When they cut the dole

Ajsoprano

I hear all the stories that if you don’t do this or that they will cut your dole. Say for example if you don’t engage in seetec they will cut your dole.

Are people just left to starve to death when you cut their dole?

Do they really cut people’s dole and leave them destitute to walk the earth like the fellow from the Bible that killed his brother and the garden of eden is the dole?

Where are these people? What happens their kids? Do their kids have to walk the streets with them because they have no dole anymore?

splinter65

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I hear all the stories that if you don’t do this or that they will cut your dole. Say for example if you don’t engage in seetec they will cut your dole.

Are people just left to starve to death when you cut their dole?

Do they really cut people’s dole and leave them destitute to walk the earth like the fellow from the Bible that killed his brother and the garden of eden is the dole?

Where are these people? What happens their kids? Do their kids have to walk the streets with them because they have no dole anymore?

Do you see alot of families walking the streets like zombies in rags ?

Ajsoprano

splinter65 wrote: »

Do you see alot of families walking the streets like zombies in rags ?

No that’s the weird thing

jimmycrackcorm

Ajsoprano wrote:

Are people just left to starve to death when you cut their dole?

Generally a portion is cut still leaving a sizeable amount. The dole is very generous and it doesn't take a lot of money to feed a family well if they shop in Lidl for example.

Hitman3000

Ajsoprano wrote:

I hear all the stories that if you don’t do this or that they will cut your dole. Say for example if you don’t engage in seetec they will cut your dole.

What sanction do you think would be appropriate to get people to engage with employment services? The days of leave school and collect dole to retirement are gone.

thebull85

had to sign on for a couple of months last year, i missed a meeting with my 'case worker' and they docked me 50 euro for four weeks. I was told if i missed another meeting id be disqualified for 9 weeks..

thebull85

thebull85 wrote: »

had to sign on for a couple of months last year, i missed a meeting with my 'case worker' and they docked me 50 euro for four weeks. I was told if i missed another meeting id be disqualified for 9 weeks..

That never happened.


There's a minimum amount of social welfare you must get no matter what your circumstances are, and if they want to dock you below that level, you have to give them permission.

thebull85

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That never happened.


There's a minimum amount of social welfare you must get no matter what your circumstances are, and if they want to dock you below that level, you have to give them permission.

it happened alright, i was getting 130 odd euro for 4 weeks. its happened to a few people i know too.

i dont know where you are getting your information from but its wrong.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That never happened.


There's a minimum amount of social welfare you must get no matter what your circumstances are, and if they want to dock you below that level, you have to give them permission.

This is not true. You have a contract with DSP. If you don’t adhere to your side of the contract then eventually they will cancel the contract and your entitlement ends.

thebull85

thebull85 wrote: »

it happened alright, i was getting 130 odd euro for 4 weeks. its happened to a few people i know too.

i dont know where you are getting your information from but its wrong.

Well mine is based on personal experience (albeit not with me, but a close friend, i've seen the paper work in person). My experience is such that the state can not kill you, and the state has decided on a figure that you must be entitled to as a minimum to survive (the actual number escapes me, but I don't believe it was under €150).

This assumes you're over 25 and entitled to the full rate of jobseekers payment.

This was only about 3-4 years ago, so I'm not talking about the 80s or anything.

Tina82

i know a person that was cut for an entire year ... left with nothing and trying to support two kids on their monthly childrens allowance payment and a €50 p/w shopping voucher from St Vincent De Paul which could only be spent in a small corner shop. This person appealed SW decision and was back dated payment. But i witnessed it myself ... this person was very close to breaking point and in a very low place mentally.

Squatter

Tina82 wrote: »

i know a person that was cut for an entire year ... left with nothing and trying to support two kids on their monthly childrens allowance payment and a €50 p/w shopping voucher from St Vincent De Paul which could only be spent in a small corner shop. This person appealed SW decision and was back dated payment. But i witnessed it myself ... this person was very close to breaking point and in a very low place mentally.

Why didn't they apply for SWA? If the SW decision was under appeal then they would have got it.

Tina82

Squatter wrote: »

Why didn't they apply for SWA? If the SW decision was under appeal then they would have got it.

The person was refused SWA. It was a case regarding co habiting. He was in receipt of One Parent Family payment accused of co habiting. When he applied for SWA they were not satisfied that the information he provided was correct ... they believed another person was living in the house and wanted that persons earning included in the application, as this wasnt the case he would not include that persons earning therefore they refused his application for SWA.

Gatling

Tina82 wrote: »

i know a person that was cut for an entire year ... left with nothing and trying to support two kids on their monthly childrens allowance payment and a €50 p/w shopping voucher from St Vincent De Paul which could only be spent in a small corner shop. This person appealed SW decision and was back dated payment. But i witnessed it myself ... this person was very close to breaking point and in a very low place mentally.

Nonsense .

Tina82

Gatling wrote: »

Nonsense .

100% NOT. It was a family member. They were successful in their appeal and were backdated their money.

splinter65

Tina82 wrote: »

100% NOT. It was a family member. They were successful in their appeal and were backdated their money.

This person was given 21 days to get their appeal in with evidence that the alleged co habitee was not living with them.
I’m glad he won his appeal but I can garuntee you that if they’d appealed it immediately they’d have got SWA while gathering the evidence.
The fact that it took a year to be reinstated speaks to me that the response from the claimant was too slow.

Tina82

splinter65 wrote: »

This person was given 21 days to get their appeal in with evidence that the alleged co habitee was not living with them.
I’m glad he won his appeal but I can garuntee you that if they’d appealed it immediately they’d have got SWA while gathering the evidence.
The fact that it took a year to be reinstated speaks to me that the response from the claimant was too slow.

Incorrect... the person was asked to attend a meeting by the social wefare inspector where evidenece was put to him. He was given X amount of days to submit additional documentation rent book, electricity bills, car insurance details etc which he provided, he was also requested to provide details on the person he was accused of co habiting with... that persons car insurance details as he was seen driving that car .. he did not provide that persons details and requested social welfare to contact the person directy if they wanted details regarding that person. Within days his payment was stopped on the basis that he did not provide all requested information (ie other persons car insurance details). He immediately applied the decison on the advice of Citizens Information.

thebull85

they are clamping down big time these days. i mean id worked for 14 years without ever needing to sign on, and when i did sign on i was hounded straight away to come down for meetings.

I felt i should of been left alone for at least two months as id paid into the system for the last 14 years surely id be entitled to some money back without being hounded.

All this 'help' they give you to get a job is not really needed by someone like myself as im well capable of getting a job without help.

They should focus more on getting long term dole heads some work imo.

splinter65

Tina82 wrote: »

Incorrect... the person was asked to attend a meeting by the social wefare inspector where evidenece was put to him. He was given X amount of days to submit additional documentation rent book, electricity bills, car insurance details etc which he provided, he was also requested to provide details on the person he was accused of co habiting with... that persons car insurance details as he was seen driving that car .. he did not provide that persons details and requested social welfare to contact the person directy if they wanted details regarding that person. Within days his payment was stopped on the basis that he did not provide all requested information (ie other persons car insurance details). He immediately applied the decison on the advice of Citizens Information.

So he didn’t supply the inspector with the information requested, and instead tried to tell the inspector how to do his job and was surprised when his payment was stopped.

Twelve Bar Blues

splinter65 wrote: »

So he didn’t supply the inspector with the information requested, and instead tried to tell the inspector how to do his job and was surprised when his payment was stopped.

My understanding is that the person being penalised was not cohabiting, or personally close enough, to the 3rd party to be able to get their personal info in order to give it to the inspector.

splinter65

Twelve Bar Blues wrote: »

My understanding is that the person being penalised was not cohabiting, or personally close enough, to the 3rd party to be able to get their personal info in order to give it to the inspector.

No that’s not what the OP says. The OP says that he declined to provide the information and countered that the inspector should ask the 3rd party for the information directly.

Here’s what welfare.ie says about that:

Closing Claims where documentation is not supplied:

If a claimant fails to furnish all documentation necessary to make a decision on their One-Parent Family Payment application, or fails to attend for interview with a Social Welfare Inspector, a decision cannot be made on the claim in the absence of the information/documentation outstanding. In this event, following relevant advice having been issued regarding the consquences the 's claim is closed. Any future claim will only be considered from the date of re-application.

The closure of a claim in these circumstances may not be appealed to the Social Welfare Appeals Office(as no decision made on claim).

