To think this isn't a reasonable suggestion from DWP

[Jenneypops]

Claiming universal credit as husbands hybrid role went fully office so he's looking for a new role and we qualify for support as low incomes.

We are in Staffordshire his office was in London. The staff member asked why he's given up his job instead of moving to London.

That is not a reasonable suggestion in my opinion, and it was delivered with a very snotty attitude. Why are some people on jobs to help people they clearly don't want to be or are useless at? No consideration for the fact we could never afford the rent there etc.

A lot of people travel for work and find cheap places to stay several nights a week. As a temporary measure, surely this is a better idea than being unemployed, because it is easier to find work when in work. You look more desirable.

He’d have known about this proposed moved for ages.

Yes you're wrong.
He should have looked for a room to rent and not just given up his job.
I assume he's signed on with agencies - loads of warehouse work etc at the minute due to christmas.
It will hopefully keep him off benefits whilst he looks for something else or he may get a temp to perm position.

I know that's the accepted truth, but in my experience it's always been easier when out of work because I have the time and flexibility (and motivation!) to apply and go to interviews and start straight away.

I think a lot of people on this thread are really underestimating how expensive trains and hotels are nowadays. Even places like Travelodges and Premier Inns aren't cheap anymore. I travelled a lot in my old job, and it was at least £90 for the night, often more. And that was in small city centres and villages, so I can only imagine how high the prices are in London. They hike up the rates because they know people will pay.

If OP's husband is only earning minimum wage, his entire salary would be wiped out from travel and accommodation expenses before he could even think about paying any bills. Who would stick with that job under those circumstances, even temporarily? Come on now.

Of course it's a reasonable question. With a straightforward answer.
Her job isn't to help your DH into his dream job. It is to get or keep him employed and off benefits.

He has purposefully made himself unemployed, I would be very surprised if he is entitled to any support.

Ultimately he should have spoken to his company about reasonable adjustments, but how long has he been in the role? Was it contracted as hybrid?

Hybrid means attendance in the office for partner thentime. So how often was that and how did he manage the commute then?

the whole get on your bike for work all over again- tearing apart families and support networks , and the difference in house pricing is obscene / even a room to rent only works if you are on big money

All the people on here pearl clutching about the horrors of someone claiming universal credit while they find a new job, and declaring that they personally would spend more than their whole income on accommodation and travel and never see their children in order to avoid the shame of claiming benefits for even a few weeks are ridiculous. I hope non of you are ever planning to claim your state pension, thats a benefit too you know....

Your hubby must be paying a fortune in travelling to and within London
Your husband needs to look for a new job

You understand he would have taken the job available to him to avoid claiming benefits?
And now it's unviable.

So he's managed to avoid claiming benefits til now by taking the job that came his way instead of waiting for a more suitable one?

I just find it very hard to believe that a London remote working job was minimum wage

He isn't paying a fortune for anything. He quit and claimed benefits instead. And apparently already has a new job lined up, so it's a complete non issue.

Maybe the DH now can look for a better job?

And exactly what the national insurance system is for.

I don't known the rules with UC but years ago if you willingly gave up a job you couldn't claim anything for a certain period of time. Think it was 6 weeks, maybe longer.

It's not an unreasonable question to ask. He will probably be defined as voluntarily unemployed if he just resigned when they told him to start attending the office, and will therefore have a minimal entitlement. The correct path in these circumstances would have been for him to refuse the change of employment Ts&Cs and allow them to sack him after due legal process. He's then got clear evidence that it wasn't voluntary. It's the same as being classified as "voluntarily homeless" if you leave a rental place just because the landlord asks you to - you have to wait till you are legally forced into compliance to qualify for help.

Or if he hadnt taken the job he may have claimed them longer?

Eh, depends really. Ideally he'd have managed until he found a different job. Which is exactly why they ask these questions.

You get sanctioned if you leave a job without good reason if you are on UC, so I guess they asked to find out why. Your DH's answer is perfectly reasonable though, plus he has a new job lined up anyway. Nothing wrong with claiming UC until then.
The work coach is not living in reality if they think someone should move to London for a minimum wage job, never mind what impact that would have on you and your own job too, and childcare etc.
My ex rented a flat Mon-Fri with a colleague when he lived miles from a job. It was about the same distance as your DH is from his work. But he was on about 3xNMW so he could afford it. It makes no sense at all to spend all your wage on commuting/accommodation.

My DP is in a 100% WFH role, and if he suddenly had to commute to the office, he simply could not do it. Half his wage would be on commuting alone, never mind the time too. He would have no money and no life.

I wish your DH good luck in his new job.

My first thought…absolutely no words 😶

Good luck in the new role

Getting sacked can result in a sanction as well

OPs family are working and in receipt of UC?

Yes, sorry I corrected myself later. He'd have to be 'made redundant'.