Redundancy and Job Seekers Allowance

[condor]

I did mention the notice period might be the problem earlier....seems that piece of 'most likely' info has been ignored.

[dickymint]

dickymint said:

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

Thanks all for your responses.
My redundancy was compulsory and i also thought i was going to get contribution based allowance.
I also thought this was available to everyone who had 'contributed'.
Maybe this isnt the case, but i will definately get my debts paid off straight away and then reapply.

You have more than £16k in the bank and expect sympathy because the state won't give you a handout?

For f*cks sake, you seem no better than the scroungers who have no intention of working.

Are you saying that you would not make a claim if you pranged your car? Or your house flooded?

To all those that are sgging of the OP. the clue is in the name..........

National insurance - get it?

[Sgt Bilko]

Don't go spazzing the money up the wall on large TV's and expensive sofa's!

You will get hit by something called Depravation of Income. Once had a similar case where bloke left a woman and two kids. Being a nice sort of chap he dropped off £100k on the door and went someone hot IIRC. She claimed and declared the case (was in bank so no escaping it). She got a "NO" due to money. Went ape, and went on a mahoosive shoping spree. New car, extension, the usual. Came back 4 months later, and got another "NO" - depravation of income. In her situation, she should have been more prudent and could not justify upgrading her car/adding a conservatory onto a 4 bed house etc. The adjudicator ruled that the money still "existed" for another 2 years based on an average wage/income & expenditure. She appealed, and lost.

[King Herald]

fido said:

There's been some misunderstanding, JSA is not means-tested - you are entitled to £60 quid a week, just requires that you sign-on every week. And there is absolutely no stigma attached to claiming it - the civil servant on their JSA hotline (or whoever it was) actually recommended that i sign up so they can sort out my tax etc. quicker.
It's diddly squat at the end of the day, considering what you have put into the system. I was very reluctant to claim, but friends and relatives urged me to do it, and i only got 3 weeks worth (after my notice period had ended).

Not means tested? Not for the first year, if the girl in the Slob Centre was correct.

Entitled to it? Only if you have paid in enough NI payments in the previous year, as my wife found out. Again, if the girl in the Slob Centre was correct....

[odyssey2200]

Quinny said:

I'm sure the folk who are genuinly looking for work, through no fault of their own, love being referred to as slobs

I've had worse ...

[odyssey2200]

As I said in another thread recently

One minute you have a job, 2 company cars, pension, BUPa and a future and then the memo arrives.

The memo invites you a n unscheduled meeting and a few phone calls reveal that everyone invited to the meeting has a different start time.

after the meeting, through no fault of your own, you have no job, no cars, no income, just the debts and a very uncertain future.

There are always those who look down their nose at you when this happens but in the current climate no-one is safe.

[dickymint]

Thought for the day (as my old man once told me) .

'be careful who you upset on the way up - you may meet them again on the way down'

[Jasandjules]

Best of luck to you, I say try and obtain everything you are able to, because I'd rather someone who was looking for work was assisted with their mortgage etc.. than someone who has no intention of ever working.

[stuart-b]

plasticpig said:

10 Pence Short said:

AngryApples said:

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

to 10p short, thats not what i actually said.
i simply wondered why those that pay into the system are entitled to nothing and asked for the opinions of others.
i dont recall asking for any sympathy at all so get your facts right before you kick off.

My 'facts' only extend to you admitting you're getting a redundancy payment of more than £16k and you seem bemused that the state won't pay your expenses until it lands in your bank.

Benefits should be for people who need the money, not those who want it because they assume they're entitled.

As with A75 above, I just dont get your logic there

I believe if you havent contributed to the social fund you should get the absolute bare minimum, whereas the likes of Hoath should get the extras (mortgage interest, free prescriptions, free dental work, etc)

Why, when hes contributed thousands more than the majority of these scrotes should he be made to tap into his savings when they get it for sweet FA?

Whatever way you try to argue it, that is just plain wrong

Edited by AngryApples on Sunday 19th October 12:58

My opinion is that if you don't absolutely need it, taking any benefit money from the state is wrong, no matter how much tax you have paid.

If someone can afford to exist and meet their obligations for essentials without state benefits, why should the tax payer fund their luxuries?

In that case are you planning to repay the cost of imprisoning you to the taxpayer?

Quite right

This is job seekers allowance, the chap has worked and contributed for many many years, and when he is down, because of a situation out of his control, you propose that we kick him?

Regardless of the money he has in the bank, he should be allowed to enjoy at least (£1500/£150000)* 0.01% of his contributions, considering scummers enjoy 100% of it.

I have no issues seeing my taxes go toward helping people like the OP, and would love to see cheating scummers abusing the systems kicked from our country for good.

Maybe 10p, you should go smash a few windows at the lovely lady who lives in a house probably a lot bigger than yours? Did you know you're paying for it?

• £500+ a month tax for 25 years.

Edited for accuracy

Edited by stuart-b on Monday 20th October 08:50

[King Herald]

Quinny said:

I'm sure the folk who are genuinly looking for work, through no fault of their own, love being referred to as slobs

'Slob Centre' is no reference to the people looking for work, but the department itself.

You've obviously never been to Stafford job Centre?

I have. So has my wife. Several times.

The place exists purely to ensure the habitually unemployed get their paperwork signed every week. They have no interest, or facilities, for finding work for genuine people, and the whole building, along with its employees, could be replaced by a freephone and notice board on a wall, with a list of jobs to call!

I went there once, to try and change my line of work, and after a lengthy interview, was told, "you'll do better looking in the papers and calling companies yourself" Great, thanks for all your help.

My wife has been several times, and all she gets is a list of phone numbers to call, that are already listed in the newspapers and on the Job Centre internet site.

So, remind me, what exactly does a Job Centre do, for people genuinely looking for work?

Edited by King Herald on Monday 20th October 12:04

[JagLover]

Unemployment benefit were intended as a safety net between periods of work and yet the amount is now so derisory in comparison to wages and hard to claim if you have any assets that is now entirely useless for that purpose.

Meanwhile housing benefit is not available if you own your own home (interest is paid I believe after 6 months-which is a bit late). So we have a situation that the benefits that exist are mostly useless/unavailable for those paying into the system and relying on it as a safety net.

[sultanbrown]

£60.50 a week is a pittance, it barely covers the cost of fuelling the jag.
By the way, where do I sign up for the monster plasma screen television?

[odyssey2200]

If you are unemployed you can also claim Council tax benefit but all I can say is good lucj with that.

I claimed and ended up in an Interview under caution and it cost me £350 for a solicitor to get the Clownscholl to decide they couldn't take action against me while not actually admitting that they had fked up and not me.

again £16k savings has a bearing on it.

[moanthebairns]

I struggle to believe how people live on job seekers allowance, I was made redundant from a job I had for 4 years (since I left school).

I was shocked to find out I only would recieve 47 quid odd a week to live on! (I spend more than that in petrol a week!) I was lucky I recieve a few thousand redunancy and went into a job a few weeks later ended up quids in!

I was also shocked with the little amount you actually had to do to show you were looking for work to recieve the money! Basically every two weeks you had to show you had look at a paper for jobs or phoned about one!

I was also shocked to find two security guards there!!! WTF!

P.s.

I have no problem with the OP claiming job seekers, after all his contributions I think its only fair! hope he finds work soon.

[10 Pence Short]

dickymint said:

dickymint said:

10 Pence Short said:

hoathenfold said:

Thanks all for your responses.
My redundancy was compulsory and i also thought i was going to get contribution based allowance.
I also thought this was available to everyone who had 'contributed'.
Maybe this isnt the case, but i will definately get my debts paid off straight away and then reapply.

You have more than £16k in the bank and expect sympathy because the state won't give you a handout?

For f*cks sake, you seem no better than the scroungers who have no intention of working.

Are you saying that you would not make a claim if you pranged your car? Or your house flooded?

To all those that are sgging of the OP. the clue is in the name..........

National insurance - get it?

And NI contributions are for...

[russ_a]

hoathenfold said:

Do you think the woman in the paper last week with the 7 kids needed the £2m pound house to live in at our expense? and the additonal £3000 a month in benefits?
She hadnt contributed anything, the 7 kids were a lifestyle choice, and the home furnishings in the newspaper picture were a lot nicer than most peoples.
I simply wondered what others thought of this, and I respect your opinion.
What I guess most of us would like is the entire system to looked at.

If you actually read the article then you would have noticed that more than 50% of the money went direct to the landlord of her house. The council had negotiated the rent rate directly with the landlord.

[10 Pence Short]

Just to make myself clear-

I don't doubt that the OP has a right to JSA, I think in that respect the system is wrong, not the OP. My opinion is that if someone can afford to house, feed and dress themselves and is able to work, they do not need to burden the state.

It's not a criticism of the OP, but one of the state which encourages it.

There are scroungers out there, it's them the state should be chasing- without having to make payments to people who don't need it.


Someone earlier in the thread mentioned prison. I didn't choose to go to prison, the state insisted. Some may well feel differently, but I feel I didn't choose to burden the state by costing money to house and feed.

Also worth noting is that, despite getting down to the last £100 of my overdraft limit, having no savings and earning no money for months, I didn't take a penny in state handouts.

[hoathenfold]

Whoever the money went to, she still didnt have to pay any of it, and still got a very nice place to live.

[10 Pence Short]

hoathenfold said:

Whoever the money went to, she still didnt have to pay any of it, and still got a very nice place to live.

First thing- good luck in finding a new job.

On the case you mention- the fault is with a new system which allows landlords to see the upper limits of what councils are prepared to pay private landlords. Once the landlord knew that limit, miraculously the rent matched it.

The family renting the property had nothing to do with. Why we're paying for them to buy luxury goods and do feck all is beyond me, though.

[JagLover]

10 Pence Short said:

If someone can afford to exist and meet their obligations for essentials without state benefits, why should the tax payer fund their luxuries?

Because it is technically national 'insurance' you are paying. It was set up as a nationwide insurance scheme where you pay in while you are working and get money out when sick/redundant/retired.