Issues at work
Comments
-
SkyeKnight wrote: »That won't make any difference to the claim though. If you are a couple, you are still a couple when you live apart. Eg. if someone has a flat in the city near where they work but their family lives in another house in the country they still have to claim together.
This would come down to whether your flat was your main place of residence or not - if you spent the bulk of your time there and were registered there for council tax (and not at the country house) and occasionally visited the partner out in the country then you would not be classed as living together.0 -
Being a parent is about so much more than genetics. And I can say that with confidence because both my children are adopted.
At least you know for certain that you are not a biological parent but an adoptive parent. Now, try and have some empathy, imagine that you are a 'father' but do not know whether or not you are the biological father. According to research, around 1 in 25 men are unknowingly raising another man's child. Men should have the option of choosing to do that, not have it foisted upon them by immoral women.0 -
That's nonsense if a claimant claims contributions-based JSA.
The OP would still be asked if he is living with a partner and if he says NO, he is lying.0 -
I don't see why. [I'm aware of the 'benefits household' but that should only apply to means-tested appns and calculations]
A claimant famously lived in a car and successfully claimed contributions-based JSA 3 years ago.
Although nothing surprises me re some public sector forms these days. I saw one council's HB appn form that listed 6 possibilities for sexuality and asked - amongst it's 80-odd questions - how many bathrooms were in the property.
I realise each council likes to produce their own forms but it's amazing how much they all vary for the same benefit. Hopefully the backbench MP's bid to minimise forms and simplify re Clear English will get Govt support. The old DWP script means some still ask 20-year-old women seeking to claim JSA if they receive coal miners' compensation £ (!)Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
I don't see why.
That is just the way that they do it.
If the claimant is then not entitled to C-JSA then they will process the claim for I-JSA at the same time.0 -
At least you know for certain that you are not a biological parent but an adoptive parent. Now, try and have some empathy, imagine that you are a 'father' but do not know whether or not you are the biological father. According to research, around 1 in 25 men are unknowingly raising another man's child. Men should have the option of choosing to do that, not have it foisted upon them by immoral women.
Well if "immoral men" kept it in their pants, there would be no doubt as to paternity, now would there? Typical Trump-ism. Blame women.
And being a parent, or a father, is so much different from being a sperm donor. You don't need to be the latter to be either of the former. If the OP had any empathy themselves, then putting a child through this irresponsible form of parenting that involves sneaking around stealing DNA samples, and hiding from paternal responsibilities, would be the furthest thing from their mind. If their only interest is genetics, the child might be better off without a father in their life.
And please do post the source of this staggering bit of research! Because there is no basis whatsoever upon which there is evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.0 -
PersianCatLady wrote: »I don't see why.
That is just the way that they do it.
If the claimant is then not entitled to C-JSA then they will process the claim for I-JSA at the same time.
I realise that - but they should stop doing so in such cases.
It's a waste of both the claimant's and their time (when they could be seeing other customers).
It reminds me of a case I think CPAG/rightsnet highlighted last year.
A claimant applied for contributions-based JSA. He had assets (shares from memory). The JCP held up processing his JSA claim until they could take copies of his share certificates. They then called him in to ascertain the total value via some old online matrix the DWP uses. The value differed (presumably 'cos the share prices were different on the day he was at the JCP compared with when he applied for JSA). It was referred to compliance/counter fraud - even though he wasn't even applying for a means-tested benefit.
I think he eventually received his JSA after 3 months (by which time he was back in work).
Only because he complained in writing did this even happen. The JCP in question didn't even apologise - merely stating that they weren't used to people claims conts' JSA! What a waste of time and resources, quite apart from the potential breaches of privacy and the DPA.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
Why should your girl-friend not know? It doesn't sound as if you both are not being totally open and honest with each other.
More a problem to be discussed on the Relationships forum.0 -
And please do post the source of this staggering bit of research! Because there is no basis whatsoever upon which there is evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.
"Paternal discrepancy (PD) occurs when a child is identified as being biologically fathered by someone other than the man who believes he is the father. This paper examines published evidence on levels of PD and its public health consequences. Rates vary between studies from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%, n = 17)."
"For any father, identifying that the child they are raising as their biological progeny is actually sired by another man (paternal discrepancy (PD)) can have substantial health consequences."
"Typically, PD is associated with a woman having a sexual relationship (usually covertly) outside of her marriage or long term partnership."
(Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health - Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences - Mark A Bellis, Karen Hughes, Sara Hughes, John R Ashton)0 -
I suppose 3.7% is actually quite low, when you think of all of the Waynetta Slobb/Jeremy Kyle/Am I Bovvered lovely young ladies out there today.
From memory 8% of mothers in Knowsley failed to name a father on the birth certificate according to the NW Public Health guy (Knowsley is the borough in England with the highest % of single mothers at the last Census).Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards