many different ways, and not all overpayments are fraud, but all frauds produce overpayments. Tribunal judges see plenty of cases with pending prosecution where they find, that in fact no overpayment or fraud has occured. I don't see the world through 'rose tinted spectacles', but with the experience of 1000's of benefit cases and 100's of appeals. Tribunal judges look at the law involved and decide based on law - if they decide on anything else, then it is an error of law and their decision can be overturned by the upper tier Tribunal.

Your wife should claim income support as a carer - there should be no issue with this claim going through as long as you don't have income/capital that would effect it. The absolute time limit for appealling is 13 months from the date of decision. You can make a late appeal after one month from the date of decision, you just have to give good cause reasons for appealling late - for instance not being properly advised of appeal rights and or being told by dWP not to bother appealling as 'its all you'll get'.

It depends on what it says in their letter. If they admit their error, then you write back saying that according to social security law, overpayments occuring as a result of official error are non recoverable. If they do not admit to the error, then you may have to appeal the overpayment on the grounds it was caused by official error.

Sorry sledge, the results of a criminal case have no bearing on a Tribunal. Also the absolute time limit for appealling is 13 months from the initial decision. A negative result at Tribunal loses you nothing at all in a criminal case - its just confirming the original decision.

That's what I thought, more sanctions= (fake) lower unemployment numbers

I was just about to post that, you got there first.

Normally your cont based JSA would be deducted from his Income based JSA, which would be paid at couple rate. If you and he did everything right in notifying the DWP and completing the appropriate forms, then any overpayment would be official error and not repayable under social security law - of course they may still request repayment, but cannot compel repayment.

Not sure if its still so, but sanctioned people never used to be counted in the unemployment numbers.

Please explain how the tribunal can backfire? Always try to get a tribunal decision before a criminal decision.

Also they may want to sign with connexions first to show that they are trying everything they can to get work, they may also be able to help with the JSA hardship claims.

What you'll have to do will seem very harsh. basically they need to see the under 18's adviser at the JCP and apply for JSA on grounds of severe hardship. This type of claim can't be done over the phone (if things are still the same as they were). You will have to be very firm with the adviser that you cannot afford to feed or clothe them and that they now need to pay board or leave. Have details in writing regarding your income and expenditure showing that you have no choice in this decision. Its not easy, and they may get turned down at first, but the decision can be challenged. Regarding the crisis loan repayments, you need to write to the crisis loans section dealing with your loan repayments and request that the repayments be lowered on grounds of severe hardship if they take at that rate. Don't mention your kids and provide, in writing details of income and expenditure showing that you can afford the crisis loan repayment at the previous rate, but not at the new rate.

Severe hardship can also include living at home with a parent on a very low income - I've known 16 year olds get benefit in your kid's situation.

I worked for a charity - faxes are brand new technology on their budget - before they got the fax, they were still using pidgeons!

Before I stopped working, we would phone up, find out the fax number of the dept dealing with the claim and then fax anything important over, putting the original in the post.

If she is going to pay rent, then my advice would be to start before the next hearing, and put in a letter to the HA detailing her offer of payment - if she has already started to make the payments, a judge may be more inclined to find in her favour with another suspended possession order. Any arrangement she makes needs to be adhered to or she will be evicted - so she needs to be able to maintain it.

An Ot assessment, although it does have the end aim of providing equipment that can help, is a comprehensive assessment of her abilities and needs and very useful for AA claims. It isn't necessarily the same as a 'social services assessment' as this can be any one of a number of different assessments - though one is to assess care needs which would also be a good assessment to have. You can self refer to social services, there should be a helpline you can google for your county.

Good point!

Whoever advised you have both DLA appeals heard together was crazy - very bad idea.

You'd be surprised - though I don't want to suggest all appeals officers are like that - just a couple. One, who despite being shown the evidence and relevant legislation, over and over, including in a meeting I set up, still refused to amend the decision, and wrote her submission for appeal, completely ignoring all relevant facts and actually tryed to....impune my integrity in the submission - the appeal judge was not impressed and she and her boss were thoroughly admonished. I've dealth with 6 or 7 authorities and met a couple of staff like that, but on the other hand I've also met appeals officers who are willing and eager to work with reps in order to come to the right decision. Its those appeals officers, who when they told me that they had masses of evidence against one of my clients, I believed them and knew the appeal was a losing battle. I've been in IUc's with some clients that even when presented with incontravertable evidence, will still swear that black is white. I'm sure you're one of the majority of good appeals officers. Sadly, as in any job, you come across a few bad apples - heck, I came across some appalling benefit advisers too. Please don't take offence - the best LA employee I ever dealt with was an appeals officer - she went out of her way to try to get to heart of the issue at hand, would phone me direct to talk over client's appeals - while she worked as appeals officer, I never had to attend a single HB Tribunal, as we always sorted it out one way or another.

Exactly, as I said, as long as the Tribunal had evidence of care and mobility issues, a diagnosis is not needed.

I really do understand, its a crappy system that the government put in place to prey on the weak, while the well off get tax cuts. Sadly its what we have to work with right now. The weakest and the sickest are rarely in a position to be able to effect a change in the system.