# wife is currently unemployed and not signing on as I am working. FAS Courses?



## Secman71

Hi,
My wife is currently unemployed and not signing on as I am working.

We have 4 children under 14. I get a FIS payment of €111 per week. She has applied for a FAS course and I was wondering:

 (a) would she be entitled to anything if she signed on (I earn roughly €40k per year) and 
 (b) would she even be concidered for a course or is she just wasting her time?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Marietta

Since January 2010, unemployed people who start a FÁS course will *not get a training allowance* when they start a FÁS course *unless they are entitled to a qualifying payment*, such as Jobseeker's Allowance or Jobseeker's Benefit. 
[broken link removed]


----------



## Black Sheep

She should be signing on (if she is available for work and actively seeking work) whether she is eligible for a payment or not.

I she has sufficient PRSI she *may* be entitled to Jobseekers Benefit which is not means tested but may affect the FIS.

If she is not entitled to a payment she should sign for credits to keep her SW record intact


----------



## Complainer

Will she even qualify for a FAS course? I thought that only those who were already signing on would qualify for FAS.


----------



## Marietta

fas courses are available to all unemployed people whether they signing on or not.


----------



## Black Sheep

But if she has not signed on for either payment or credit she is not registered unemployed


----------



## Complainer

Black Sheep said:


> But if she has not signed on for either payment or credit she is not registered unemployed


What is meant by 'signing on for credit'?


----------



## diem

Signing on for credits means that, even though she may not be entitled to any payment,  her PRSI contribution record is credited with  a weekly contribution. This may be very important for long term benefits, such as contributory pension


----------



## Deas

It also counts towards illness benefit etc. when working - you have to have the credits built up to claim it.


----------



## Complainer

diem said:


> Signing on for credits means that, even though she may not be entitled to any payment,  her PRSI contribution record is credited with  a weekly contribution. This may be very important for long term benefits, such as contributory pension





Deas said:


> It also counts towards illness benefit etc. when working - you have to have the credits built up to claim it.



When Mrs Complainer asked social welfare about signing on and not getting any payment, she was told that her entitlements were frozen, and the only way to unfreeze them was to start working. She didn't use the terminology 'sign on for credits', but this is what she was trying to do. Was the response she got wrong?


----------



## Berni

Complainer said:


> When Mrs Complainer asked social welfare about signing on and not getting any payment, she was told that her entitlements were frozen, and the only way to unfreeze them was to start working. She didn't use the terminology 'sign on for credits', but this is what she was trying to do. Was the response she got wrong?


What was her situation before trying to sign on? Homemaker, working, self employed, etc? 
To sign for credits she would have had to satisfy the condititions for JB/JA, but not be entitled to payment due to your income/other means.


----------



## Complainer

Berni said:


> What was her situation before trying to sign on? Homemaker, working, self employed, etc?
> To sign for credits she would have had to satisfy the condititions for JB/JA, but not be entitled to payment due to your income/other means.


Homemaker - Kids growing up a bit, so certainly available for work part-time.


----------



## Berni

It sounds like what she was told was correct so. 
If it has been more than 2 complete tax years since she last worked, then she would have to work 26 weeks to become active in the system again. 
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw12/Pages/2Whocanqualifyforcredits.aspx


From a state pension point of view, the years spent childminding (until last child turns 12) are disregarded under the Homemaker's Scheme when working out her average so she doesn't lose out there. A continuing absense from the workforce after that point will start to reduce her average though.
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/Pension/Homemakers/Pages/hm.aspx


----------



## Complainer

Berni said:


> It sounds like what she was told was correct so.
> If it has been more than 2 complete tax years since she last worked, then she would have to work 26 weeks to become active in the system again.
> http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw12/Pages/2Whocanqualifyforcredits.aspx


So a homemaker looking to return to the job market will get absolutely no support from FAS or local VEC until they have worked for six months first?


----------



## Berni

Complainer said:


> So a homemaker looking to return to the job market will get absolutely no support from FAS or local VEC until they have worked for six months first?


Well training is a separate issue to welfare support. I would suggest she contact her local fas office and find out for sure before writing it off.


----------



## Bronte

Complainer said:


> When Mrs Complainer asked social welfare about signing on and not getting any payment, she was told that her entitlements were frozen, and the only way to unfreeze them was to start working. She didn't use the terminology 'sign on for credits', but this is what she was trying to do. Was the response she got wrong?


 
A relation of mine signs on for credits even though not entitled to any payment due to spouses salary.  It's really important for your future entitlements to pension etc.  

The people in the dole office do not always give out the correct information.  There is a book produced by social welfare with all the rules in it and a separate booklet with the amounts of payments.  A copy of this should be in every household.  It's invaluable.


