Is this against human rights????

[Nystagmite]

They are not required to apply for a minimum number of jobs

 

I was told I have to apply for a certain amount of jobs per week. Most are full-time / not enough hours. My disabilities make working full-time impossible.

[sadone]

Now why am I not surprised to hear that?

[Dilizjo]

I am fighting an ESA appeal for my son at the moment and if this law was brought in he would be in receipt of no money at all because his issues would stop him from being able to visit the JC, nevermind interact with people he has never met before, so where in essence Flumps your post covers what may happen and be viable for some there are others that it will totally disregard.

[Nystagmite]

Now why am I not surprised to hear that?

 

I'm not surprised either. Just unhappy that the adviser (I don't normally sign on with her, thankfully) just said "oh look, I've just found some jobs" - but how many were suitable? I know when I've looked, I've come across jobs in Leeds, Glasgow and Manchester. I live in Plymouth.

[MARTIN3030]

What next ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Well we know Article 8 is on their list.

[chrisd8780]

They're just trying to stop people appealing with how many they lose. I thought when working out benefits etc the govt uses figures what is the minimum required to live

£100 per week I think. So if your appealing your getting 0 and should be entitled to it from another benefit or they are breaking their own rules. What next to apply for benefits you have to ring £1 a minute phone numbers.

[chrisd8780]

I took a similar path and have been on JSA. Been OK so far not pressured into any heavy lifting jobs which I can't do as yet. Although they do try sending you for jobs 15/20 miles away.Face to face a lot of the advisers are ok its the idiots on the phone when you first apply

If you do end up in a situation where you fail the medical and are faced with either an appeal or claiming JSA, you are perfectly entitled to set up a Job Seeking Agreement which is very restrictive and I have seen tem where people have been in this exact situation that state they are only available to work 16 hours per week and only have to do very basic job search for one type of vacancy which the person would feel comfortable looking for. One that I recall was 16 hours per week with a maximum of 4 hours in each day Monday to Friday (yes before anyone says that adds up to 20 hours the client is still only looking for 16 hours in a working week) and they will seek that type of vacancy by using a local paper on the jobs page night. They are not required to apply for a minimum number of jobs or use internet or visit/telephone employers on speculative approaches etc. Also the LMS system shows their health restrictions e.g arm/shoulder injoury cann lift or work at a repetitive action.

Maybe we just have a couple of the decent advisers who follow the guidance that is available.

 

Obviously if someone is not affected by a health condition and is looking for work then they are required to be actively seeking and available under the normal condiotionality for claiming JSA but there are exemptions.

[speedfreek]

As I suspected that article was/is an absolute steaming pile of horse manure!

 

Exchange on reform bill and article here

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/111018-gc0001.htm#11101863000095

 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): My Lords, the amendment is slightly different from the question posed, and I shall deal with the question posed. The changes to the current appeal system are being taken forward in this Bill, as expressed in Clauses 99 and 100, so we will have an opportunity to discuss those in that consideration. We are, in those clauses, looking to introduce a period of reconsideration, or a reconsideration process, prior to a full appeal. We can have further discussion at that

 

18 Oct 2011 : Column GC53

 

point, but regardless of what an article in a newspaper might say, clearly the practical difference, if one was to be extended in the way described, is purely a difference of conditionality, because as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out, the actual payment rate of the assessment phase of ESA is the same as JSA. That article has put out a lot of misinformation.

[taraquin]

 

Because they want to pass the buck for the mess they're

in now. All caused by the banks of course, and yet It's only the poorest people

in our society that end up suffering for because of it.

 

 

QUOTE]

 

Ummm sorry, you are wrong there! The major problem this country faced was the question of borrowing too much by society.

 

What was it - a trillion £'s in debt in 2006 owed by all of us.

 

Money was too easy to get hold of - that is what the banks were guilty of!

 

And who borrowed the most when compared to a % of their own net worth? Those on low incomes and benefits!

If you don't believe me, just check out the Insolvency Services' website!

 

So those that over stretched themselves are now having to pay the price.

They may have 'dumped' their debts in a bankruptcy, but they still left somebody that they owed the money to - the banks!

 

So don't push the blame on the government or the banks, the real culprits are those that took out 125% mortgages, those that ran up credit card debt that they could never have a hope in hell repaying.

 

Those on a low wage wanted to have a taste of what life was like for those that could properly afford it!

Quiter rightly they are now reaping the consequences of their actions

[Nystagmite]

When IB existed and you were appealing, you either had to claim reduced IS or JSA.

