# Advice needed on jobseeker's allowance claim



## BadDebt (30 Jul 2013)

Hi,

I just wanted some advice on a jobseekers allowance claim I currently have. This is long, but would REALLY appreciate advice...

I am a full time student who during the summer is entitled to job seekers allowance as I am a mature student.

I live with my girlfriend and I was means tested for JSA and the revised figure was apporx 155 per week after means test.

However, my girlfriend is a part time worker who had worked full-time hours for the 2 months previous (the time frame means tested) as she was going back to her country for 8 weeks during the summer and would not be working and would not be entitled to holiday pay, so this money was for her to live off during this time frame.

I didn't really dispute the means testing, but called into the social welfare office to explain to them that my gf would not be in the country for these 8 weeks, so my household income for this period would be zero and therefore I was looking to have the full benefit for this time frame. I brough evidence of her flights as proof of her being out of the country.

HOWEVER, when in there, the lady in the office was one of these people who seemed to hate life, was rude, unhelpful and when I asked to give an alternative phone number to let me know the decision on, she went off on a tangent about "why do i have a different land line" (it was my parents house land line, as I would be over there and I don't have a mobile as I can't afford one, so gave an alternative number to get me on), she immediately treated me with suspicion and grilled me in an accusing manner.

Anyway, I left it at that and thought my request was straight forward and would be dealt with quickly.

Only to find to my amazement that based on the information I supplied, my benefit had been CUT further, from the 155 approx to 111 approx.

Obviously this amazed me and I thought "great, i obviously looked at this lady the wrong way or she thinks I'm a fraud" and immediately knew this was going to be a big ordeal to try and get sorted out.

Anyway, I called back into the office, asked for this to be explained, I was told that because my girlfriend was out of the country, a certain allowance built into the job seekers benefit was taken away (as she would not be in the country, and supposedly part of my allowance is maintance for her, even though she's supposedly maintaining me), but I could not get a concise answer on how they arrived at this figure and tried to explain that surely if my benefit was cut from approx 188 to approx 155, based on the fact that my girlfriend was earning, that the fact that she is not earning and not in the country and that I have zero household income, the benefit should not be cut further...

Anyway, this was "debated" for quite some time in the office until eventually they said "get proof of her zero earnings, as for all we know she is still earning", but AGAIN (and this was a different lady - the first ladies supervisor) I was grilled that "this MUST be true and you can't alter her earnings" and basically AGAIN extremely excusing and suspicious tone with me (I am absolutely 100% truthful and honest with welfare etc. - I have no idea where this suggestion that I was anything but trtuhfull came from, but I feel like ever since our first meeting, there was a vendeta against me and hence the treatment of my claim), - also she assuerd me at this point that "You will DEFINITELY not be getting the full amount" - even though this was for review, I took this as a determined statement that they were fighting my application...so I did that, I got a letter from her employer to say that she was earning absolutely zero whilst away, as she was a part time shift worker she was not entitled to holiday pay, and I brought that back in, on the understanding that from our previous conversation, this would be resolved with this document.

In between this, I had made several attempts to contact people in the office, calling in a number of times to the first lady, who was an absolute demon all the time, would fob me off "don't know anything about it - you'll need to speak to supervisor" wouldn't let me talk to anybody else, apperantly the supervisor was only person who could deal with it, but when I was talking to the supervisor she was running back and forth from the phone to check details with someone - but refused to let me speak to whoever calculates the payments or anyone more senior, but neither of these ladies had a clue to be quite honest - anyway, I had called into the office, rang the office, the supervisor always on holidays, sick or on half day - one of the days I called in the first wench was there, and she was all smiley and I thought to myself "wow, she seemed in a good mood, maybe she's not all that bad", but she again told me to come back in on Monday, when supervisor would be there (I felt I was being fobbed off for a while, which turns out maybe until they found a way to get rid of me).

When I eventually got hold of her, she just handed me out an email print off of someone saying "we only review means for seasonal workers and definitely wont even look at it when gf is out of the country" and quoted some legislation regarding seasonal workers - it reaked to me of trying to find some legislation to fob me off with. - but the best part is, the email was between the supervisor and the wench, and the date was prior to my calling in the week before, and the supervisor told me she had left a copy of the email for me if I called in, so it all fell into place that the wench had known this news was going to be delivered to me (as she was emailing about it), but chose not to tell me and get me to call back in on the Monday, so the supervisor could tell me, maybe to fu*k me over more, but also I had had that heated (but extremely civil and I'm not in any way shape of form ever disrespectful or rude or raise my voice or anything like that, just pushing the logic of my argument and trying to make them see the illogical part of theirs) she wanted the supervisor to be the one delivering the news - so I get the impression her all smiles was a smug satisfaction rather than her having a good day...

I immediately knew I was going to bring this to the ombudsman, but for clarity sake I asked the supervisor "is there anything I can do, any sort of appeal or anywhere else I can bring this" and she just said "no, that's it" ... did not advise me of ombudsman or anything...

Do I have a case here? I haven't written to the ombudsman yet, but are they correct in anything they say? (I would be amazed if they were) and taken my original request of having zero household income for 8 weeks, are they making a concerted effort not to adhere to a simple request and trying to find any way around it?