----------



## Complainer

Bronte said:


> There is a book produced by social welfare with all the rules in it and a separate booklet with the amounts of payments.  A copy of this should be in every household.  It's invaluable.


Thanks - any idea of the title of the book?


----------



## Black Sheep

The Booklet is called "Guide to Social Services". The number is SW4. It's the bible of SW services.

The other booklet is "Social Welfare Rates of payment 2010" the number is SW19.

Both of these (and any other leaflet of booklet you require) are available  by post on request from welfare.ie leaflets and booklets


----------



## Complainer

Thanks - I found the SW4 on welfare.ie http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/SW4/Documents/sw4.pdf

According to section 2.8 of this book, this 'signing on for credits' does not apply  to those who have been out of work for 2 years, so it wouldn't apply to my other half.


----------



## Bronte

Complainer said:


> Thanks - I found the SW4 on welfare.ie http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/SW4/Documents/sw4.pdf
> 
> According to section 2.8 of this book, this 'signing on for credits' does not apply to those who have been out of work for 2 years, so it wouldn't apply to my other half.


 
Well that's probably why your wife isn't eligible for credits. She does though get some credits for bringing up children. They brought in new rules about this in the last decade or so. 

As I wouldn't rely on what social welfare have told her, how about writing a letter to social welfare and asking what she is entitled to. That way they have to give you correct advice in writing.

And at least if that advice is incorrect you have some come back.


----------



## Complainer

Bronte said:


> Well that's probably why your wife isn't eligible for credits.  She does though get some credits for bringing up children.  They brought in new rules about this in the last decade or so.


I'm guessing you're talking about the Homemaker's scheme - covered in section 4.3 of SW4. We were advised (and SW4 confirms) that there is no need to register for this, as she gets the child benefit already, so this automatically covers this.

Just to clarify, what I'm trying to do, is to ensure that she is eligible for VEC or FAS courses. It seems crazy that her friend who has been out of work for a year is eligible for these, but Mrs C who has been in the home for 8 years is not eligible. It seems as if those who worked in the home are seen as a bit of a lost cause, dumped on the scrapheap.


----------



## Greta

Complainer said:


> It seems as if those who worked in the home are seen as a bit of a lost cause, dumped on the scrapheap.



The state is interested in getting people off the dole, hence training available etc. If someone is not on the dole, that's all the state cares about.

I am in this situation myself, albeit in the UK - no help of any kind, as my husband is working. As my husband is a higher rate taxpayer (only just), UK Revenue will be taking away my child benefit though...


----------



## Complainer

Greta said:


> The state is interested in getting people off the dole, hence training available etc. If someone is not on the dole, that's all the state cares about.
> 
> .


That's not true. Mrs C's best buddy was not on the dole. She had lost her dole after a year, as her husband was earning. So we have two ladies, neither of them on the dole, one gets support from FAS and VEC's and one doesn't - simply down to how long it has been since they worked. Fairly arbitrary distinction.


----------



## Black Sheep

But "Mrs C's best Buddy" is probably signing for credits and therefore is on the list of "Registered unemployed".


----------



## Complainer

Black Sheep said:


> But "Mrs C's best Buddy" is probably signing for credits and therefore is on the list of "Registered unemployed".


Indeed - and Mrs C isn't allowed to sign on for credits, simply because she is longer out of work than the best buddy.


----------



## Welfarite

Complainer said:


> Indeed - and Mrs C isn't allowed to sign on for credits, simply because she is longer out of work than the best buddy.


 
she would have had the same entitelement to sign for credits for the past eight years so why didn't she? Unavailable for work at some stage? SHe should have signed back on for credits when that situation changed to maintain her entitleds to apply for FAS courses.


----------



## Bronte

Complainer said:


> It seems as if those who worked in the home are seen as a bit of a lost cause, dumped on the scrapheap.


 
Welcome to the world of women. Your wife is actually lucky that the 'system' now recognised the value of women (and men) who stay at home to mind kids. There are many old age female pensioners who do not qualify for benefits at all. But I digress. 

You say above that 'you were advised and SW4 confirms' that your wife did need to sign on for credits. Was the advice they gave you correct or incorrect as Welfarite who knows his stuff seems to be saying otherwise.

If this advice was incorrect and was given orally you'll have no come back with social welfare.  The whole system is designed to confuse people and there are many people who lose out on benefits through getting incorrect advice and misunderstanding the system.  Even the social welfare website is the pits.


