# Not entitled to dole due to lump sum



## tara mc adam (10 Aug 2009)

I have recently had my application for unemployment benefit turned down.
I was a bit naive & was actually honest in the interview. To cut along story short they found out I had €40,000 
on deposit. Which is our life savings for a house.
I was otherwise entitled to dole having worked 14 years & my husband only earns 26k .
I was made redundant 6 month ago I've just had a baby so i'm not presently looking for work.
Because of the deposit though we're not entitled to a penny. If on the otherhand we had used this deposit to buy
a house. I would actually receive the dole plus extra benefits to help pay my mortgage!
We are struggling to get by on my husbands salary & i know i'm lucky to have savings but isn't it a crazy policy for the government to encourage people to get up to their ears in debt?

We wouldn't do this ..but wouldnt we be better off buying a nice car to drive into the dole office with !
I'm confused as to what to do - I know there's a lot of people worse off who need the dole but i would be enitled to somehting it weren't for this lump sum.
i don't see why i can't receive dole just because i have been prudent & haven't spent all my cash on houses jeeps yachts etc...
I'm not saying i'm going to do this but would i actually receive dole if that lump sum was spent on something else?
Is the policy really so wrong that I could spend that money on a car & then pick up a cheque from the dole office?
It feels wrong to do something like that but would it work?
Its normal people (suckers) like us that pay our taxes that fall into these loop holes cos we don't have time to study all the ins and outs of making a claim unlike all the long-term unemployed who have never paid taxes in their lives! 
Any ideas on what I could spend the money on that wouldn't affect my benefit claim and that wouldn't lose its value?
Hope this doesn't seem cheeky i know i'm lucky to have savings but i would have been entitled to dole if i hadn't been so dumb and sleep deprieved (from baby!)
thanks
\t


----------



## jhegarty (10 Aug 2009)

tara mc adam said:


> I was made redundant 6 month ago I've just had a baby so i'm not presently looking for work.



You going to have to start looking for a job , or support yourself.


----------



## Berni (10 Aug 2009)

tara mc adam said:


> i'm not presently looking for work.


 
Savings or lack of them is irrelevant if you are not looking for work. 
You won't be paid anything if you are not available for and genuinely seeking work.


----------



## davidoco (10 Aug 2009)

tara mc adam said:


> .......................unemployment benefit................... .......... €40,000
> on deposit.


 
Firstly it was Unemployment Assistance or Job Seekers Allowance you were applying for as Unemployment Benefit is a benefit and not means tested.

€40,000 on deposit should only mean that you weekly payment be reduced by €30 or €40 euro therefore you are not entitled to assistance for other reasons such as your husband's income and/or your availability for work.


----------



## canicemcavoy (10 Aug 2009)

Looking at the *general case* rather than specifics of this individual case, does anyone else find it ironic that someone who saved money during the bubble and didn't buy a house is penalised under this system, while someone who overpaid for an asset they knew they couldn't afford and got themselves into debt is rewarded?


----------



## Rambler (10 Aug 2009)

canicemcavoy said:


> Looking at the *general case* rather than specifics of this individual case, does anyone else find it ironic that someone who saved money during the bubble and didn't buy a house is penalised under this system, while someone who overpaid for an asset they knew they couldn't afford and got themselves into debt is rewarded?


 I think ironic doesn't even come close.


----------



## gipimann (10 Aug 2009)

jaybird said:


> They are not being penalised whatsoever, they have completely misunderstood the system and the reason for their refusal.
> They applied for Jobseekers benefit..a non means tested benefit in which the lump sum would have no bearing. They did not qualify as they are not available for or seeking work. If they applied for Jobseekers Allowance, the first 20k would have been disregarded, and the second 20k would have reduced their weekly payment by 20 euro. They are not entitled to JA though as not seeking work.
> 
> The money is a total red herring. They were denied for not meeting basic criteria, you cannot get any unemployment benefits if you have chosen not to work.


 
And if the money is held in a joint account, all of the 40k would have been disregarded as it would be divided between husband and wife.


----------

