Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 20:25

Are you saying a person can't live at home with parents, own a car and claim jobseekers? Apart from being a pushover my mum is doing nothing wrong.

My brother is morally wrong but isn't breaking any rules, certainly not fraud. He does look at job ads but with no real intent. The system has made it too easy for him. Also he doesnt sign off for 6 months at a time or it wouldnt be worth it.

OP posts:
mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 20:32

garlic i think you got it wrong about them reworking the rules for temps. Dh does temp work. He signed on then imediately after got a few wks work so had to sign off. He could have made a new claim but didnt bother as after a few weeks he'd probably get more work so it wasnt worth it.

OP posts:
mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 20:39

birds fraud? Really? How so?

OP posts:
Birdsgottafly · 30/06/2012 20:46

If he is signing on and off,pretending to look for work then he is.

Your mum will have to declare him living there as an adult and if she regulary pays his Council Tax for him, instead of him claiming that benefit, then that is regular income. Irregardless of what that money is spent on, your DB is in receipt of it and it needs to be declared.

Birdsgottafly · 30/06/2012 20:48

"amber i really wouldnt have minded more questions"

You didn't need more questions, it would have been logged along with your DH's tax declarations and your Child Benefit.

The JC now often asks for bank statements, HB definately does.

happyinherts · 30/06/2012 20:53

Birds - the son presumably is registered as living at mum's address. He doesn't pay council tax, the mother does. You are assuming the mother doesn't have a partner or husband and therefore loses single person status by having him there??? She could well be paying the complete council tax herself. I do mine and I have adult children living here. Council tax is payable per property not per person. Surely he only pays / receives council tax benefit on any property he is household of. What the mother chooses to spend her money on is her business or have we assumed she is on benefit too?

mumnosbest · 30/06/2012 20:57

birds id say its a lie not fraud. As for the rest. My mum has declared he lives there and she pays his council tax. Lets hope therees no law against your parents supporting you otherwise we might soon have a lot of under 25s acting fraudulently when they can no longer get council houses and are forced back home. I dont know of a law that says your parents cant pay your bills if you cant.

The jsa know he lives at home and is supported by his mum. This was one reason he couldnt get a council house.

OP posts:
AmberLeaf · 30/06/2012 21:06

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

Clearly written by someone who has no idea what signing on is about.

The job centre isn't employing the people that sign on, you do know that don't you.

garlicbutt · 30/06/2012 22:34

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

This one always makes me laugh. You can't take dogs inside. You can't smoke inside. Therefore, somebody comes with to mind the dog and share a fag.

I see people standing outside office buildings in office clothes, smoking. This tells me they have come outside for a fag. And your point is ...?

AKE2012 · 01/07/2012 00:31

I once had 2 sign off and when i signed back on thought id hav to go thru the proccess of makin a new claim however they made me fill out a rapid reclaim form which is a continuation of previous claim(without me asking for that). I hav heard of people signing off n then makin a new claim but dont know how its possible.
I agree that to get Job Seekers you should be JOB SEEKING. The name gives it away.

MAYBELATERNOWIMBUSY · 03/07/2012 20:18

in my local j/c the staff look mostly like they just fell out of bed, i worked in the civil service employment division 30 years ago, and it was a dif. world , believe me, a lot of the staff now are on fixed contracts usually six months, in said job you are a machine , taught to trot out the same old , same old....if you sign off sign on you can tell them anything you want , do you really expect them to go and check if you are lying?unemployment>>>it"s fast becoming the only game in town! and as previous texter has said , ok ,stop peoples benefit , that lovely£60ish a wk , then what?oh thats it, they will take all those jobs that are going begging, the "hot" one i have noticed is the "no hours contract" i.e. maybe 5 hours this wk , 10 hours next wk , starting to sound pretty rough , my brothers laugh at such "jobs" , and be careful who you slate , most jobs can / will be computerised >>cad/cam !

SocialEngineer · 21/07/2012 20:51

I am afraid you people do not appear to know very much about JSA. It is very easy to sign off & then sign on again. If you have made a claim for JSA in the past 12 Months & sign off for 13 weeks you can then sign back on again & your claim is fast tracked through because all your information is already in the system/DWP database.

If you are receiving JSA you have to provide details of your jobsearch & it is up to the Jobcentre staff to follow up with any checks or sanctions for not doing this. If you sign off then you are not answerable to the Jobcentre/JSA rules of actively seeking work & being available for work.