----------



## Berni

Complainer said:


> That's not true. Mrs C's best buddy was not on the dole. She had lost her dole after a year, as her husband was earning. So we have two ladies, neither of them on the dole, one gets support from FAS and VEC's and one doesn't - simply down to how long it has been since they worked. Fairly arbitrary distinction.



It's not arbitrary. 

The best buddy was unemployed, claimed her dole for as long as she was eligible, and then claimed credits as she is still unemployed.

Your wife wasn't unemployed. She was caring for children, for which she is credited under the homemaker scheme. She now wants to claim credits, but even now she isn't unemployed, and so wouldn't be eligble even without the 26 week rule. To be "unemployed" you must be available for, and genuinely seeking _full time work_. Your wife isn't.


----------



## Complainer

Welfarite said:


> she would have had the same entitelement to sign for credits for the past eight years so why didn't she? Unavailable for work at some stage? SHe should have signed back on for credits when that situation changed to maintain her entitleds to apply for FAS courses.





Bronte said:


> You say above that 'you were advised and SW4 confirms' that your wife did need to sign on for credits. Was the advice they gave you correct or incorrect as Welfarite who knows his stuff seems to be saying otherwise.



She didn't sign back on for credits because;

a) she/I originally knew nothing about 'signing on for credits' and possible impacts down the line
b) when she/I looked into this, she was told (as is confirmed by SW4, section 4.3) that there is no point in signing on for credits if you get child benefit, i.e.


> *Who should register?*
> 
> If you are in receipt of Child Benefit, Carer’s Allowance, Carer’s Benefit or
> Respite Care Grant there is no need to register for the Homemaker’s
> scheme but you must mention these when claiming a State Pension
> (Contributory).






Berni said:


> It's not arbitrary.
> 
> The best buddy was unemployed, claimed her dole for as long as she was eligible, and then claimed credits as she is still unemployed.
> 
> Your wife wasn't unemployed. She was caring for children, for which she is credited under the homemaker scheme. She now wants to claim credits, but even now she isn't unemployed, and so wouldn't be eligble even without the 26 week rule. To be "unemployed" you must be available for, and genuinely seeking _full time work_. Your wife isn't.


I find it strange that you are able to speak definitively about what my wife is or isn't doing, given that you haven't spoken to her and you know nothing about our situation.

My wife is genuinely seeking full-time work. She has exactly the same childcare obligations as her best buddy - both mind their kids after school, and both are prepared to make other arrangements for after school and holidays if they can get first time work.

But because Mrs C took time out as a homemaker, she is getting no support (FAS/VEC) from the State to get back to work, unlike her best buddy.


----------



## Berni

Complainer said:


> Homemaker - Kids growing up a bit, so certainly available for work part-time.





Complainer said:


> I find it strange that you are able to speak definitively about what my wife is or isn't doing, given that you haven't spoken to her and you know nothing about our situation.
> 
> My wife is genuinely seeking full-time work.



I based my response on the info you gave above. 
If you're changing the story now, fine, but a heads up would be nice.


----------



## Complainer

Berni said:


> I based my response on the info you gave above.
> If you're changing the story now, fine, but a heads up would be nice.


I didn't realise that being available for part-time work ruled out being available for full-time work!

Regardless, there are two ladies out there with exactly the same obligations and intentions - one is getting support from FAS/VEC - one isn't, simply based on the amount of time she has been out of work. How can this be right?


----------



## Berni

I make no claim that it is right, I was just trying to explain why they are treated differently. While their plan from this point on is the same, one is trying to reenter the workforce, the other never left it.

Has your wife registered with her local FAS office?
Has she applied for training, and if refused, what reason was given?


----------



## Complainer

Yes, she has applied to the local FÁS, and was refused on the grounds that she is not registered as unemployed. She applied to local SW office, and was refused, unless she has worked for 26 weeks.


----------



## Berni

Well thats a nice catch 22 they've created then!

I would suggest putting your concerns in writing to their client services co-ordinator
[broken link removed]

Point out that she needs access to training to renenter the workforce, but by their logic, she must first get a job, work for 6 months, lose her job, register as unemployed, and then they will help her.

Ask how that fits into their customer charter...
[broken link removed]


----------



## Black Sheep

Has she registered with Fas as seeking *employment* (filled up the form stating she is seeking employment and in what area she seeks work) or has she applied for a Fas *course*.


----------



## Complainer

Black Sheep said:


> Has she registered with Fas as seeking *employment* (filled up the form stating she is seeking employment and in what area she seeks work) or has she applied for a Fas *course*.



She went to the FÁS office and asked about courses, and got turned away pretty quickly.


