To be annoyed??

[Babyblues14]

First baby with dh, his son lives with us (moved in two years ago), just found out that even though this is my first child I am not eligible for maternity grant because we have dss in the household
Aibu to be pretty pissed off with the whole bloody system?
Apparently even if you have a relative living with you who is under 16 you won't get it either.

I am surprised that the rules are so strict. I have no resentment towards dss at all. We received nothing for the first year when he moved in with us but it made no difference as long as he was happy. I just think it is odd the way that the system works and dss is almost 15 so there is no option to reuse old baby items

Cherries Part 6 of the form specifically allows for the applicant to declare that the baby is the only child of a dependent. So I don't think teenage pregnancy living at home is an issue.

I'm not even sure that the example of a sibling under 16 would be an issue. The phrase is "in your family". Definition of the applicant's family is definitely going to include a stepchild or child of the father. But although a sister is part of the wider family, I don't see anything on the form that says that's definitely someone that would be counted.

blacktea the form asks about children in your household so no - children living elsewhere wouldn't count as far as I can see.

OP, I don't understand why you're surprised that the rules are so strict. Why wouldn't they be? I think it's right that there is a narrow criteria for handing out £500 for free!

Cherries I don't think it's shitty to say that tog shouldn't have a baby if it's going to be a big deal to you not to have the £500 maternity grant - basically yes, if you can't afford a baby don't have one.

Of course people's finances can change. That's why I'd rather see the pot of money that gives £500 to people who should have and could have saved up and waited kept so that it can provide £5000 maternity grants to the people who really need it.

I called their office before I bothered to get the form as i was unsure how it worked. They did clearly state that anyone under 16 in your household whether relatives or dependants meant that you were not eligible

Coz everyone's partner ex keeps all the baby stuff from 15 years ago in case their dc ever have a half sibling. . .
I get where you are coming from op. .

Using your logic Ellisandra obviously no one should get a maternity grant because as you clearly say "if you can't afford to have a baby don't have one."

I would say YABU for trying to get money for nothing in the first place. Other people work hard to make that money only for it to be taken away to pay for nonsense like this.

I was a student nurse and accidentally fell pregnant. I wasn't entitled to a grant because I in receipt of a bursary at the time. I saved up to buy things instead. It is what it is at the end of the day.

I work so I know about paying taxes for other people's nonsense. They don't take your work income into account. I wanted to claim because I thought I was eligible. People claim working tax credits because they are eligible to and don't seem to get any crap for it

Op, do you have financial issues? You say you received nothing for your step son, like in some way you should be given some form of financial assistance from the state to provide for your family. Is the issue you cannot afford this child?

We received nothing because of difficulty with dss mother even though we were entitled to. Nothing to do with financial issues

OP YANBU to be annoyed and surprised at the system.
You'll get a lot of shit though for thinking you could possibly get "something for nothing",even if you technically are entitled to it.
Nice assumption from PP as well that your annoyance is aimed at DSS.

Ellisandra I see, that's fine, but that's not what you said, and that's what I meant. Or should I say, it's not how what you said came across to me.

To me it sounded like you said anyone entitled to a maternity grant should not have children when you said "If you need a maternity grant, don't have a baby". Life is not ideal and people in shit situations fall pregnant unintentionally or otherwise and then those children are born into those shit situations. I am always in the camp of happy to pay taxes (as I do work full time when not on maternity leave) to support people (and particularly children with no control over their circumstances), because life isn't simple and it isn't as easy as just saying "don't have children if you can't afford them" unfortunately!

even if you technically are entitled to it.

The op isnt entitled to it. Technically or untechnically.

Op says she doesnt need the money but still pissed off she isnt getting it.

@Gorgosparta ok she technically should qualify,as a first time mother. Is that better?

Not really. She doesnt qualify. Its a grant that has stipulations. She doesnt qualify not evem technically.

Well I make a point of never turning down free money, so I claim anything I'm eligible to claim.

Op thought she could claim it so tried to do so and is surprised her 15yo makes her ineligible.

It doesn't mean she can't afford to have her baby, or that she's shafting the system, or that she resents dss; she's just surprised that she can't claim a benefit designed to help with one-off baby costs because her dp already hasd a child fifteen years ago and I agree that that sounds daft.

Thanks RainyApril that's exactly how I should of worded my OP

Babyblues yes, that's pretty close to what I think. I don't think people should choose to have children when they can't afford them. Don't most people think that?
So a blanket £500 for people on gateway benefits? No, I don't agree with it.

Some people don't have much choice about getting pregnant - chaotic lives, MH issues, abusive relationships, rape. Other people it's accidental - and among those people some will be very very poor and need help. Others will have planned it and be well off then their finances change.

It is those people who I would like to see getting £500, £1000, £1500.
Not everybody on a gateway benefit.

There may be valid arguments about the cost of means testing, it may be that a more flexible grant system for those who really need it would be badly administered.

But in principle - I'd prefer to see the money going to those who need it. Not people who chose to have a baby, can afford to have a baby, and just enjoy their bonus £500.

So Ellisandra I assume that if you were ever entitled to any kind of benefit but didn't desperately need it then you wouldn't claim?

@Ellisandra do you feel the same about CB?

Don't worry there will always be people like that, it's narrow minded BS which to me is just fed from conservative classist politics to scapegoat the poorer population for government wide economic issues. It's easy for mainstream media etc to sing the line of how awful and unfair it is for leech like benefit claiming people to be able to get "something for nothing". When the reality is much more complex than that and personally I believe it is right to support those more vulnerable in society, because people fail to take into account those complex social issues that revolve around being poorer. Like thinking everything is a choice, when often in reality it isn't.

For example, I saw a thread on here recently about a woman saying she would be £400 better off a month not working while her children were so young, and people were absolutely slating her for even considering not working. Yes there are other implications to not working like career progression etc, but the animosity this poster faced was really shocking. And bearing in mind this would only be a temporary situation for her, while the children were so young. People are not commodities, we aren't just hive minded cogs all working tirelessly for "the system", we are individuals living out our one fucking shot at existence on this planet, and if you're entitled to something that makes your life a bit easier in this arbitrary system we have constructed as a society, please just take it. The bottom line is there are much much worse things going on in our country, government and economy than people be entitled to some "free money" to help support themselves and their families.

How on earth am I scapegoating the poorer population when I have said clearly that instead of giving a little money to some less well off people (many of whom do not need it) I would rather a lot of money went to those who do?

I am in favour of welfare payments. Big ones where needed. And I have never once complained about paying taxes toward that.

FWIW I feel the same about pension tax relief. I think it's ridiculous that those who can afford to save into a pension can get 40% tax relief in some circumstances. I would rather the money that funds that 40% was used to give additional pension benefits to those who can't afford to save.

Do I feel the same about child benefit? Yes I do. I think it's ridiculous that one person earning £60K get nothing when a household earning £99K from 2x £49.5K get the lot. And I'd rather see those on £49K getting no CB, whilst those on £25K get double the CB.

Am I now going to be accused of scapegoating the middle classes?

I have no problem with benefits - I just want more to go to those who really need it, instead of going to those for whom it's a nice little extra.

Stop pissing around with £500 to all low income people as a one off to keep them sweet, and start overhauling tax relief on childcare fees, in my opinion.