Denied JSA due to partner

Car99 · 28-11-2020 9:38pm

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

The answer to your question is that cohabiting couples are deemed a financial unit because if one of them decided to give up work to be run the house they could receive the dole indefinitely. There is a threshold which the partner continuing to work must earn above and, your partner must exceed this. My mother, for example, never got benefits when not working for 20 years because my father exceeded the threshold.

But if they were married you father got double the tax free allowance where as unmarried cohabiting couple would not get the extra tax free earnings.

Habata · 28-11-2020 9:41pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jaysus I can’t believe two days in and the OP is still fighting this.

I've yet to see a logical reason about it.

Habata · 28-11-2020 9:42pm

Habata wrote: »

So couple A1 and A2, and couple B1 and B2.

A1 lives with B1, and A2 lives with B2. Everyone that's entitled to JSA gets it?

But, if A1 lives with A2, and B1 lives with B2. It's treated completely differently?

How does that make sense?

Does this make sense?

Habata · 28-11-2020 9:42pm

Habata wrote: »

Is there a threshold? If two students move in after being together a week, are they co-habiting? Are they treated as a joint income?

Is there discretion involved? Or is every couple treated the same?

yabadabado · 28-11-2020 9:43pm

Habata wrote: »

I lost my job and moved in with my partner. And have been denied jsa for that reason. Is that normal? Is there any way I can appeal? Seems very unfair. And I feel very stupid for not just saying I lived with a friend. There's no transfers between us. I'm not getting money from them. So why would I be denied jsa

You can appeal it but you won't win.

You are cohabiting and social welfare have correctly implemented the rules.

yabadabado · 28-11-2020 9:45pm

Habata wrote: »

Is there discretion involved? Or is every couple treated the same?

What discretion is needed?
You have told social welfare you are living with your partner and they have applied the rules of the scheme.

Habata · 28-11-2020 9:51pm

yabadabado wrote: »

What discretion is needed?
You have told social welfare you are living with your partner and they have applied the rules of the scheme.

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

Necro · 28-11-2020 9:53pm

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

You have the right of appealing the decision with the independent Social Welfare Appeals office if you feel the decision is incorrect.

jj880 · 28-11-2020 9:54pm

Habata wrote: »

Does this make sense?

Some posters have already expressed their opinions that the rules are somewhat unfair. Im not sure how getting more posters to agree will help you. As for a written admission that you are cohabiting you gave this when applying for JSA. Even if you and your partner broke up tomorrow Im not sure how you would convince welfare of this. You may have to reapply for JSA. I dont mean to sound harsh but it does seem like your only options are for you (or your partner) to move out or to try and get a job sorted quickly.

yabadabado · 28-11-2020 9:54pm

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

Its the very same thing,its cohabitation.One couple just happens to be together longer.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 28-11-2020 9:55pm

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.

Habata · 28-11-2020 10:01pm

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.

Necro · 28-11-2020 10:03pm

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

Habata · 28-11-2020 10:04pm

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.

Buddy Bubs · 28-11-2020 10:05pm

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.

Habata · 28-11-2020 10:07pm

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.

Buddy Bubs · 28-11-2020 10:13pm

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.

Habata · 28-11-2020 10:15pm

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/

yabadabado · 28-11-2020 10:16pm

Habata wrote: »

Therefor the below is incorrect no?

What is incorrect about what I posted ?

Smee_Again · 28-11-2020 10:19pm

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.

Habata · 28-11-2020 10:19pm

yabadabado wrote: »

What is incorrect about what I posted ?

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

yabadabado · 28-11-2020 10:26pm

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.

28-11-2020 10:29pm

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.

anewme · 28-11-2020 10:39pm

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.

GarIT · 28-11-2020 10:52pm

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

wench · 29-11-2020 12:09am

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.

Liamo57 · 29-11-2020 12:29am

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.

Jambonjunior · 30-11-2020 3:27pm

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.

fantaiscool · 01-12-2020 12:44am

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.

Geuze · 01-12-2020 1:54am

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.

Habata · 01-12-2020 7:00pm

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.

ShaShaBear · 02-12-2020 10:42pm

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?

anewme · 02-12-2020 11:14pm

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.

03-12-2020 12:37am

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.

anewme · 03-12-2020 12:55am

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?

fantaiscool · 03-12-2020 2:52am

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.

03-12-2020 8:48pm

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.

Habata · 03-12-2020 10:30pm

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.

fantaiscool · 04-12-2020 2:03pm

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.

Smee_Again · 04-12-2020 2:14pm

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.

XVII · 04-12-2020 2:58pm

OP, I know that it seems unfair to you (and it is considering your situation), but there are lot of rules implemented to avoid specific situations, be it on government level, work, etc. In this specific case, it could be this:

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

The answer to your question is that cohabiting couples are deemed a financial unit because if one of them decided to give up work to be run the house they could receive the dole indefinitely. There is a threshold which the partner continuing to work must earn above and, your partner must exceed this. My mother, for example, never got benefits when not working for 20 years because my father exceeded the threshold.

Imagine a situation where your hypothetical 1 week partner _does_ support you when you live together at the same place? Surely it would be unfair to all other people to pay you while you simply stay at home all the time not working?

This is why SW has no choice but to treat all cohabiting couples in the same way, as they have no way to prove which couples are simply sharing the space and which actually support each other. There is no way for them to know which is which, and that's why they have to assume the "worst" case.

Recliner · 04-12-2020 3:26pm

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.

But you don't have a house mate. In your case the assumption is correct.
There aren't different levels of co-habitation, you're either living with someone or you're not. You're living with the person that you're in a relationship with, therefore you are co-habiting. Doesn't matter if it's been 1 week, 1 year or 10 years.
And TBH, if the going rate is still €203, I can't see how you can possibly pay half the rent plus half of all bills and buy your own food and all and any other sundry items you will need, plus pay any loan/car repayments without some financial support from your OH.
And if everyone here agreed with you, it still won't change the situation.

atr2002 · 04-12-2020 3:40pm

So stay at home parent's should just say they are couch surfing and claim entitlements?

We're all suckers

04-12-2020 3:41pm

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.

You are living with your partner. You are a couple living together.
That's why they take you as a family unit.

anewme · 04-12-2020 3:47pm

bubblypop wrote: »

You are living with your partner. You are a couple living together.
That's why they take you as a family unit.

But not in the eyes of the Revenue.

04-12-2020 4:26pm

anewme wrote: »

But not in the eyes of the Revenue.

No. But in the eyes of social welfare they are. And that's what's important here.
I don't think it's right either that 2 different government departments treat the same couples differently. But that's the way it is until it is changed.
So the OP has options, get a job or move house.

Smee_Again · 04-12-2020 4:28pm

anewme wrote: »

But not in the eyes of the Revenue.

So change that rule, not the social welfare rule.

GreeBo · 04-12-2020 4:31pm

Habata wrote: »

How do they justify it? What's the legal basis?
Seems insane. If I wasn't having sex with my housemate I would have jsa? Has anyone fought this? Legally speaking the state doesn't see us as being in a relationship.

If you werent having sex you probably wouldnt be living there for free?

anewme · 04-12-2020 8:30pm

Smee_Again wrote: »

So change that rule, not the social welfare rule.

Absolutely.

It should be consistent, one way or the other

Habata · 06-12-2020 8:59pm

GreeBo wrote: »

If you werent having sex you probably wouldnt be living there for free?

You didn't actually read any of the thread did you.

Denied JSA due to partner

Comments