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

[mumnosbest]

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?

sorry but i think theres something suss about this thread. there is no way someone could keep signing on off on off intermittently because their system would never be able to keep up with the paperwork.

i agree with Birdsgottafly and squeakytoy.

I think people should only be able to claim JSA for a limited period of time.

Carernotasaint sorry but nothing suss. Im just relating my experience and as magic has pointed out db isnt the only one doing this. I agree with not having to telll a nanny state everything and that was dh's point but if you're claiming yourself as a jobseeker surely you have to do this continuously and prove it!?! Why would you stop and start (every few months) if you really want/need to work?

Then why dont you put your money where your mouth is and report both your DB AND your DM (because according to what youve posted she is complicit in this) to the DSS.

I think people should only be able to claim JSA for a limited period of time

What are they supposed to live on after that "limited amount of time" is up? Fresh air?

This is Mumsnet, so you will probably get a lot of people thinking YABU to expect to have to do something (look for a job) in return for getting other working taxpayers money.

Yes, the whole of MN thinks the 'hard working tax payers' should give the scrounging unemployed some free money

You're not being told the full story (no surprise really)

Your DB has a car and a social life? How the hell does someone run a car on a single persons JSA rate?

As i said before he doesnt my mum pays it all.

Is that what really pisses you off mumnosbest?

BTW I agree with your DH that while not claiming any benefit you shouldn't have to explain yourself to the DWP.

Why do I always see people stood outside the jobcentre wearing tracksuits, often smoking, and often accompanied by dangerous looking dogs?

I wear tracksuits, I smoke and I have a dodgy looking cat...I don't hang around the jobcentre,though.

Amber yes thats part of it but the debate only started with db. It was more scroungers in general. I agree if you are not claiming you are not accountable but if you then make a claim you should have to explain your situation including a bit of history. If you go for a job interview an employer wants to know your work history and can question any gaps. Imo this is the same. Give and take. You want financial help you explain why. A bank asks for far more info if you apply for a loan.

Did you think they should have questioned you a bit more when you made a claim for JSA?

Why do I always see people stood outside the jobcentre wearing tracksuits, often smoking, and often accompanied by dangerous looking dogs?

Because you always wear your Daily Mail tinted glasses.

I think people should have to dress smartly to sign on. Men should wear suits and women should wear smart business dress. No one wants to employ people in tracksuit and trainers.

But the DWP don't interview and employ you. It is where you go to search for jobs and secure interviews..and to show and sign that you are seeking work. It isn't a job interview.

I do not understand how this is working, it is not at all easy to sign on/off - and the DWP should know of his mum funding his lifestyle. if they knew this they could/would stop his jsa. If he declares that he owns a car (which can help him get a job) they then ask how he pays for all the costs & that would be more than JSA - so either there is a lot more to this, or he is not telling the JC the truth.

I get so frustrated with all of this - people worry about the tiny minority of cheaters out there & not enough is done to help people who need help. (more of a rant at work in general than op or any other post) but. everyone always hears about people who cheat the system but not about the other problems with the benefit system that means people in need do not get money they need to live on. Or what about the positive stories? so many people have built a career after training from the JC (I can think of 5 people I know, and i have a v. small social circle). and crisis loans & some of the funding - it can really help. it annoys me it is all one sided media attention.

sorry. rant over. I keep doing this.

Something's seriously amiss with this story

OP, your situation was completely different. You were continuously unemployed, you honestly stated you were unavailable for work while you went on holiday, you received benefit in between becoming available and starting your next job. All as it should be.

What you're saying about your brother doesn't add up, though. They have to keep re-working the rules for temps exactly because it's so difficult to keep signing off & on. By the time he's waited out a new qualifying period (6 months?), then signed off again as soon as he's sent for an interview, he'd hardly be getting any JSA anyway.

I agree with your H as it happens. But it doesn't sound like your mum & brother are telling you the truth. Could he be lying to his mum to cover up another source of income?

Since when was it an offence to own a car which your parents help or contribute towards?

"I think people should have to dress smartly to sign on. Men should wear suits and women should wear smart business dress. No one wants to employ people in tracksuit and trainers."

You obviously haven't been to many warehouses, packing factories, seen cleaners and even support/care workers, the list of people who wear comfortable clothing for work would fill this thread .

"Why do I always see people stood outside the jobcentre wearing tracksuits, often smoking, and often accompanied by dangerous looking dogs"

I pass a JC when i walk my dog (i don't smoke but my partner does), perhaps because if you have a large dog you need casual clothes and flat shoes? We are professionals btw, but have to dress down in our work, except when we go to court.

They cannot be going into a JC, because you cannot take dogs.

OP you do have to give the details of what you have been doing if you try to make a claim, please don't tell me that you don't, i help people to make claims and chase them up, weekly.

Your brother is lying to you and your mother is covering up for him.

Op i would agree that your DB is a 'scrounger' and your DM is helping him to commit fraud, but there is genuine unemployment and the benefit rules are fine as they are.

Mentally Ill people are treated disgracefully, as are other disabilities, JC staff do not do enough, in the JC's that i deal with, but as far as the claimants are concerned, there doesn't need to be a change.

Do people who apply for warehouse or factory jobs turn up to job interviews in tracksuits or jeans?

I own a business and I wouldn't give a job to people who turned up for an interview in scruffy clothes or with a dog.

A lot of factory jobs don't interview, they go through agencies, same for warehouses now.

A shirt and trousers are fine, a suit isn't needed,but attending a JC isn't attending a job interview and if a suit was worn, it would have to be replaced quicker, so would cost the country more, interview clothes are funded.

amber i really wouldnt have minded more questions. I was just grateful that help was available.