Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Denied JSA due to partner

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Habata wrote: »
    A young couple start going out. Move in temporarily after a week . Seems different to a couple who have lived together for ten years. Or someone staying on a couch after losing a job again temporarily. It doesn't seem reasonable for the state to treat all of those as single financial units

    Wouldn't be feasible to start getting to that level of granularity, much too complicated. Easier to just have a black and white co-habiting or not rule, whether that is fair or not.


  • Options
    #63
    Habata
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Habata


    Xavier Bald Knickers wrote: »
    Wouldn't be feasible to start getting to that level of granularity, much too complicated. Easier to just have a black and white co-habiting or not rule, whether that is fair or not.

    Does this apply to JSA or is it just for qualified adult payments?
    The criteria for assessing cohabitation
    the duration of the relationship
    the basis on which the couple live together;
    the degree of financial dependence of either adult on the other and any agreements in respect of their finances
    The degree and nature of any financial arrangements between the adults including any joint purchase of an estate or interest in land or joint acquisition of personal property
    whether there are one or more dependent children
    whether one of the adults cares for and supports the children of the other
    the degree to which the adults present themselves to others as a couple


    A couple who have decided to share together for a temporary period only (example: a couple who are unmarried or not in a civil partnership where one party lives elsewhere and is only on holiday in Ireland) are not therefore cohabiting as husband and wife/civil partners and one could not claim an increase for the other as a qualified adult.


  • Options
    #64
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 51,045 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Habata wrote: »
    Does this apply to JSA or is it just for qualified adult payments?

    All means tested payments, this has been explained to you repeatedly.

    Jobseeker's Allowance is means tested and not based on PRSI


  • Options
    #65
    Habata
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Habata


    All means tested payments, this has been explained to you repeatedly.

    Jobseeker's Allowance is means tested and not based on PRSI


    Therefor the below is incorrect no?
    yabadabado wrote: »
    Its the very same thing,its cohabitation.One couple just happens to be together longer.


  • Options
    #66
    Buddy Bubs
    Registered Users Posts: 3,476 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs


    If we agree with you will it make you happy? Won't get you any benefits though and there's no appeal or anything.
    For what it's worth I do think you're being hard done by in your particular situation but they are the rules.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Habata
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Habata


    Buddy Bubs wrote: »
    If we agree with you will it make you happy? Won't get you any benefits though and there's no appeal or anything.
    For what it's worth I do think you're being hard done by in your particular situation but they are the rules.

    I'm asking about the rules. I'm not trying to get posters to agree with me personally.


  • Options
    #68
    Buddy Bubs
    Registered Users Posts: 3,476 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs


    Habata wrote: »
    I'm asking about the rules. I'm not trying to get posters to agree with me personally.

    Post 2 in this thread, the very first reply, gave you the rules.


  • Options
    #69
    Habata
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Habata


    Buddy Bubs wrote: »
    Post 2 in this thread, the very first reply, gave you the rules.

    That doesn't match:

    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/d258d8-cohabitation/


  • Options
    #70
    yabadabado
    Registered Users Posts: 16,520 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    Habata wrote: »
    Therefor the below is incorrect no?

    What is incorrect about what I posted ?


  • Options
    #71
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Habata wrote: »
    I'm asking about the rules. I'm not trying to get posters to agree with me personally.

    The rules are what the dole office told you they are.

    Doesn’t matter what people on here say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Habata
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Habata


    yabadabado wrote: »
    What is incorrect about what I posted ?

    There's criteria regarding cohabitation. It's not a black and white issue.


  • Options
    #73
    yabadabado
    Registered Users Posts: 16,520 ✭✭✭✭yabadabado


    Habata wrote: »
    There's criteria regarding cohabitation. It's not a black and white issue.

    You told social welfare you are living with your partner and have been assessed as cohab.

    The hypothetical one week couple would also be assessed as co hab if they stated the same.


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    OP, rather than spend the last two days arguing with boards users, have you spent any time appealing with the welfare? No one here can really help. You’ve been told time and again why you were denied and your options are simply:

    1. Appeal with them
    2. Move out
    3. Get a job
    4. Complain here some more and have no money

    Cos like it or not your partner is supporting you if you’re living with them and they’re paying rent & bills.


  • Options
    #75
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,860 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    I get where OP is coming from.

    The income is means tested as and you are assessed on your partners income as a household. Yet, he is not allowed use your tax free allowance (as would a married couple)

    So you are treated as a married couple for income but not for allowances.

    As someone else said been like this years.

