# Jobseekers allowance & means test



## money man (15 Nov 2007)

Hello there wonder if someone could give me some advice for my girlfriend. We both worked up to recently when she was made redundant. She was working for about 2 yrs and 3 months since getting her degree. We have a joint mortgage. But are seperate financially in every other way. We have seperate bank accounts etc. She was told she has not worked long enough for jobseekers benefit so must be means tested. Thats fine. But they have asked her all about my job, payslips ,savings, etc. Should this be relevant. They want her to be assessed as living with partner/co-habiting. Is this the correct procedure? Do I have to provide all this information to them? 
Would she have been better off saying that we were just friends and then my means would not be relevant. She was told by the inspector that if she waits another 6 weeks she will have been working long enough or have enough stamps for jobseekers benefit which is not means tested? Was that true it doesnt sound right to me as she finished working a couple of days ago?


----------



## Welfarite (15 Nov 2007)

You are being treated as a couple for SW purposes because, presumably, you are living at the same address (i.e cohabiting). Therefore, your means and her means are combined to assess the rate of SW she will be paid. There is no way around this and saying you are just friends will not wash with SW. 

I would guess from your post that your girlfriend has enough PRSi paid to qualify for JB from Jan 2008 (when the qualifying year will change from 2005 to 2006). This is not means tested adn your income will not affect her payment. 

So if your joint income is too high for her to get JA now, at least she knows she will get JB from January. She should continue to sign even if not getting paid to keep her PRSI weekly credits up.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2007)

money man said:


> Would she have been better off saying that we were just friends and then my means would not be relevant.


No - and to do so would be welfare fraud.


----------



## money man (15 Nov 2007)

To be honest i cant understand why they would jointly assess us when all our finances are seperate but thats their rule. How does she continue to sign and if she gets the JB in January will she get it backdated? If it means waiting 6 wks and living off her redundancy she would sooner do that as long as she would not be told she cannot get it because she did not claim from november for JA. Thanks


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2007)

money man said:


> If it means waiting 6 wks and living off her redundancy she would sooner do that as long as she would not be told she cannot get it because she did not claim from november for JA.



Why doesn't she try getting a job?!  She'll have to at least try in order to qualify for _JA/JB_!


----------



## Welfarite (15 Nov 2007)

Your finances are not separate. Take ESB: You share the bill, right? Therefore it is cheaper for you as a couple than if you were single. Do the same with food costs, heat costs, etc.. A couple is a couple is a couple ....not two singles because it would suit you in this situation, financially! 

She signs in the same way/date as if she was getting paid. The claim in January will not be backdated. Her qualification starts in forst Monday in January and she will be paid from that date.

BTW, Redundancy is meant to be a sum of money to tide you over between jobs, so living off it until January is not a crime!


----------



## money man (15 Nov 2007)

I think Clubman believes it is a crime! If she was going for Jobseekers Allowance/Benefit then you could reasonably assume that she has sought /is seeking work for which she is qualified and is unable to get such work. Waiting to get this payment does not imply sitting on her a** for the next 6 wks as you seem to understand from my reply. My post simply makes reference to the fact that she will not be able to pay her bills by looking for a job. Thanks for the advice though im sure she never thought of that.


----------



## Welfarite (15 Nov 2007)

money man said:


> I think Clubman believes it is a crime! ... Waiting to get this payment does not imply sitting on her a** for the next 6 wks as you seem to understand from my reply.


 
Is this directed at me?!? I hope not!


----------



## money man (15 Nov 2007)

Not at all thanks welfarite for your help. I was just a bit disappointed at clubmans post to imply that she had not sought work and was trying to obtain JA/JB frauduently.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2007)

money man said:


> I think Clubman believes it is a crime!


What? 

Welfare fraud? Yes. 
Living off your own means? No. 
Legitimately claiming _JA/JB_? No.


> Waiting to get this payment does not imply sitting on her a** for the next 6 wks as you seem to understand from my reply.


Fair enough - your post above seemed to suggest that she might not be looking for work. By the way note the posting guidelines:




> My post simply makes reference to the fact that she will not be able to pay her bills by looking for a job. Thanks for the advice though im sure she never thought of that.


Any time.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2007)

money man said:


> Would she have been better off saying that we were just friends and then my means would not be relevant.





money man said:


> I was just a bit disappointed at clubmans post to imply that she had not sought work and was trying to obtain JA/JB frauduently.


