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

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.

.
Click to expand...
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.
 
But "Mrs C's best Buddy" is probably signing for credits and therefore is on the list of "Registered unemployed".
 
Black Sheep said:
But "Mrs C's best Buddy" is probably signing for credits and therefore is on the list of "Registered unemployed".
Click to expand...
Indeed - and Mrs C isn't allowed to sign on for credits, simply because she is longer out of work than the best buddy.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
 
Complainer said:
Homemaker - Kids growing up a bit, so certainly available for work part-time.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Bronte said:
Well that means there is something wrong with the system or the way it is administered.
Click to expand...
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register