Quick Q re back to school allowance...

R

rebekah

Registered User
Messages
25
I am about to apply for the back to school allowance but am a bit confused as to whether or not I will be granted it.

I have 2 kids who will be aged 2 and 4 this September. They are within the age range for the allowance but are not in full time education. The 4 yr old is in play school till 12.30 every day but the 2 yr old obviously is too young.

It says that to qualify your dependants must be in full time education but no 2 or 3 year old is going to be in school? Do they grant the allowance for these age ranges because footwear is so expensive for them? (50 quid every few months!?)

Not a very important question, just don't want to feel like an eejit by applying and getting turned down coz my kids aren't in school!

thanks!
 
It's fairly clear; the children must be in full-time education to qualify for Back To School Allowance, whisch is to help with cost of uniforms and school shoes
 
rebekah said:
It says that to qualify your dependants must be in full time education but no 2 or 3 year old is going to be in school? Do they grant the allowance for these age ranges because footwear is so expensive for them? (50 quid every few months!?)
Click to expand...


Rebekah, in fairness this allowance is paid to eligible applicants so as to cover the cost of school books, uniforms and footwear of children returning to school.

It's irrrelevant that you have to buy footwear for your preschooler every few months, you get child allowance to cover those expenses.
 
Well it is and it isn't.....I was told in social welfare office that I could be elligable as the allowance is paid to children from 2 upwards. But no 2 year old or 3 year old is going to be in full time education...you have to be at least 4 to start school. So I don't get how they can include 2 year olds in the allowance yet say your child has to be in full time education...there is no such thing as full time education for toddlers or does this include creches?

I'm mainly curious to see if anyone knows why the age is set from 2 upwards and not 4? This would make more sense to me...?

Sorry Marietta, just saw reply there....I know it's not for kids shoes but I can't see any other reason why they would include 2 year olds? I'm not going to apply anymore anyway because the kids aren't in school so it won't be granted, like I said above, I'm more interested in how they set the ages....it's mere curiosity on my part at this stage!!
 
just saw the same thread myself! I'll probably apply for the 4 yr old and tell them he's in playschool so they can determine themselves if they consider it full time ed or not!
 
fababby said:
Apply for both children. You are entitled to apply for the 2 year old too.

A
Click to expand...


I can't for one moment fathom why a back to school allowance is paid to a two year old especially when the child does not attend playgroup or creche. I wonder how many mothers/fathers are on welfare benefits and have two three and four year old children but dont apply for the allowance because they think it is for school going children only. There must be thousands.
 
The Back to School allowance is paid in respect of children from the age of 2 upwards, so rebekah, you can apply for both of your children once you meet the financial criteria. The full-time education requirement refers to the children at the older age limit (18 - 22).

The scheme name is an historical misnomer, and can be very confusing, especially for the pre-school age.

Back in the 80s the "footwear scheme", administered by the Community Welfare Service, was a payment made in respect of all children of eligible parents, regardless of age. The payment was made during the summer months, many parents used it for back to school expenses.

An increasing number of parents applied for assistance with other back to school costs (books, uniforms, etc) in addition to the assistance granted under the footwear scheme.

Following submissions to the Dept of Social Welfare from the Community Welfare Service, the decision was made to combine the existing scheme with the emerging trend of applications for additional assistance, and the Back to School Clothing and Footwear scheme was the result.

The new scheme actually ruled out children under 2, the original footwear scheme didn't.
 


In fairness, I think you owe the original poster an apology for you indignant tone, without having the full facts to hand.
 
Thanks Lionstour but in fairness I don't think the poster ment the comment as it read...thats the trouble with online communication, it can be hard to gauge the tone of the response! It's gotten me in trouble more than once ;-)
 

Can you confirm that the 'full-time education' clause only applys to 18-122 year olds, Gipimann? I'm reading this on the Sw website!

"To get the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance, you (the parent or guardian) must meet a number of conditions:
  • You must be getting certain social welfare payments or payments for training, employment schemes or adult education
  • Your total household income must be below a certain amount
  • The child/student must be between 2 and 22 years before 1 October of the year you apply and must be in full-time education at a recognised school or college"
 
rebekah said:
Thanks Lionstour but in fairness I don't think the poster ment the comment as it read...thats the trouble with online communication, it can be hard to gauge the tone of the response! It's gotten me in trouble more than once ;-)
Click to expand...


Correct Rebekah, no ill will intended at all.

So the Back to School Allowance is not literally to be taken as such.
A parent once they qualify for the means test can apply for the payment which is currently worth €200 for any child over the age of two whether he/she attends creche, playgroup or nursery.

Well if that is the case I think the wording should be changed as it is not very transparent and thousands are probably losing out because they are not aware that they can claim it.
 

Welfarite,
I can confirm that children that would be considered "pre-school" (age 2 to 5 or thereabouts) are eligible for a payment once their parents meet the qualifying criteria for the scheme. There is no requirement for the child to be in pre-school/creche/playgroup and the Community Welfare Service does not look for evidence of same.

The CWS does look for evidence of full-time education for 18-22 year olds, to confirm that they will be students for the coming year. Parents of 18-22 yr olds may lose the SW payment for that child over the summer months, as SW require evidence of continuing education before continuing payment. As a consequence, the Back to School units can't use SW income to verify that the child continues to be a dependant, so ask for verification from school/college.

I will check the internal circular which issues to staff and see how it's worded, but I agree that the quote from the website is far from clear, especially for families of 2-5 year olds who may not have applied in the past.

I thought some more about the name of the scheme - and it makes a bit more sense if it's read as an amalgamation of 2 separate schemes (which as I explained earlier is what it is).

The Back to School Clothing......(scheme) and Footwear.....(scheme).
 


I think it would be very confusing to have two separate Schemes, I think it would be more appropriate to leave out the 'back to school element' and call it something like the Autumn Clothing and Footwear Allowance.
 
Welfarite,

The circular issued to staff in relation to the Back to School C&F scheme is worded quite differently to what's displayed on the welfare website.

The circular explains that the allowance is to be paid in respect of eligible children aged 2 to 17 (children of pre-school to secondary school age) and eligible children aged 18 to 22 in full time education.

The section on the website regarding Back to Education and VTOS is also unclear - it would suggest that the participants on these schemes can apply for Back to School allowances for themselves, when in fact they are only entitled to apply in respect of their dependant children.
 
Thanks, Gipimann, for coming back on that and going to trouble of checking it out. It maddens me when these things are not clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register