Wisdom of the welfare

Santa Claus

My friend is unfortunate enough to have been unemlployed twice in the past 2 years (first time he got redundancy from job and then didn't get made permanent after 6 months in new job).

Anyhow, last month he was told he was approaching a year on jobseekers benefit (between the 2 periods of unemployment) so he had to submit a new claim but would automatically qualify for JB again.

However when he went to collect his money, 3 days had been deducted from his payment.
I understand that they don't pay the first 3 days of a new unemployment claim, but seeing as this was a continuation case I would have thought that this deduction didn't apply (it's like he wasn't unemployed in the eyes of the Social & FA dept for those 3 days between his old claim and new claim).

I told him to query this with his office and after being hung up on a few times when phoning he called in to his office in town and was told "You'd need to ring and ask to speak to a supervisor" He asked if he could see the supervisor but was told "he's not as his desk, you're best to ring".

Does anyone know if this deduction is correct for a continuation claim or a mistake by whoever processed it ?

Nolanger

He's entitled to his first three days' payment if he received a Benefit payment within six months before the start of his new Benefit claim. As he was working for 6 months in his second job it looks like it's too long between claims to receive this money.

Mrs. MacGyver

It depends,

If he used up all his 312 or 390 days on his first Jobseeker's Claim. then his second claim would start from the beginning and he would have 3 waiting days as it would be a brand new claim.

If it was a case whereby he didn't use up all of his 312 or 390 days on his first Jobseeker's Calim and made a repeat claim for Jobseeker's Benefit within 26 weeks of the first claim ending then there wold not be waiting days on the second claim.

It looks like that there may have been more than 26 weeks between the ending of the first claim and the beginning of the second claim, hence the 3 waiting days. I hope this explains it ok.

Santa Claus

When he got made unemployed the 2nd time they continued on with his old claim up to the 312 or 390 days and that's why he had to submit a new claim at the start of the month.
I could understand if he had to wait 3 days when signing back off after he had been working, but to be unemployed and go from 1 claim to a new one and be stopped 3 days doesn't make any sense (especially coming up to christmas he wasn't impressed).

He finally got speaking to a supervisor who said he'll send him out a letter detailing why he wasn't paid the 3 days, but that won't be until the new year. My mate asked why he couldn't explain it over the phone and was told "it's too complicated".

It's people like that who refuse to interract with the public who give the rest of the public service the image of being lazy and uninterested!!
(I know from my own dealing with revenue that they were given serious customer service training a few years ago and will bend over backwards to help you, but doesn't seem to be the same with S&FA unfortunately....maybe that's because revenue are seen by powers that be in civil service as making money while s&fa just spend it).

Mrs. MacGyver

Thats not entirely fair. Some things are difficult to explain over the phone such as the issue of waiting days and means testing. People can often get confused.

tomred1

It is obivius that his first claim exhauted becuase of the two periods of unemployment (the 2nd claim linked back tothe 1st claim) He had the contributions to re-quailfy for benefit but as it is a new benefit cliam the waiting days have to apply. It is a stupid rule but the office have no chioce.