Question about JSA

spora

Hey,

I'm asking this question on behalf of my sisters bf. My sis and her bf are currently living together in my dads house. My sis is working full time and gets paid roughly £22,000 a year. He bf on the other hand cant seem to get a job. He is genuinly looking so he made a claim for JSA. He made the claim in mid Sept and has only just got an interview at the jobcentre to complete the claim.

Anyway, they said that he is not entitled to JSA because he has a partner (they arent married or anything) who works full time.

Is this right that he is not entitled to anything? He is not making a claim for rent or anything just JSA.

I am living in the same house and am not working (due to an illness) so i am on income support. So how can it be that i can claim and he cant?

Thanks in advance

dmg24

I assume that the bf has not paid sufficient NI Conts to claim conts based JSA (has he worked much over the past two years?). If this is the case, then her income will be counted.

Your IS is not affected because you do not live with a partner.

spora

Oh OK.

He was at uni the past three years. I know he worked a bit, but not loads. So i guess that must be why.

I dont fully understand the living with a partner rule. My sis has helped him a lot over the past 3 years and she doesnt want to lend him much more. He doesnt want to take any more money off her anyway. Its her money, why is he entitiled to it in the jobcentres eyes?

Thanks for the post btw

Oldernotwiser

spora wrote: »

I dont fully understand the living with a partner rule. My sis has helped him a lot over the past 3 years and she doesnt want to lend him much more. He doesnt want to take any more money off her anyway. Its her money, why is he entitiled to it in the jobcentres eyes?

They're living together "as man and wife" and by that definition their income is shared.

spora

ah right ok. Thanks

ceridwen

spora wrote: »

I dont fully understand the living with a partner rule. My sis has helped him a lot over the past 3 years and she doesnt want to lend him much more. He doesnt want to take any more money off her anyway. Its her money, why is he entitiled to it in the jobcentres eyes?

You're right - it IS her money. Unfortunately thats the way the D.H.S.S. (now the D.W.P.) set up the rules - ie so that people were made to subsidise/support someone just because they are married to or even live with them (as in "live with" live with - not just share a roof - hence why you are treated differently).

It IS wrong - but I have the nasty feeling they wont be looking at a fairer system - ie of treating people as "financial entities" in their own right any time soon - because it would cost them more money. It saves them money making people live off their spouses/partners in short.

Its wrong for someone's living arrangements to be decided by the State, rather than themselves - but it looks as if your sisters boyfriend had better move out to become a "household" in his own right until he gets back in work again - then they will HAVE to give him the income he is entitled to.

I've gone through unemployment myself before now and I can remember, in my younger days, hoping I wouldnt fall in love with anyone and vice-versa (reason: because if I had then we would have married/lived together - and that would have meant that if I became unemployed again that I would have had no way of paying my share of the mortgage and bills - because the D.W.P. would have insisted he do that for me, whether he could or couldnt afford to do so.) I had no choice but to remain single - as otherwise I wouldnt have had the security of knowing I could always "pay my way". (And they wonder why so many people remain single these days.......DUH! - not by choice often.)

Sorry!

dmg24

ceridwen wrote: »

You're right - it IS her money. Unfortunately thats the way the D.H.S.S. (now the D.W.P.) set up the rules - ie so that people were made to subsidise/support someone just because they are married to or even live with them (as in "live with" live with - not just share a roof - hence why you are treated differently).

It IS wrong - but I have the nasty feeling they wont be looking at a fairer system - ie of treating people as "financial entities" in their own right any time soon - because it would cost them more money. It saves them money making people live off their spouses/partners in short.

Its wrong for someone's living arrangements to be decided by the State, rather than themselves - but it looks as if your sisters boyfriend had better move out to become a "household" in his own right until he gets back in work again - then they will HAVE to give him the income he is entitled to.

I've gone through unemployment myself before now and I can remember, in my younger days, hoping I wouldnt fall in love with anyone and vice-versa (reason: because if I had then we would have married/lived together - and that would have meant that if I became unemployed again that I would have had no way of paying my share of the mortgage and bills - because the D.W.P. would have insisted he do that for me, whether he could or couldnt afford to do so.) I had no choice but to remain single - as otherwise I wouldnt have had the security of knowing I could always "pay my way". (And they wonder why so many people remain single these days.......DUH! - not by choice often.)

Sorry!

I'm glad I'm not married to you! Have you never heard of sharing, and supporting each other when times are tough? :rolleyes:

Conor_3

ceridwen wrote: »

I've gone through unemployment myself before now and I can remember, in my younger days, hoping I wouldnt fall in love with anyone and vice-versa (reason: because if I had then we would have married/lived together - and that would have meant that if I became unemployed again that I would have had no way of paying my share of the mortgage and bills - because the D.W.P. would have insisted he do that for me, whether he could or couldnt afford to do so.) I had no choice but to remain single - as otherwise I wouldnt have had the security of knowing I could always "pay my way". (And they wonder why so many people remain single these days.......DUH! - not by choice often.)

Sorry!

Must resist temptation to have a go about being a selfish money grubbing !!!!!!....

tuggy12

ceridwen wrote: »

It IS wrong - but I have the nasty feeling they wont be looking at a fairer system - ie of treating people as "financial entities" in their own right any time soon - because it would cost them more money. It saves them money making people live off their spouses/partners in short.

Of course, them = taxpayers

spora

i hope you aren't having a go at people on benefits there...