    Families unmarried with children are treated the same. Treated as a family for income, but not allowances.


  • Options
    #76
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Habata wrote: »
    A young couple start going out. Move in temporarily after a week . Seems different to a couple who have lived together for ten years. Or someone staying on a couch after losing a job again temporarily. It doesn't seem reasonable for the state to treat all of those as single financial units

    If that was the rule everyone would say their arrangement was new or temporary


  • Options
    #77
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭wench


    When I worked there (fadó, fadó) we were told it stems from the constitutional protection of the family, which is based on marriage.

    A married couple are jointly assessed, and therefore the same rules apply to other household setups such as cohabiting couples.
    This is to ensure that they are not treated more favourably by the system than a married couple.

    As I said on your other thread, this approach can have benefits too, as a cohabitant can claim an ADA for their partner.


  • Options
    #78
    Liamo57
    Closed Accounts Posts: 157 ✭✭Liamo57


    You should apply for Job Seekers Benefit and become part of the JOBSEEKERS scheme where you are supposed to be actively seeking employment. You are entitled to this and it is not means tested. Apply straight away.


  • Options
    #79
    Jambonjunior
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Jambonjunior


    This has been an education.

    I never would have thought that if your girlfriend or boyfriend lost their job and moved in but paid they're way, that you would be treated as a family unit automatically.


  • Options
    #80
    fantaiscool
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭fantaiscool


    Jambonjunior wrote: »
    This has been an education.

    I never would have thought that if your girlfriend or boyfriend lost their job and moved in but paid they're way, that you would be treated as a family unit automatically.




    As i've said before on here, you have to educate yourself and be careful in how you deal with SW.


  • Options
    #81
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,086 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Habata wrote: »
    And no JSA. So why is my insurance premium the same?

    PRSI is used to finance JSB.

    JSA is paid for by general taxes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Habata
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Habata


    fantaiscool wrote: »
    As i've said before on here, you have to educate yourself and be careful in how you deal with SW.

    Being honest and inexperienced about the system cost me a lot so.


  • Options
    #83
    ShaShaBear
    Registered Users Posts: 5,528 ✭✭✭ShaShaBear


    Habata wrote: »
    Being honest and inexperienced about the system cost me a lot so.

    Lying and getting caught would do you no favours either. If this is the level of complaint you take from Social Welfare following the rules, then I hate to think what would happen if you had lied, gotten approved and then had to pay every penny back.

    When my partner moved in with me, I informed Social Welfare on the first day. We had not been living together more than an hour. Because a single family unit has nothing to do with sex as you repeatedly put it, but the presence of more than one individual with an income capable of supporting all members of the household. Naturally, they would assume that two people with a relationship that decide to share a home would also share finances to some extent. Just like if you moved in with your parents, you would be assessed on their earnings because they also have the capability to support you by sharing finances. And I presume you don't have sex with your parents?


  • Options
    #84
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,860 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    ShaShaBear wrote: »
    Lying and getting caught would do you no favours either. If this is the level of complaint you take from Social Welfare following the rules, then I hate to think what would happen if you had lied, gotten approved and then had to pay every penny back.

    When my partner moved in with me, I informed Social Welfare on the first day. We had not been living together more than an hour. Because a single family unit has nothing to do with sex as you repeatedly put it, but the presence of more than one individual with an income capable of supporting all members of the household. Naturally, they would assume that two people with a relationship that decide to share a home would also share finances to some extent. Just like if you moved in with your parents, you would be assessed on their earnings because they also have the capability to support you by sharing finances. And I presume you don't have sex with your parents?

    The point bring though, the Revenue have it both ways.

    They are expecting the partner to support with earnings, while at the same time not allowing the partner not working transfer their tax free allowance to the partner supporting them.

    So its assessed on income as a couple/family but on allowances as single.


  • Options
    #85
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    anewme wrote: »
    The point bring though, the Revenue have it both ways.

    They are expecting the partner to support with earnings, while at the same time not allowing the partner not working transfer their tax free allowance to the partner supporting them.

    So its assessed on income as a couple/family but on allowances as single.

    The Department of Revenue is not the Department Of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, so in this case the revenue is irrelevant because it’s the DEASP who are assessing this as a family unit. Even if revenue did it wouldn’t make any difference in the OPs case.


  • Options
    #86
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,860 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Department of Revenue is not the Department Of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, so in this case the revenue is irrelevant because it’s the DEASP who are assessing this as a family unit. Even if revenue did it wouldn’t make any difference in the OPs case.

