To think this isn't a reasonable suggestion from DWP

It’s just a tickbox question. She’d be asking the same if he refused to relocate 10 miles away. Don’t worry about it, it’s not personal. Good luck with his new job

You do know that if she'd just written that he quit his job before starting a new job as he didn't want to go into the office every day, you most likely would have got sanctioned? Her unreasonable question was to get enough information from you to potentially avoid this.

Mumsnet for you! Wonder how many posters suggesting it would live in a travelodge Monday-Friday away from their family and a pay cut for doing so.

They have to ask, as they have data bases that need that information, they don’t actually care why.

This 100%

Ultimately yes but we're screwed anyway 😂

OP said the job was "barely minimum wage", it's unbelievably stupid to suggest staying in a Travelodge in London on low wage 🤦‍♀️

Of course they should be asking questions before giving out benefits. The entitlement 🙄
And stop drip feeding.

Trains are extremely expensive, staying in a travel lodge in london during the week is also extremely expensive. Someone on a low to average income cannot afford that. Some people are so out of touch with reality its absurd.

I didn't necessarily mean 'London weighting' given as an extra payment, but just the way wages are higher there because the average level is higher. If lots of people start buying and renting in cheaper areas it will really push prices up for local workers.

You mean NI payers and tax payers not “the DWP”?

Honestly, OP, don’t post on AIBU and expect reasonable answers.

Mumsnet 101.

Does London weighting always cover the extra cost, travelodges and meals out or increased house price etc?
I’ve always been public sector and the London weighting isn’t much at all.

However it would have been great if you could have moved to London and claimed loads for rent.

Must admit I chuckled at this. They really should have hit the DWP back with a London rental bill 😂

"may be paid at a lower rate for a shortish period, I believe, so they would need to know why as part of the claim assessment"

I thought there was nothing for quite a while if you leave your job voluntarily.
Same for sacking actually so forget what I wrote above. You have to be 'made redundant'.

But then are they getting London wages to live somewhere cheap and pricing out the locals?

I suppose he should have told them he wouldn't go back to the office so they sacked him. Then he would be eligible for benefits, but would have problems explaining that for the next job...

I don't really either, but you must know that everyone else who is unemployed is given similar expectations. For example, I was told I had to accept a job within a certain radius. Some of these jobs, when combined with travel costs, would have made it pointless to go to work, but that is obviously what the JSA advisor had to tell me.
In reality, he didn't go on the computer and force me to apply for jobs far away.

This.

It doesn't mean he has to move to London. And presumably if he's qualified for one WFH job, he's qualified for others?

Maybe if he thinks he's going to be unemployed for a bit, and is in a minimum wage job, he could do some study to achieve better qualifications?

Yanbu. However it would have been great if you could have moved to London and claimed loads for rent.

The DWP system isn't set up for staff to think about what they are saying. No one can sense check it.

It's not unreasonable to ask. He has given up a job meaning you now need to claim benefits and she will need to establish whether he had a valid reason to do so otherwise he could be sanctioned surely?

This is why companies moving to full time office work is bad. You can have a company in London but recruit good people from anywhere. You demand full time office in London then you only get people who want to struggle to live in London. I find it quite sad that people think it’s reasonable that people pay out for travelodges in London to live in during the week away from their families, which inevitably then impacts on the parent that remains at home.

Initially you said the staff member asked why he hadn’t relocated and now you’re saying she said he should have. Having worked in a job centre for almost a decade previously, I highly doubt she said that. She was just doing her job and asking related Qs. Staff aren’t meant to make assumptions and so she would be expected to do a bit of a deep dive into the circumstances around your husband giving up his job.

Also, cases randomly get picked up for spot checks for quality assurance purposes and so staff need to ensure they have the full details recorded against the consequent decisions they make.

Welcome to life as a benefit claimant OP. You should be aware that populist opinion is that money from the public purse should be guarded as if our lives depended on it and begrudgingly spent only on those that meet their idea of desperate and deserving. This means that DWP officers are expected to leave no question unasked and no suggestion unmade if there is the faintest possibility it could result in someone being refused benefit. This is why disabled people are asked if they can have a strip wash in place of help to bathe or can warm ready meals up in the microwave if they can't prepare a cooked meal.

It's pretty normal to have to travel for a job.Not all of us can find appropriate work (ie that will support a family) where we live, and we have to move where the work is.

So YABU. It's a reasonable question for a civil servant to ask. You're asking for public money to support yourselves, instead of working any job or living from savings, and there should be due diligence about that.

Op, mumsnet is batshit sometimes.

I'm with you, in the real world.