 

Quiter rightly they are now reaping the consequences of their actions

 

Only disabled people did this? Don't make me laugh... We're the ones paying for all the mistakes, meanwhile people are getting away with paying little or no tax. Fair?

[MarySpencer]

Maybe if people got paid a decent wage, instead of the pittance that the minimum wage is, they would not have to have lived on borrowed credit.

 

The Country was more than happy to throw money at people - just as the banks and leading companies were happy to pay massive bonuses to already over paid staff.

 

I mean why just have 1 house, when you can own 3 or 4, why take 1 holiday, have several.

 

How easy it is to blame the lowly paid worker for the mess we are in, because they cannot answer back can they.

 

Mary.

[count orlok]

How easy it is to blame the lowly paid worker for the mess we are in, because they cannot answer back can they.

 

Mary.

 

Its even easier to make the disabled pay, as once they've done with IB & ESA they're planning to cut the DLA and Attendance Alowance bill by 20% without touching those over retirement age, the only way to do that is by throwing a quater of those under this age off it. Including children and older disabled who will be denied their independance and the ability to work.

 

But that's alright as they won't be rioting, they won't even be able to get to demonstartions if you remove their means of getting about. It should help fund the scrapping of the high rate tax aswell. Win win.

 

Scrap the human rights act and you'll get no comeback, even better.

[Nystagmite]

Including children and older disabled who will be denied their independance and the ability to work.

 

It's only work age adult DLA that's being removed from 1 in 5; not children and attendance allowance is remaining as it is.

[count orlok]

I thought children's DLA was being included. By older disabled I meant those from 16 to 60. By removing DLA from 16 to 60 year olds, those that are in work will no longer be able to, and those out of work will lose their Independence and be denied the chance to work. If they are leaving DLA for children and Pensioners, and still mean to cut 20% then even more 16 to 60 will lose out.

 

I thought Thatcher was bad, but compared to this lot she was Mother Teresa. It looks like they plan to destroy the welfare state and NHS.

 

We definatly did not cause it as mentioned above, I haven't had a holiday since 1976, but you can't tell me that we are not being targeted to pay for it.

[Nystagmite]

No. They've not included childrens DLA. Either way, it is wrong that we're being targeted like this. Disabled children will, however, pay for this - their disability premium is being cut when universal credit comes in.

[sadone]

 

 

 

Ummm sorry, you are wrong there! The major problem this country faced was the question of borrowing too much by society.

 

What was it - a trillion £'s in debt in 2006 owed by all of us.

 

Money was too easy to get hold of - that is what the banks were guilty of!

 

And who borrowed the most when compared to a % of their own net worth? Those on low incomes and benefits!

If you don't believe me, just check out the Insolvency Services' website!

 

So those that over stretched themselves are now having to pay the price.

They may have 'dumped' their debts in a bankruptcy, but they still left somebody that they owed the money to - the banks!

 

So don't push the blame on the government or the banks, the real culprits are those that took out 125% mortgages, those that ran up credit card debt that they could never have a hope in hell repaying.

 

Those on a low wage wanted to have a taste of what life was like for those that could properly afford it!

Quiter rightly they are now reaping the consequences of their actions

 

 

Oh go away you silly little man and take you're ignorant opinions elsewhere...

[MarySpencer]

Come the end of this month the reduced travel for OAP is being scrapped, so whereas they could enjoy a day away for half price this is being denied them.

 

Many bus companies say they rely on this in the winter months to keep them a float.

 

So even if you have worked all your life paid your dues, come retirement there is nothing down for you.

 

I agree with the poster who said this lot are worse than Maggie.

Look after number 1 and to h*ll with those who are not self sufficient and wealthy.

 

Mary

[Old Cogger]

Been battling Nat Express for one, for a while now, also M.P. they made in excess of 42 Million profit I believe & are being told that allowance will be below 20 million in government monies due to cover OAP discounts, so after getting quote fare to heathrow airport in Dec & return early next year, OAP 41.50 (incl disabled fare) normal under 60!s apex fare 40.50 icl booking fee, when asked all you get is government fault subsidy lowered or nil BUT OAP/Diabled can say they are 59 and go by apex fare, work it out for yourself, still awaiting another response from them that may be different to the reapts I get from them.

[ErikaPNP]

The original poster has not been back since starting this thread which has since gone off topic and become a breeding ground for arguments. This is not what the benefit forum is for; it is here to provide information about benefit entitlement. Thread closed.