----------



## Welfarite

Complainer, you are misreading the section relating to being advised there is 'no point in signing on for credits'. The section you quote relates to the Homemaker's Credits scheme. For FAS coiurse, she would ahev to registered for and signing on for Credited contributions (i.e. Unemployment Credits) at the Local Office. This is totally different.
You also state that she was not advised to sign for credits. This is often (daily) brought up when people realise is hindsight that they should have continued to sign on for credits but didn't think it worthwhile. So much so that Local Offices often ask people to sign written declarations of the fact that they WERE advised when their benefit entitlements run out.


----------



## Complainer

Welfarite said:


> Complainer, you are misreading the section relating to being advised there is 'no point in signing on for credits'. The section you quote relates to the Homemaker's Credits scheme. For FAS coiurse, she would ahev to registered for and signing on for Credited contributions (i.e. Unemployment Credits) at the Local Office. This is totally different.
> .


Are you talking about the PRSI credits described in section 2.8 of SW4? http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/SW4/Documents/sw4.pdf

She wouldn't qualify for these, as she has been out of work for more than two years, i.e.

" If, at any stage since starting work, you have
no PRSI contributions paid or credited for 2 full tax years in a row, you
cannot get credits until you return to work and pay PRSI contributions for
at least 26 weeks. "


----------



## Bronte

Welfarite said:


> . So much so that Local Offices often ask people to sign written declarations of the fact that they WERE advised when their benefit entitlements run out.


 
Well that means there is something wrong with the system or the way it is administered.  

Just to make things clearer: There are two types of credits? 

1. Homemakers credits 
2. Credited contributions (unemployment credits)

If the dole offices are getting people to sign that they were advised on what to do, presumably that goes in their social welfare file and into the computer and hey presto when they are 65 or whatever, out it comes and you'll be told here you go 40 years ago you agreed not to sign for credits so you don't get a full pension.


----------



## Welfarite

Bronte said:


> Well that means there is something wrong with the system or the way it is administered.


 I don't think its the 'system' if people decide to try and buck it by claiming falsely that they weren't told about signing for credits!


----------



## Bronte

Welfarite said:


> I don't think its the 'system' if people decide to try and buck it by claiming falsely that they weren't told about signing for credits!


 
So years later people are claiming falsely that they were never told about signing on for credits in order to claim some welfare benefit, therefore social welfare have put a policy in place to put into people's files confirmation that people did know what to do but chose not to. 

Do people who 'falsely' claim that the didn't know about signing on win their claimes I wonder.  There must have been a test case on this hence the new policy. 

Apart from people 'falsely' claiming, there are a lot of people who don't know about the signing on for credits and who also have not been told by social welfare staff, nor informed by letter that it's in their interest to do so and others who have been given incorrect information by social welfare.


----------



## Welfarite

Bronte said:


> So years later people are claiming falsely that they were never told about signing on for credits in order to claim some welfare benefit, therefore social welfare have put a policy in place to put into people's files confirmation that people did know what to do but chose not to.


 
Yes, and its more than 'some benfit'. it could be a pension over 20 yerars.



Bronte said:


> Do people who 'falsely' claim that the didn't know about signing on win their claimes I wonder. There must have been a test case on this hence the new policy.


 No they dont. 


Bronte said:


> Apart from people 'falsely' claiming, there are a lot of people who don't know about the signing on for credits and who also have not been told by social welfare staff, nor informed by letter that it's in their interest to do so and others who have been given incorrect information by social welfare.


 HYou'd need to back this up with evidence. It is not my experience that SW don't tell people. It sa matter of course to inform them esp given the effect it has on later benefits etc


----------



## Black Sheep

I agree with Welfarite here. I constantly remind people (have been doing this for many years) who are coming to the end of eligibility to Benefit to continue signing on when they are no longer entitled to a payment. While they are more inclined to listen now because of the times we live in, some years back that advice fell on deaf ears.

There was, and still is the stigma of been seen standing in the queue at the SW office on a monthly basis especially if you were not even in receipt of a payment. Many did not feel it was worth the hassle, especially if you live in a small town where everybody knows everybody else's business.


----------



## Complainer

Black Sheep said:


> I agree with Welfarite here. I constantly remind people (have been doing this for many years) who are coming to the end of eligibility to Benefit to continue signing on when they are no longer entitled to a payment. While they are more inclined to listen now because of the times we live in, some years back that advice fell on deaf ears.


But just to be clear - this option isn't open to anyone who hasn't worked for more than two years - right?


----------



## Welfarite

Complainer said:


> But just to be clear - this option isn't open to anyone who hasn't worked for more than two years - right?


 yeah, that's correct. If you have two blank tax years, you lose entitlement to credits.


----------