Why would anyone sign off? Quite simply to avoid being sent on a mandatory workfair type programme. After about 9 Months claiming JSA you are forced to take an option within the 'New Deal' system & this is mandatory. This amounts to being punished for not finding a job, its a bit like doing community service whereby you have to report to a designated provider of these schemes who supposedly allocate you work (like picking up litter or cleaning graffiti) for up to 30 hours per week (cheap labour) if you do this you continue to receive your JSA benefit if you refuse you are sanctioned & lose some or all your benefit. Would you like to work 30 hours a week, doing this kind of work for £72? This amounts to approx £2.40 per hour which is way below minimum wage. The government knows that most people in these circumstances prefer to find a minimum wage job & get paid approx £200 pw rather than £72 for the same hours. The government calls it 'encouraging' people to work, but in reality its a form of bullying.

The people that sign off & then back on again are doing it to break the claim cycle. Usually these people will claim JSA for about 6 or 7 Months until they are at the point of being sent on the compulsory 'New Deal' (workfair) programme. Then if they remain off JSA for 13 Weeks they can sign back on & the cycle starts back at the beginning as a fresh claim for JSA & another 6 - 7 months of JSA benefit before the whole process repeats itself. Of course the only people who can do this are the people who can afford 13 weeks without benefits (parents support, casual work, crime etc) & not having JSA can also affect Housing Benefit (LHA) & Council Tax (CTB) so it's not an option for most JSA claimants who would prefer to find work if they can.

The people who sign off & on again are not breaking the law. This is the way the system is set up (by the government) & you are entitled to cease claiming JSA for 13 weeks (if you can afford to) & then sign back on again it & its nothing to do with anyone else. The government knows all about this & they don't care because the people signing off for 13 weeks are saving the taxpayer 13 weeks worth of JSA payments and also it allows the government the opportunity to juggle with the unemployment figures & say things like "Unemployment is down again this Month by (for example 10,000) blah blah blah) in the press, its all just government spin & politics.

At the end of the day most people on JSA are not scroungers, some are but not everyone. Most people would prefer to work if they can find a job that pays them a fair wage. But no one wants to feel bullied into what amounts to 'Community Service' for £2.40 per hour as a punishment for not finding a job. The whole system of benefits, work, jobs, pay and the economy etc is down the pan. Some people are caught in the benefits trap because there is no work in their area, so be careful about calling anyone on benefits a scrounger.

Sallyingforth · 21/07/2012 21:12

"The government knows that most people in these circumstances prefer to find a minimum wage job & get paid approx £200 pw rather than £72 for the same hours. The government calls it 'encouraging' people to work, but in reality its a form of bullying."

Seems an entirely reasonable policy to me.

badgeroncaffeine · 21/07/2012 21:23

Another stupid thread about benefit claimants.

It's tragic how everyone has been brainwashed (by the rich) into pointing their fingers at the poor who shaft us rather than the rich.

To answer the original stupid point, it makes no odds whether people look or not, there are hardly any jobs and because there are far fewer jobs than people looking for them, isn't it better that the people who want them get them?

I know, the point will be beyond the understanding of most of the brainwashed right-wingers here...

Dirtyharriet · 21/07/2012 21:28

Wow, some kind of record. Only two posts before the subject of TV's come up.

Op, seems you have won benefit bingo, this one has it all:

Nanny state, Tv, smoking, scroungers, council house. What about his goat?

carernotasaint · 21/07/2012 22:25

Social Engineer its not called New Deal anymore its called the Work Programme. Someone tweeted Boycott Workfare yesterday or the day before to say that they have been mandated to workfare after signing on for TWO MONTHS.
Another tweet i saw from another young woman dared to call it workfare while in her local Jobcentre,said that the Jobcentre advisor said to her "its not workfare. Its mandatory voluntary activity. FFS how the hell can it be both mandatory and voluntary

Sallyingforth · 21/07/2012 22:55

badger I don't know whether that "right-winger" comment was aimed at me. Since it immediately followed my post, I'll assume it was.

If there are jobs going at the minimum wage, they will be taken up first by those who are ready and willing to take them.

If there are still jobs going after that, it is only reasonable that fit and able people should be persuaded to do them rather than sit at home on the £72.

If there are NO jobs available at the minimum wage, then they still have the safety net of the £72.

That seems reasonable to this (disenchanted) Labour voter.

ilovesooty · 22/07/2012 00:02

I have a client who was sent on mandatory work activity after less than a month of claiming. When he asked why this had happened so quickly as he'd already referred himself to the National Careers Service he was told to shut up or be removed by security.

SocialEngineer · 22/07/2012 18:23

Thanks for the update on the new names of these workfair type JSA programmes from carernotasaint

New name being "Work Programme - "not workfare. Its mandatory voluntary activity. FFS how the hell can it be both mandatory and voluntary"

Well, yes I agree how can it be mandatory voluntary activity, but they love this kind of jargon at the Jobcentre don't they. What I have found is that most of the people who work at the Jobcentre are clueless about the law & think they can speak to claimants any which way they like & treat them like s**t, WRONG! They also have big chips on their shoulders which is great news for anyone signing on simply because the Jobcentre staff take things very personally which means they make mistakes all the time. They try and apply benefits rules without sticking strictly to the law, then if you appeal against sanctions etc you will win on a point of law.