Tina82

splinter65 wrote: »

So he didn’t supply the inspector with the information requested, and instead tried to tell the inspector how to do his job and was surprised when his payment was stopped.[/QUOE]

He supplied all the information regarding himself. The person he was accused of co habitating with was not willing to provide him with the information and requested that if social welfare wanted information regarding them to contact that person directly. This person was in full time employment not receiving any payment from social welfare. The person never received any correspondance from social welfare requesting information.

pudzey101

Was never cut but was made sign on weekly due to missing sign on dates

_Brian

I think what they mean is you might have to smoke/drink a bit less and perhaps the hardest blow of all fall back from the full sky package to just the entertainment pack.

splinter65

Tina82 wrote: »

splinter65 wrote: »

So he didn’t supply the inspector with the information requested, and instead tried to tell the inspector how to do his job and was surprised when his payment was stopped.[/QUOE]

He supplied all the information regarding himself. The person he was accused of co habitating with was not willing to provide him with the information and requested that if social welfare wanted information regarding them to contact that person directly. This person was in full time employment not receiving any payment from social welfare. The person never received any correspondance from social welfare requesting information.

No the Dept don’t contact 3rd parties. If this 3rd party was known to the claimant and not co habiting with them at the time as alleged by the inspector (why would the inspector allege that and why?) then there was nothing to be lost by providing evidence that they weren’t living at that address. It’s pretty easy to get evidence.
I’d be pretty annoyed if someone I knew very well could easily help me to disprove an untrue allegation and they flat out refused.
Especially if it meant I lost my entitlement for a year till it was sorted out.
What evidence was produced in the end that meant that the appeal was allowed?

Mickeroo

thebull85 wrote: »

they are clamping down big time these days. i mean id worked for 14 years without ever needing to sign on, and when i did sign on i was hounded straight away to come down for meetings.

I felt i should of been left alone for at least two months as id paid into the system for the last 14 years surely id be entitled to some money back without being hounded.

All this 'help' they give you to get a job is not really needed by someone like myself as im well capable of getting a job without help.

They should focus more on getting long term dole heads some work imo.

While I agree with your point, my experience of Seetec was if they figured you were probably going to have no issues finding a job yourself eventually they pretty much left you alone as long as you attended your weekly job search and meeting with the case worker every three weeks.

Tina82

splinter65 wrote: »

Tina82 wrote: »

No the Dept don’t contact 3rd parties. If this 3rd party was known to the claimant and not co habiting with them at the time as alleged by the inspector (why would the inspector allege that and why?) then there was nothing to be lost by providing evidence that they weren’t living at that address. It’s pretty easy to get evidence.
I’d be pretty annoyed if someone I knew very well could easily help me to disprove an untrue allegation and they flat out refused.
Especially if it meant I lost my entitlement for a year till it was sorted out.
What evidence was produced in the end that meant that the appeal was allowed?

So if you are receiving no payment from social welfare and social welfare have not contacted you to provide personal information on yourself...would you be happy to supply a third party with your personal information to give to social welfare ??
This person wasnt known well to my family member. Their was no extra evidence produced. Appeal was heard and claimant was successful. It came to light that it was a tip off received with obviously not strong enough eveidence to back it up. However the result of that was a man and 2 kids lost the house they were renting as rent allowance was automatically stopped and he had to feed and cloth 2 children with a €50 shopping voucher from the local corner shop and whatever he got in childrens allowance for the month.

Tony EH

thebull85 wrote: »

they are clamping down big time these days. i mean id worked for 14 years without ever needing to sign on, and when i did sign on i was hounded straight away to come down for meetings.

I felt i should of been left alone for at least two months as id paid into the system for the last 14 years surely id be entitled to some money back without being hounded.

All this 'help' they give you to get a job is not really needed by someone like myself as im well capable of getting a job without help.

They should focus more on getting long term dole heads some work imo.

It seems to be quite random.

I know several people on social welfare. Ironically, more now than ever before, despite the so called "full employment" nonsnese we're told and employers "crying" out for staff :rolleyes:. They're all got decades of work behind them too, and still find it hard getting a new job? Some were annoyed constantly within the first couple of weeks on benefit and some were left alone completely.

I'm of the opinion that if you've been turfed out of your job and sign on for benefit, they should leave you the fuck alone and only engage if you want to seek their "services", most of which sound like a waste of time. Getting made redundant is stressful enough as it is.

Also, I think it was a real kick in the teeth for people when they cut benefit from 12 months to 9. Especially when there are people that have been on unemployment assistance for years with no sign of a job coming their way. Unemployment benefit stems directly from your contributions and if you've been solidly employed for years, it should last longer than 9 months.