I'm pretty annoyed about it to be honest, and exausted, all of this took about a month, and I just want to sort it out, I'm barely surviving on the 111 a week, i have to borrow money constantly which is humiliating, and I feel it's all down to a miserable lady in the welfare office who hates her life and her job and gets her kicks from a power trip screwing over people who need help.

Why would they make me jump through all of these hoops getting letters etc. if this was the obvious position from day one? Why get the employer letter if it was already a case they wouldn't review it? I think they thought I was lying and then when I wasn't, tried to find another way not to help me.

I feel at very least they both need to be retrained in customer care, I don't know what that first lady is doing there as she never helped, gave any information and always just told me to come back - then why is she there? What purpose is she serving?

WHAT logic is there in deducting my allowance based on income of a girlfriend and then deducting it further when that income and girlfriend are completely out of the picture?

And if they don't review means at all unless its season workers, then how come my means was revised in order to bring my claim amount down and can't be revised to bring it back up to the original amount or maximum amount I feel I should be getting?

Also how should I approach the letter to the ombudsman?

BTW I had been a tax payer for the best part of a decade and only that I'm back in college had never been on welfare in my life.


----------



## gipimann (30 Jul 2013)

The reason your payment was reduced when you declared that your gf was not currently residing is that you were assessed as a couple.

Your full entitlement was calculated as 188 for yourself plus 124.80 for your gf less the means assessed.

Now your entitlement appears to be 188 for yourself less the means assessed.   The means don't appear to have been changed, your family composition has changed therefore your entitlement was reduced.

I can't comment on any of the rest of your experience.


----------



## Spear (30 Jul 2013)

I think you should summarise the problem. It's currently too long.


----------



## SarahMc (30 Jul 2013)

What Ombudsman? Your next step is to appeal, but it looks correct, so I don't think an appeal will be upheld.


----------



## BadDebt (30 Jul 2013)

gipimann said:


> The reason your payment was reduced when you declared that your gf was not currently residing is that you were assessed as a couple.
> 
> Your full entitlement was calculated as 188 for yourself plus 124.80 for your gf less the means assessed.
> 
> ...



Interesting, but this seems to be the whole crux of the issue.

I have demonstrated to the welfare office that my gf with not be in the country and that also there is absolutely zero income going to her whilst she is not in the country, so the purpose of being means tested is if there is alternative income in the household, i.e. I am being supported by my girlfriend, so when the girlfriend is not around, why do they assume that the income still is?

I.E. How is it logical to deduct someone circa 30 euro total based on the income of their partner, but then when you demonstrate that for a long period of time that partner wont be there and there is absolutely no household income, they then deduct circa 70 euro total. 

Is it correct to deduct welfare based on her earnings and her living with me, but when she's not there make a deduction on her not being there but also assume I now somehow get her earnings even though she's not working, not earning and not in the same country?

It doesn't seem correct to me to apply the calculations in this manner.

When household income is less than 100, the full amount of 188 applies, means is tested over a 2 month period, I have demonstrated that there will be zero household income over a 2 month period, and get further reductions as a result.


----------



## BadDebt (30 Jul 2013)

Also, what is the appeals process you talk about and how do I enter an appeal? I was told specifically that this does not exist.


----------



## pudds (31 Jul 2013)

BadDebt said:


> Also, what is the appeals process you talk about and how do I enter an appeal? I was told specifically that this does not exist.




http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...al_welfare_system/social_welfare_appeals.html


----------



## Luternau (31 Jul 2013)

That has to be one of the longest posts I have seen. 

According to your thread:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=180936

NOTE:

Mistake made re OP and another post in the above thread.


----------



## BadDebt (2 Aug 2013)

No, that thread is regarding my mothers pension, a major bank pension fund that was miscalculated over a 15+ year period and they paid out a lump sum of amounts due. I was advising her that she should look to put it in a high yield deposit account if she's not going to use it over the next couple of years as she doesn't need it right now.

I am 30 years old and not dependant on my parents, I'm a mature student. Assumptions make asses of you and me....also post 5 (the one you quote) is not in fact made by me, some other poster chimed in with that comment, and what my mother is looking to invest is nowhere near a six figure sum... I suggest you don't quit the day job and forget the private investigator pipe dream...


----------



## BadDebt (2 Aug 2013)

pudds said:


> appeals link



Thanks for that.


----------



## Luternau (2 Aug 2013)

> Assumptions make asses of you and me....also post 5 (the one you quote) is not in fact made by me, some other poster chimed in with that comment



Please accept my apology on that-you are correct it was not you. I am happy to clarify that. That is always the problem when others hi-jack a thread with their own question. 



> I suggest you don't quit the day job and forget the private investigator pipe dream.




You are quite entitled to say I am wrong, however, there is no need to get personal-anybody can make a mistake. Please read the posting guideline 10 'Posts or threads which use language designed to be deliberately offensive or just to stir up trouble will be deleted'



> No, that thread is regarding my mothers pension....



On that opening post you did say:



> So *I am looking to investment *into a low maintance, low risk account with the maximum possible yield.....




How is one to know its not your money when you use 'I'   instead of  'on behalf of my mother', but sure anyone can make a mistake....!!!


----------