When I was signing on I had numerous run ins with the staff at the Jobcentres. I had sanctions overturned & decisions made by decision makers reversed simply by looking up the law & appealing to the independent tribunal. I did not lose one case. These tribunals usually are very informal & the judges at these tribunals look at the law covering any sanction made by Jobcentre staff or Decision Maker. They are independent and fair.

ilovesooty "I have a client who was sent on mandatory work activity after less than a month of claiming. When he asked why this had happened so quickly as he'd already referred himself to the National Careers Service he was told to shut up or be removed by security."

and carernotasaint

"Someone tweeted Boycott Workfare yesterday or the day before to say that they have been mandated to workfare after signing on for TWO MONTHS".

The thing to remember is that there are laws governing all aspects of benefits & claiming benefits. Benefits Advisors in Jobcentres are not allowed by law to speak to claimants like that & if it had happened to me there would have been a serious complaint made in writing, followed up with the current law regarding treatment of claimants & then a demand for an apology from the benefits advisor & Jobcentre manager. If Security had thrown me out there would have been a further complaint made with the addition of an potential assault charge if they had touched me or forced me in any way.

I do not know if it is legal for the Jobcentre to send someone on mandatory work activity after one or two Months of claiming under this new scheme, I don't think so. The only time I think this can happen is if that person was previously sanctioned before signing off or at a particular stage of the Gateway in the old New Deal before signing off, then it may possible that the Jobcentre may start a new claim at the gateway stage they were previously at. I would have to look the law up to be sure. (So make sure you sign off before any mandatory activity is sanctioned), but as always they will try & get away with it if they think they can and if you go along with it & sign for anything then it converts from voluntary to mandatory. Although this is a new scheme called Work Programme instead of the old New Deal or Workfair often the underlying laws that govern these schemes remain the same, in which case it should not be possible to force someone on to it in one or two Months, unless as above they have been tricked into signing up or previously been sanctioned or reached a mandatory gateway before signing off.

This is why you have to know the law about whatever scheme or benefit you are on, that way they can't scare you with threats or trick you into non mandatory schemes. The law is the law & if you ask them what scheme they are putting you on you can then go away & look up the law on that particular scheme. There is plenty of information on-line & also the best source of benefit law is from The Child Poverty Action Group Handbook which you used to be able to read in decent reference libraries or buy (if you can afford it), all benefits solicitors use this book as a reference & it covers everything about benefit laws. Obviously you need an up to date version with all these changes happening. The CPAG also have a website. Also do not be afraid to consult a solicitor about benefits problems, if you are on benefits you won't have to pay in most cases, but do find one that specialises in benefit law.

The government calls it 'encouraging' people to work, but in reality its a form of bullying."

Sallyingforth Seems an entirely reasonable policy to me.

The thing is Sally, Bullying in any shape or form is unacceptable & illegal. You seem to have the idea that all people on benefits are scroungers or are lazy and sitting around at home. This is the popular tabloid press view of people on benefits isn't it? Or the Daily Mail perhaps, but remember the papers are just out for sensational headlines to sell papers & it isn't a true reflection of most people on benefits. How do you think forcing someone to pick up litter or clean graffiti for £72 pw or £2.40 per hour is helping in their legitimate jobsearch, let alone their own personal self esteem? It's totally demoralising & counterproductive and leads to resentment & often legitimate jobseekers who have not been able to find a job feel as if they are being punished like criminals on community service simply for being unemployed & in a job market where there are few jobs available to them.

I was on benefits for quite a while but I did not sit around at home, I used the time to try & find a way forward for myself, eventually taking evening classes then Summer schools at Uni & then an access course & then a full time Uni course where I obtained a degree in law. I could not have done this if I was bullied into working 30 hours a week picking up litter for £2.40 per hour! I would have lost all hope in anything better & probably turned to crime instead of the law. I know someone has to do the job of picking up litter in our society, but it should be their choice & those people should be paid a fair wage for doing it rather than relying on the out of work at slave labour pay rates.

So please don't judge people on benefits as scroungers, as I said in my earlier post 'some are', but most in my experience are not.

Thank you

Sallyingforth · 22/07/2012 19:00

"The thing is Sally, Bullying in any shape or form is unacceptable & illegal. You seem to have the idea that all people on benefits are scroungers or are lazy and sitting around at home. "

Rubbish! I have said NO SUCH THING.

Jillyhere · 22/07/2012 20:54

I tend to agree with your comments

pattercakes · 23/07/2012 11:59

Mum that is the rule. and is fierecly enforced by Iain D Benefit system never been more mean to the disabled.

pattercakes · 23/07/2012 11:59

Duncan Smith is a funny sort of Christian.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread