Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to say that you shouldn't get job seekers allowance if you are not seeking a job?

73 replies

mumnosbest · 29/06/2012 10:56

DH and I have just had a 'heated debate' on this topic

My DB claims this benefit then signs off when he is asked to attend interview. He then signs back on again and has done this for years IMO he is a scrounger who knows how to work the system. I think that if my taxes are going to fund his benefits then he should have to account for the time he is not receiving benefits and be actively seeking work.

DH (who does work) believes that you should not have to account for yourself whilst you are not receiving benefits. If you choose to stop seeking work you don't get paid but can make a new claim later.

Just to make clear, I know there are a number of reasons why people sign off or are unable to actively seek employment. IMO these people are entitled to benefits.

What do you think?

OP posts:

AnyoneForTennis · 29/06/2012 11:21

I think the jobcentre will know what he is doing and be wise to it. If he isn't claiming then it's up to him what he does

How does signing on/off/on/off benefit him??

AKMD · 29/06/2012 11:28

He sounds like a lazy scrounger yes, but if he's signing off then at least he's losing out a bit - right?

I used to work in recruitment and we had quite a few people come in, say "any jobs?" then ask us to sign their bit of paper to say they had asked. It was 100% clear that they weren't actually looking for work and they were completely unemployable. I felt quite sorry for them really :(

fruitysummer · 29/06/2012 11:29

I'm with your DH, if he's not claiming benefits it's not anyone's business what he is doing during that time.

Whilst he is claiming however it is up to the job centre/governement department/whoever to ensure he is actively seeking work.

Having said that, I have no idea ow job seekers benefit works and how he's playing the system by signing on and off??

AnyoneForTennis · 29/06/2012 11:31

Don't they have to apply for 3 jobs a week? So if he does that, gets an interview, then signs off, he is delaying working

Well he is a fool unto himself isn't he? Just so he can sit on his backside and have £60 ish a week for doing nothing.

PenisVanLesbian · 29/06/2012 11:31

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. You can't just sign on and off repeatedly without working or attending interviews etc.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 29/06/2012 11:40

On your heading question, YANBU.

But if you aren't claiming benefits I think you can do what you want.

The answer lies somewhere between your and your DHs POV. When he is claiming he shouldn't be given money unless he can prove that he has done a very good job at looking for work, and that includes being a strong candidate at any interviews he does get instead of deliberately making himself unemployable. If he is genuinely trying to get a job, then he should get the benefit. But if he's making a half arses attempt at it, which it sounds like he is, than all benefits he recieves, not just JSA, should be stopped and he shouldn't be allowed to claim again unless he has been in work and been made redundant.

Original poster

mumnosbest · 29/06/2012 13:05

ok all points now considered DH now says that you have to give JSA even if he is working the system as the alternative is that he'd turn to crime so our taxes would still pay to keep him or starve and end up on NHS, again paid for by taxes.

I think most people would begin seriously looking for work first and thenbe morally entitled to JSA. If they turned to crime over work, I'd rather my taxes paid for their cell not the flat screen tv and other luxuries than a life of no work, responsibility, sitting around the house doing nothing.

OP posts:

Birdsgottafly · 29/06/2012 14:28

There must be more background to this as the JC would want to know what he had been doing and link this to the IR, via his NI number.

HB, CT and his NI contribution would stop getting paid for a time period, so unless he is picking up casual work or someone is financing him, then it wouldn't be possible to live. Unless he gets DLA on top.

Bank statements etc are asked for.

Either you have left bits out, or he is.

Original poster

mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 12:18

The only bit i missed was he lives at home with mum still and she supports him, whilst her pension, myself and sister support her but thats a whole other story unfortunately the JC doesnt seem to carry out the sorts of checks you and i would expext :(

Whilst holding db up as an examle my concern is the system. There will be 1000s just like him working the system because they can!

OP posts:

Original poster

mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 12:18

Example even!

OP posts:

squeakytoy · 30/06/2012 12:20

I cant understand how this is true to be honest. You cannot just sign on and off and get money. You have to work in between, and you have to prove that you did not voluntarily leave your job too.

Birdsgottafly · 30/06/2012 12:29

"unfortunately the JC doesnt seem to carry out the sorts of checks you and i would expext"

I am a voluntary welfare rights advisor and they do in my city (and this is a national policy), so i think that there are things going on that you are not being told. You cannot just sign on and off.

I wouldn't need to do my voluntary job if the JC didn't practically demand a letter from God to start a new claim.

He will still have to have CTB linked in to his claim. Your mum will have to declare him living there and what his means of income is.

You are being lied to.

hipposaurus · 30/06/2012 12:29

Yanbu. I'm surprised he bothers to sign off though. I used to work at a hotel and people on jsa would turn up to interviews, make themselves unemployable by being disinterested, scruffy, late etc and then get their form signed. If people can't be bothered to work then they will find a way round it. At my last job, about half the employees came from overseas as it wasn't possible to source enough local people willing to work, and I live in the city...

Birdsgottafly · 30/06/2012 12:33

I deal with JSA, ESA, CB and DLA, as well as the old crisis loans/social fund loans etc, so honestly, 'the system' doesn't allow this.

The amount of 'proof' needed for CT and HB, if there isn't a continous claim, is horrendous and can keep me on the phone for days.

Viviennemary · 30/06/2012 12:39

He must be getting money from somewhere if he can afford to sign on and sign off when it suits him. Don't think it would be as easy though.

Original poster

mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 12:47

It really is that easy to sign off and on again. I did it myself! i was a sahm and dh was made redundant so i claimed. We went abroad for a month (paid for by inlaws) but i made a new claim when we returned. It was easy if a little degrading. As far as jobseeking went all i had to do was say id been buying the local paper and looking on line. As i had a job lined up for 3 months time i didnt go for any interviews etc.

He has been doing this for years but signs off each time hes asked to go for interviews etc

OP posts:

Birdsgottafly · 30/06/2012 12:54

You didn't reapeatedly sign on and off, though, you made a new claim and had a checkable background, as a married woman.

So is your mum lying to the Council Tax, then?

Birdsgottafly · 30/06/2012 12:56

As a SAHM you should have been on contributionary JSA, based on your DH's NI, with a possible IS top up, so different to non contributionary.

lottiegb · 30/06/2012 13:00

I think your DH misunderstands what JSA is. It is to support active job seeking and can be withdrawn. It is not income support. The case he is making is for the reintroduction of income support - a basic living allowance.

I also doubt your db can do this. Of course you were able to play along for three months, with a job at the end and to go on holiday once. That's not a surprise but is very different from what you say db is doing.

However, no-one is accountable to the government for how they spend their time when not claiming benefits. They do have to make a case for why they are entitled to any benefit they wish to claim though.

Birdsgottafly · 30/06/2012 13:04

You DB and mother is lying to the JC, so i would say that this is a fault in your own family and not the JC.

Your mother should be declaring the money given to your DB.

This isn't usual for most single men, they do not have anyone who is able to keep them and see their benefits as a top up to their lifestyle.

I know of many who take casual, but declared work and deal with their claims in work, the employers who take on seasonal workers would not be happy with a system were they would have paperwork involved in taking on this staff.

It wouldn't be worth their while. These men do not earn enough over the year to pay tax, they are just doing the best that they can, to live, rather than survive.

usualsuspect · 30/06/2012 13:05

It's not easy to keep signing on and off.

Original poster

mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 14:40

My mum pays his council tax too and he doesnt do any work not even casual.

His case for not working (he says) is that the only work out there is "manual shift work" which he feels is "beneath him".

Just want to make clear we didn't play the system and have a holiday whilst i was on jsa. I signed off whilst away. The inlaws who live abroad paid for us to visit as they wanted to see us and dcs and are unable to travel. I also would have worked during those 3 months had i found a temp job that could fit around dh's unpredictable agency work

OP posts:

Original poster

mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 14:43

As far as i kmow he declares everything. He has no income or savings but also has no oitgoings or living expenses other than his car and social life.

OP posts:

EllenParsons · 30/06/2012 15:32

YANBU

JSA should mean actively seeking a job and making an effort at it. So many people take the pee with this. We have a business with a name near the beginning of the alphabet and we always get really shoddy "applications" from the same people, with no effort, "applying" for jobs here (though it is a small business and we don't need anyone). They are obviously just going through the phone book and sending out their letters to the first few companies when forced to show they are making an effort. It is an utter farce and these are the ones who are actually making a show of looking for a job! Some don't even do that!

MagicLlamaStrikesBack · 30/06/2012 15:43

See its a tough one isnt it.

My XP1 who is an idiot did this with jobseekers, except as far as I know it was 6 months on and 6 months off, or sometimes 3. Hed get chucked off because he wasnt actively seeking a job for the read couldnt be bothered to turn up for the interviews hed then be taken off job seekers, and then it was so many month until he could reclaim it again, at which point hed say sorry I really do want a job now, and the cycle would repeat.

Its difficult, I think if you are receiving job seekers you should be seeking for a job, but I dont think you should have to account to the nanny state about what you have been doing whilst not claiming benefits. But then should you in order to prove you are not working cash in hand .... but then its a slippery slope to telling everyone everything .....

My DB feels everyone on job seekers should have to do a days work to get their money rather than do nothing .......

Is it too early for wine?

Flip

1 2 3