who said he needed a Sub Contractors Certificate I said he needs a safety passport ticket safety being the name of the game in the construction industry if you want to live to a ripe old age

 

pervious employers or company's that know him by reputation wont touch him without this ticket as I said prospective employers would think he was an idiot or his C.V. was a lie if he applied for a job without this ticket

At the end of the day he will have to apply for the job or be sanctioned with or without the certificate.

Your maths was flawed because you included the carers allowance but said it wasn't being paid . As I said I used the benefits advisor gov site to get my figures

Thank you

No sorry you are wrong, I did not include any payment for Carers Allowance. Carers Allowance has been claimed but because it is countered by the State Pensions (underlying entitlement only), whereas the Carers Premium is instead payable which makes up the 'Appropriate Amount' for Pension Credit purposes. You have to be careful when you claim Carers Allowance to make sure that they are both given as an underlying entitlement only otherwise it would cause the Severe Disability Premium of £119.00 a week to be removed.

Like I said before you have to know how one benefit would react with others as claiming the wrong benefit can lead to an overall reduction in income which is not what you want. It's called maximisation.

This 500 pw figure is rubbish. Where do your figures come from, what is a sizeable number

As I said, my wife who was a pensioner received state pension middle rate care lower rate mobility and pension credit, he income was just over £200 pw . She was so seriously disabled that she only left the bungalow in a taxi , I did all her shopping , she needed home help but was too proud to ask .

 

before you ask, she was my wife because we never divorced but were separated because I am one of them!

The £500 relates to a couple who are 65+ and both get the lowest rate of AA, and receive a total of £175 state pension between them. You will find the calculations in another of my post elsewhere.

The current position of what your wife would have received today would have been a minimum weekly income of £278.90.

Additionally there would have been no Council Tax to pay and she would have received maximum Housing Benefit or up to £69.81 a week towards the interest on a mortgage.

Well I think you will find that the system has been abused, maybe by the social worker , maybe by your sister and that puts you in a difficult position.

 

You maths certainly is flawed

 

Oh and BTW I had grandparents who got AA when in a nursing home and a wife who got DLA lower rate mobility and middle rate care....she would have appealed but was too scared of losing what she had

Oh I see, the Social Worker, the OT and the County Council are all involved in a benefit fraud conspiracy with my sister? Yeah they must be.

As for my mathematics, I stand by every single figure. I have spent my entire working life of 44 years playing with figures as a qualified accountant.

The problem maybe is that you just don't understand the mathematics behind the calculations - that isn't my fault.

The art behind benefit claims is to produce evidence that is indisputable by the DWP. Asking a GP or Consultant to write a report is a waste of my time and theirs. A report from the OT who works for the County Council carries a lot more weight when dealing with DLA of AA as would a report from a CPN/OT if mental health is an issue.

You should never be scared of putting in an appeal if you have the proper evidence that would support your appeal and blow the backside off any report that the DWP may want to get. At best with AA & DLA claims the DWP will generally take the easy option and go for a GP report. You know that it will either be rubbish at worst or at best, partially helpful.

Oh my god I do not know where to start

In the 50's we had pretty much full employment so it was easy to walk out of one job and into another

 

If someone is placed in the Wrag and appeal they are still in Wrag and the appeal can take a year or more, if appeals were quick and fair then we could all have a different argument.

 

Silverlight, I notice that since been shown to be wrong on the winter fuel payment thread you have moved to this one.

IMHO the benefits cap and the way the government is running it is wrong, lies dam lies and statistics.

Oh course my belief is that if you disagree with something you try to change it even if it's just by way of voting

 

If I had my way there would be social housing available for everyone who needed it and everyone able would be in work. The money generated would not be going to shareholders but back into the country

Communism is the word!! Hey but look what happened in Russia and is happening now in China. The first is one of the biggest capitalistic countries in the world and the other is getting there!! All for one and one for all they shout!

By the way I am very rarely wrong, others may have a different opinion to mine!

The only problem with your example is that the DWP/JPC would not except you walking the streets looking for work they would demand proof and probably sanction you for not doing it their way

You do it both ways, their way and yours.

I am sorry but your whole argument is flawed. To get lower rate you need help for most of the day or night. The criteria are higher than DLA . You only need to look to see how difficult it is to get DLA to see it is no walk in the park.

We are not talking about mild old age things here we are talking real disability and care needs. You are making it sound as if every person who reaches retirement qualifies which is complete twaddle

It certainly isn't flawed. It is well known amongst Welfare Rights professionals that AA is far easier to get than what Mid care DLA was.

I am aware of one in particular pensioner who is now 68 and was awarded the day and night rate of AA on the basis of arthritis which was not so debilitating that she needed a carer or that help was needed for most of the day or night. Yes it was a problem that caused difficulties with getting in and out of the bath, getting in and out of bed, fastening clothes and shoes etc. The claimant in question asked for a self referred Social Services report which was carried out and which was sent to the DWP. On the strength of that the award was given.

Medically there is nothing wrong with her and the only medication taken is Paracetamol.

The lady in question is fully able to mobilise outdoors and enjoys an active retirement and happens to be my sister!

If she had to claim DLA I doubt that given the same situation she would get the lower rate for care if that.

Have you read the link I gave to AgeUK? http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Lets%20Talk%20Money/LTM%20Attendance%20Allowance%20Leaflet.pdf?dtrk=true

Those people who use it for Christmas don't represent every single pensioner though.

I appreciate that it doesn't, but by admitting that this is what they are doing is actually playing right into the hands of the government. I don't blame taxpayers for being annoyed when they read what is happening with some.

Maybe some middle ground does have to be sought - maybe it is only paid for those over state pension age that receive Guaranteed Pension Credit AND NO Savings Credit.

Even after having said that, some, not all, but a sizeable number of these pensioners will be receiving up to £500 a week via GPC!

Maybe the answer is to remove the payment altogether.

Imagine this... you're sick. You've been awaiting an operation. Your doctor has told you that you must not work as you will cause more damage. You get sanctioned.... what do you live on?

 

I'm lucky that I can work. That's not to my credit it's pure luck. I have several long term health conditions and have struggled on numerous occasions. It could happen again. But then I could be in an accident tomorrow and never able to work again. Who knows. Don't take your immense good fortune for granted silverlight.

I don't, I respect hard graft and a more than willing employee. I further respect an employee that gets up hours before others and travels a great distance just to be there on time. I also respect and admire those employees that against all adversity health wise, still manage to put in the hours at work.

If you think that the DWP made a mistake and placed you in the wrong group, there is no point moaning about it, the answer is clear - an appeal should have been lodged the day the decision notice was received.

Given what you have said you would have good grounds for being put in the Support Group on the basis that finding you fit for work or being placed in the Work Group would be injurious to your health.

I'm just about tolerating your behaviour, but I will not accept this sort of personal insult directed towards another member. Cut it out.

 

I'm sorry if you are offended with what I posted and that you are just about tolerating my opinions. The post in question was not intended as a personal insult to anyone, more so an opinion of what I see every day. I can't understand why it is acceptable for society to find excuses and reasons not to do something when it is just as easy to do it. I read somewhere recently that you cannot be made to look for a job that is more than 90 mins travel away. Is that by car or public transport? It may well be the case that there is a job 2 hours away by public transport or 55mins by car - but from what I read, many would argue that they cannot be mandated to apply for that job. I just don't understand the world today - maybe I am an old has been and still live in the past.

Times have changed, get real your statements only encourage a black economy

and exploitation of a desperate part of the population. Is that your answer

cash in hand jobs, pay no tax how does that help the country?

I was trying to explain the mind-set involved. Given that there are few jobs available, the ones that are there will go to those that go the extra mile looking for them. I never mentioned anything about working in the 'black economy' which is illegal.

Or maybe you are of the opinion that it is only right that people should be allowed to choose who they work for and where. That was OK 10/15 years ago, but today it is a different ball game - such as it was in the 50's and 60's.

Did you even read before commenting. No you didn't. She explained why her husband didn't apply for the job, because he would like a job and would prefer not to ruin his credibility with a potential future employer. Which would be a good thing in your world view? Right?

Of course. But given that the Jobcentre have issued a directive that her husband must apply for the job in question they have the choice of either ignoring that demand and possibly having to face a sanction or apply with or without the 'Sub Contractors Certificate'.

Their choice, not mine and not yours.

Silverlight

Lets get something right

The WRAG is for people who are classed as too sick to work but who may, with the right support and help be able to enter the workplace within a certain timeframe, maybe even a year.

 

You seem to think that benefits are easy, could you live on £71 a week ?

Whether I could or couldn't is here nor there, I'm not the one claiming the benefit and having to obey the rules that are laid down.

As you say with the 'right support and help be able to enter the workplace', then isn't that what the DWP/Jobcentre/WP is trying to do?

If you seriously think that the DWP made a bad decision he should have appealed against it when it was originally made.

May I point out that my husband is 57 yrs of age in his whole working life 40 yrs he has been unemployed in for less than 3 months in total he was only paid off 2 weeks ago he hasn't even had a payment from them yet

 

he is a very proud man with a strong work ethic and takes pride in chosen career and would never send a C,V, to a prospectus employer without this ticket they would think he was some kind of idiot or his C,V, is one fat lie because no construction worker worth his salt would apply for a job that requires this ticket

 

the point I am making is they found the jobs for him (I had already seen them that's why he asked about funding) they want him to apply for the jobs they are in his field but without the correct tickets he know full well once he sends in a C.V. and they see he doesn't have the ticket they wont look at his C.V, again

 

We will pay for it our self just like we paid for the last few he had to renew to get his last job but I can assure you paying for will stick in my throat (not his ) I

All he had to do was do as he was told.

The Jobcentre would look the idiot for telling him to apply

 

Get real ,a lot of people have families, so to take money out of benefits for

extra accommodation is not viable, the only people who get help with working

away from home are the liars and thieves in parliament (alleged )

 

I'm a little worried that with that attitude, you seem to be finding reasons and excuses instead of ways to find a job.

 

A very old friend of mine who used to be a stevedore at the old London Docks. He was never guaranteed any work but turned up every morning on the off chance he was one of those picked for a days work. Living as he did in the East End of London, he used to walk miles every morning asking everybody and anybody if they could give him a days/nights work if he wasn't picked that morning. Invariably someone somewhere would give him some work to carry him through to the following day.

Should we just treat everyone as guilty until a decision has been made? I can't see how that's right.

It's not a question of being guilty or not, the suspension of benefit is done to protect the public purse.

Suspensions happen all of the time with all benefits if there is the slightest risk that payment is being made when it should not be so.

You can't. Not really anyway. Ok, it may only be £12 a night if you're lucky. But that's a lot when your only income is basic JSA.

 

 

 

Utter rubbish. My brother was put into WRAG and had an interview at the job centre. Mum took him down and he spent most of it with what I can only as tics. I also get these if I am about to have a meltdown. So anyway, they did what they had to and came home. Mum was then the one who had to deal with his behaviour after. Is that fair? He was taken to a place which for him is odd and possibly scary. He was then forced to interact with a stranger who said she has no understanding of his disability. He would never be able to get a job because of the difficulties he has. So your theory of them not being sick enough that they may be able to return to work isn't quite true.

 

A lot of the time, it's not choosing not to comply. It's being physically or mentally being unable to.

It all depends on how serious they take job hunting.

In the case you mention why wasn't an appeal put in to apply for the Support Group when the original decision was made?

The system as it is I will admit is inflexible. But unfortunately we are stuck with it.

I would put up a strong enough argument up to be transferred if I thought that they had made the wrong choice of group.

How would you pay for the accommodation and travel costs?

If you were that serious about finding a job you would find the money. There are plenty of cheap B&B's and I mean cheap! in most cities, As long as there is a bed, a toilet and somewhere to wash it doesn't matter what it is. Travel? hitch a lift, use a bus/coach.

I know someone who got sanctioned for missing a JC appointment. They had a job interview elsewhere.

 

I've heard this one a few times before too.

Surely the answer to that one is to go to the Jobcentre the week before and take with you the interview appointment letter and ask them to give you a directive in writing as to what you should do - sign on or attend the interview.

I expect my hubby will be sanctioned shortly not through lack wanting to find work this is 3rd term of unemployment in 40 yrs and has always found a job within weeks of being made redundant /paid off

 

Why do I think he will be sanctioned

 

J.C,_ have you applied for these jobs (hands him a list of jobs in his field )

 

Hubby_ No I need a safety passport ticket and I haven't got one do you do grants to get this ticket

 

J C_ yes we do we have £300 but you must apply for the job and once they guarantee you a job we will pay for it takes about 6 weeks altogether

 

Hubby- cant apply for the jobs without this ticket they wont even look at my C,V, and it wont look good for me applying for a job without this and they wont look at my C.V again if I sent it again after I get my ticket

 

J.C. - well that's the way its works so apply for the jobs

 

Hubby - I cant I have no safety passport and no firm is going to Guarantee me a job and wait weeks for me to start

 

JC - you must apply for the jobs

 

Hubby- forget it I will find the money and pay for it myself

 

so I expect the next visit to the J,C, will be fun because he cant /wont apply for any jobs that need this ticket till he gets one and all/most construction sites wont let you on site without one

Why go through all of that? The DWP/Jobcentre directive might appear stupid and illogical but those are the rules - do what they tell you when they tell you!