    It's the Government and there should be joined up thinking, it oh, you are a family here, but not here.

    Either you are a unit, or not.

    If the OP was not working, could she not tra safer her tax free allowance to her partner if he was on higher tax if they were a family unit?


  • Options
    #87
    fantaiscool
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭fantaiscool


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Department of Revenue is not the Department Of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, so in this case the revenue is irrelevant because it’s the DEASP who are assessing this as a family unit. Even if revenue did it wouldn’t make any difference in the OPs case.


    Thank you for demonstrating the mentality of many people working in deasp.


  • Options
    #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fantaiscool wrote: »
    Thank you for demonstrating the mentality of many people working in deasp.

    It’s not a mentality it’s a matter of fact.


  • Options
    #89
    Habata
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Habata


    ShaShaBear wrote: »
    . Because a single family unit has nothing to do with sex as you repeatedly put it, but the presence of more than one individual with an income capable of supporting all members of the household. Naturally, they would assume that two people with a relationship that decide to share a home would also share finances to some extent. Just like if you moved in with your parents, you would be assessed on their earnings because they also have the capability to support you by sharing finances. And I presume you don't have sex with your parents?

    And what if the assumptions are wrong?
    There's all sorts of reasons to move into the same house. It doesn't mean the people are a family unit.
    What if the earner isn't supporting the other?
    Imo it's mad to assume that two people that are going out are supporting each other. Usually that's only something that happens after many years.

    It's a weird flex by the government. Double standards regarding the tax credits. And they can make assumptions without having to back it up. And i don't understand how and why the criteria for a qualifying adult doesn't apply to determining a family unit?

    My whole point about this is that there's different levels of "cohabitation". And it should be treated differently. I'm out of work and a difficult time, I'm doing my best to get a job, I've paid my taxes and I'm denied support for unreasonable reasons.

    But if I had a different housemate everything would be fine. Which is why I asked if anyone had ever appealed in a similar situation.

    I know people here don't care, and think I'm trying to convince them of my situation. I'm trying to understand the logic and justification. The replies of "that's just how it is" don't do much.


  • Options
    #90
    fantaiscool
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭fantaiscool


    Habata wrote: »
    And what if the assumptions are wrong?
    There's all sorts of reasons to move into the same house. It doesn't mean the people are a family unit.
    What if the earner isn't supporting the other?
    Imo it's mad to assume that two people that are going out are supporting each other. Usually that's only something that happens after many years.

    It's a weird flex by the government. Double standards regarding the tax credits. And they can make assumptions without having to back it up. And i don't understand how and why the criteria for a qualifying adult doesn't apply to determining a family unit?

    My whole point about this is that there's different levels of "cohabitation". And it should be treated differently. I'm out of work and a difficult time, I'm doing my best to get a job, I've paid my taxes and I'm denied support for unreasonable reasons.

    But if I had a different housemate everything would be fine. Which is why I asked if anyone had ever appealed in a similar situation.

    I know people here don't care, and think I'm trying to convince them of my situation. I'm trying to understand the logic and justification. The replies of "that's just how it is" don't do much.


    many of the people working in deasp think that way though - "thats just how it is". even if it's not really like that. don't expect them to have empathy. if you understand their mentality you can better equip yourself in dealing with them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Habata wrote: »
    And what if the assumptions are wrong?
    There's all sorts of reasons to move into the same house. It doesn't mean the people are a family unit.
    What if the earner isn't supporting the other?
    Imo it's mad to assume that two people that are going out are supporting each other. Usually that's only something that happens after many years.

    It's a weird flex by the government. Double standards regarding the tax credits. And they can make assumptions without having to back it up. And i don't understand how and why the criteria for a qualifying adult doesn't apply to determining a family unit?

    My whole point about this is that there's different levels of "cohabitation". And it should be treated differently. I'm out of work and a difficult time, I'm doing my best to get a job, I've paid my taxes and I'm denied support for unreasonable reasons.

    But if I had a different housemate everything would be fine. Which is why I asked if anyone had ever appealed in a similar situation.

    I know people here don't care, and think I'm trying to convince them of my situation. I'm trying to understand the logic and justification. The replies of "that's just how it is" don't do much.

    Because the state has decided that for people in your or similar situations it is not unreasonable to expect one's partner to support them rather than the state.

    You can pick holes in the logic, point out how it the rules are inconsistent across different government departments and you'd be right but at the end of the day it isn't unreasonable to expect your partner to support you if he/she can afford to.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement