DWP take Cheshire woman's inheritance over supermarket job

Unravel_Morrison said:
You didn't answer my question. If I'm laid off today what would you tell me to do?
Click to expand...

I told you to go to the website to check your entitlement.... given I have no idea of your personal circumstances.

If on completion, your entitled to support then I would advise to claim it, via the suggested channel.

As stated, I don't work in processing benefits, so I, personally would not advise anything further
 
Geoff_B said:
I told you to go to the website to check your entitlement.... given I have no idea of your personal circumstances.

If on completion, your entitled to support then I would advise to claim it, via the suggested channel.

As stated, I don't work in processing benefits, so I, personally would not advise anything further
Click to expand...
So you wouldn't for example tell me to check when my employer processes the payroll with HMRC.

If I put a claim in now for UC and my employer runs the payroll at the end of the month, even if I have been paid up, I wouldn't receive any benefits until probably June 10th maybe?
 
The whole point of the article isn't whether she is guilty of claiming money she shouldn't. She is guilty, she said she was guilty and agreed a repayment plan based on her income. Her income changed so her repayments did. The fact it came from inheritance is what made the news but if that had come from a lottery win, a new job or her pension lump sum it would've been the same.

The whataboutery regarding wealthy people getting away with stuff doesn't change any facts. I fully agree that anyone, whatever their levels of wealth, should be penalised if they have acted fraudulently.
 
Unravel_Morrison said:
So you wouldn't for example tell me to check when my employer processes the payroll with HMRC.

If I put a claim in now for UC and my employer runs the payroll at the end of the month, even if I have been paid up, I wouldn't receive any benefits until probably June 10th maybe?
Click to expand...
That would depend if your entitled to claim anything, as already stated, depending on your personal circumstances as everyone is different. I would follow the advice given.

I am aware of the payroll reporting issue but I am not trained in delivering benefit advice, therefore would not give any other than the generic advice already given, and then to follow the advice given once you have checked your entitlement.
 
Geoff_B said:
That would depend if your entitled to claim anything, as already stated, depending on your personal circumstances as everyone is different. I would follow the advice given.

I am aware of the payroll reporting issue but I am not trained in delivering benefit advice, therefore would not give any other than the generic advice already given, and then to follow the advice given once you have checked your entitlement.
Click to expand...
But you'd expect the work coach to give out that advice?

They don't.
 
Nano said:
The whole point of the article isn't whether she is guilty of claiming money she shouldn't. She is guilty, she said she was guilty and agreed a repayment plan based on her income. Her income changed so her repayments did.
Click to expand...
I would argue that it is more complex than that otherwise there wouldn't have been four court hearings over six months, the DWP being ordered to calculate how much money she would've been entitled to if she had declared her job to offset her liability, the DWP failing to do that & the fourth judge signing off that they can reclaim the full amount from her inheritance.
 
TeessideCleveland said:
How about this one?

www.theguardian.com

Carer convicted over benefit error worth 30p a week fights to clear his name

George Henderson had to sell his home to repay nearly £20,000, years after ticking wrong box on carer’s allowance form
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Although the way it’s collected seems rather extreme, he is asking for money back that he received in error. He’s not entitled to that money no matter how it’s materialised.

Again he will have received yearly letters reminding him of his responsibilities. An argument used for WASPI that they didn’t receive notice, can’t be argued when someone does received notice, it’s 1 or other.

Again it seems rather harsh the way it’s been collected but I can’t believe anyone would argue he’s entitled to the money back
 
Geoff_B said:
Although the way it’s collected seems rather extreme, he is asking for money back that he received in error. He’s not entitled to that money no matter how it’s materialised.

Again he will have received yearly letters reminding him of his responsibilities. An argument used for WASPI that they didn’t receive notice, can’t be argued when someone does received notice, it’s 1 or other.

Again it seems rather harsh the way it’s been collected but I can’t believe anyone would argue he’s entitled to the money back
Click to expand...
You're so heartless.
 
sherlock1969 said:
You're so heartless.
Click to expand...
Hardly as stated it’s not a great way to collect but if you’re advocating he should be allowed to keep the money then it’s a pointless argument as it would never happen. I have sympathy for his situation but don’t support him in asking for the money back.
 
Geoff_B said:
Hardly as stated it’s not a great way to collect but if you’re advocating he should be allowed to keep the money then it’s a pointless argument as it would never happen. I have sympathy for his situation but don’t support him in asking for the money back.
Click to expand...

He gained 30p a week and they forced him to sell his home.

What is wrong with you?
 
sherlock1969 said:
He gained 30p a week and they forced him to sell his home.

What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...
Ok, 30p a week = £20,000 overpayment?

6 year claim. Unless my maths is abit off it doesn’t quite stack up.

I mean he’s been convicted in a court of law, lost an appeal but you think he should be entitled to all the money he falsely received?

If you don’t think he’s entitled to it then your position isn’t any different to mine.

What exactly is it that you’re so angry about in this case?
 
Geoff_B said:
Ok, 30p a week = £20,000 overpayment?

6 year claim. Unless my maths is abit off it doesn’t quite stack up.

I mean he’s been convicted in a court of law, lost an appeal but you think he should be entitled to all the money he falsely received?

If you don’t think he’s entitled to it then your position isn’t any different to mine.

What exactly is it that you’re so angry about in this case?
Click to expand...
30p a week over the earnings threshold .. which means the Carers Allowance would stop. It doesn't taper like other benefits. You go 1p over the allowed amount you can earn you lose the full £76 Carers Allowance .. So, they've reclaimed ALL the Carers Allowance he's been paid over the years because his average weekly earnings was calculated as 30p a week over the threshold.

So because he earned £96 pound over the threshold spread over those 6 years .. they've reclaimed the full £20,000 he got in carers over that 6 year period.

That's what the issue is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top