*You *are the one who originally introduced the issue of potential fraud!  If you were willing to countenance lying in order to fraudulently avoid the means test then it's not unreasonable that some people might assume that other fraud (e.g. not actively seeking work while claiming) might also be under consideration.


----------



## money man (15 Nov 2007)

Your reply about bills etc is a good one. These are halved but thats obviously not how they look at it.


----------



## money man (15 Nov 2007)

Easy there..no need to go around picking cyber fights with people or posting just to increase your impressive 35,047 posts. You win! I just wanted some advice on the above situation. If we cannot be jointly assessed for tax purposes becuase we are not married why is it that i am told that i should be supporting my girlfriend when the shoe is on the other foot. How have i caused offence?


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2007)

money man said:


> Easy there..no need to go around picking cyber fights with people or posting just to increase your impressive 35,047 posts.





> You win! I just wanted some advice on the above situation.


You originally asked if you should engage in fraud.


> If we cannot be jointly assessed for tax purposes becuase we are not married why is it that i am told that i should be supporting my girlfriend when the shoe is on the other foot.


Tax and welfare are different systems.


> How have i caused offence?


Did you actually read the posting guideline in question?


> Use of profanities (even those that are self censored - like t**s for example) will result in the post being edited or deleted.


----------



## Welfarite (15 Nov 2007)

The Social Welfare Act covers your treatment for SW purposes, Revenue use Tax Law. That's why.


----------



## money man (15 Nov 2007)

Either be rich or poor i think welfarite!! try not to end up in middle ground of Suburbia!! What a nightmare. Thanks though


----------



## Welfarite (15 Nov 2007)

money man said:


> Either be rich or poor i think welfarite!! try not to end up in middle ground of Suburbia!! What a nightmare. Thanks though



 That's it!


----------



## stir crazy (15 Nov 2007)

I can see money mans' point in that as far as  anyone who shares a house would have some arrangement to share bills whether together or not so its not really that much of an economy saving compared to for example students who share a house. But it looks like shes not entitled to anything unless you decide to have a break from the relationship .


----------



## Welfarite (15 Nov 2007)

The question is not sharing, but "co-habiting" as defined by SW. Co-habiting means sharing expenses, sexual relationships, socialising together, etc. .

Yes, I see MM's point too, especially when it comes to same-sex relationships. Say, if 2 men lived together as a couple would SW immediatly assume that or would they treat a claim from one or both as from two singles chaps sharing a flat?!


----------



## Nellie123 (15 Nov 2007)

Your girlfriend should sign on for credits even if she is not entitled a payment(JA). This would keep her Social Welfare record intact for future claims.
In Jan 2008 she could apply for JB as her claim will be based on PRSI paid in 2006 and as already stated JB is not means tested.

It appears she has not enough PRSI (39 payments) in 2005 to give her an entitlement in 2007.


----------



## gipimann (15 Nov 2007)

Welfarite said:


> The question is not sharing, but "co-habiting" as defined by SW. Co-habiting means sharing expenses, sexual relationships, socialising together, etc. .
> 
> Yes, I see MM's point too, especially when it comes to same-sex relationships. Say, if 2 men lived together as a couple would SW immediatly assume that or would they treat a claim from one or both as from two singles chaps sharing a flat?!


 
The legislation for aggregating means for Supplementary Welfare Allowance specifically refers to "a man and woman who are not married to each other but who are cohabiting as husband and wife"  so there is no legislative basis to treat same-sex couples as a couple...reverse discrimination?!

Not sure what it is for other Social Welfare Schemes.

(Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, Secton 196).


----------



## Welfarite (15 Nov 2007)

gipimann said:


> The legislation for aggregating means for Supplementary Welfare Allowance specifically refers to "a man and woman who are not married to each other but who are cohabiting as husband and wife" so there is no legislative basis to treat same-sex couples as a couple...reverse discrimination?!
> 
> Not sure what it is for other Social Welfare Schemes.
> 
> (Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, Secton 196).


 

Hmmmm..... very interesting that! Would love to see a test case taken!


----------



## stir crazy (17 Nov 2007)

Welfarite said:


> Hmmmm..... very interesting that! Would love to see a test case taken!



I'm not a legal expert but of interest to  a close relative is common law wife/husband isnt recognised by this state but  maybe these kinds of government rules could be used in court to prove that it actually is ?


----------