Why argue with them - you won't win - you will only, as you say, put yourself in a position of having a 'doubt' raised.

If I was in your husband's shoes and I was told to apply for a job as an electrician and didn't know a red wire from a black one, I would still apply just to keep everybody happy. Only then would I raise the matter with the jobcentre and ask why I was being told to apply when I clearly didn't have any experience or qualifications for that particular job.

If you behave yourself and do as you are told they can't create a doubt.

What about the sick who get sanctioned - are they meant to go hungry and cold.

Do you mean those that are in the 'Work Group'? If so they have been found not to be so sick that they cannot work, but sick enough that with help they may be able to re-enter the work place in the short to medium term.

If they choose not to comply with the rules that are laid down then I am sorry, they deserve to be sanctioned as well.

It isn't rocket science to follow simple directives. However if things do go wrong you are given the opportunity to put your side of the matter to the DM before a sanction is formally given. Any monies that have been stopped in the meantime will be repaid to you.

It is therefore in everybody's interest to ensure that you comply in order to avoid any doubt arising in the first place.

Benefit should not be stopped simply because a doubt is raised. The claimant should be given the opportunity to present their side of the story and then a DM makes the decision.

And in the meantime they continue to receive their benefit monies?

Is that fair on those that always comply and never have a doubt raised, and is it fair on the general taxpayers?

It is done that way (a) as a deterrent and (b) to protect the public purse.

I thought to get AA, you needed help for most of the day or night - ie, the criteria is the same as DLA.

 

I have to admit I have never understood why winter fuel payments aren't paid to younger disabled people. Many need the heating on almost all day, they might be housebound, not able to walk far, etc.

No far from it, AA is far easier to prove and get, over DLA. The lowest rate of AA is the same as Mid rate care - DLA.

For a start you need have no medical problems except for having the normal problems of being old. Attendance Allowance is awarded entirely because of old age itself. You become slower, less mobile indoors, stairs can become a problem as can getting in and out of a bath. Fastening buttons, zips and shoes have their own difficulties - all of which are allowed for within AA.

In my opinion the Winter Fuel should be scrapped altogether especially with the many ways that you can budget your money. Not that many actually use the allowance for the purposes it was originally given. If they pay a fixed rate each week/month for their fuel, the extra £200 is no longer needed as there won't be a big bill for the winter to find the money for.

Some on here have actually admitted that they use it for Christmas presents and the Christmas food bill!

That is total and utter rubbish. Not voting is still voicing an opinion.

Please tell me how when voting at the last election we get lumbered with the clowns now sitting in the Cabinet room?. I didnt vote for the Conservatives, I didnt vote for a coalition, yet we are now lumbered with known and outed liars running the country. It is totally undemocratic.

I will never ever vote again and I would strongly suggest others refrain from voting.

A vote for any party is now a wasted vote.

 

Suppose they had an election and NO ONE voted?

It's called an abstention - something that our beloved politicians do when they don't feel that it is right to say yes or no.

I have tried various permutations and can get nothing like your figures. Under £400 per week for the couple +HB and CTB. Not exactly a goldmine. Remember as well you have to be cared for pretty much full time and if you are in receipt of AA I doubt very much you would be able to

Do it in a simpler way then.

Appropriate Amount under Pension Credit

Couple rate £222.05

Couple severe Disability Premium (both claiming any rate of AA) £119.00

Carers Allowance Premium x2 (not being paid owing to overlapping rules) £66.60

Total minimum amount required to live on £407.65 per week

DEDUCT Income received

State Pension £110.00 + £65.00 = £175.00

Attendance Allowance is not counted as income.

Pension Credit payable £407.65 - £175.00 = £232.65 a week

Add

Attendance Allowance 2 x £53.00 = £106.00

State Retirement Pensions £175.00

TOTAL WEEKLY INCOME £232.65 + £106.00 + £175.00 = £513.65 per week

No you need not be that disabled. Many are awarded it because they have some difficulties that arise during the day, but not all day or night.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Lets%20Talk%20Money/LTM%20Attendance%20Allowance%20Leaflet.pdf?dtrk=true

Each can claim Carers Allowance for each other because they care. They need do no more than offer emotional help, talk and advise, maybe some physical help. Time spent driving to and from is counted as are telephone calls made when you are not physically there. The vast number claim because they offer each other emotional help and support only.