What are we entitled to?

hayley11

calleyw wrote: »

You can do what you want for all I care. " I might not know everything but I did give good advice." :rotfl:Rather an oxymoron (contradictory)if you ask me.

If you don't know what you are on about how can you give good advice

All that you do is mislead people and this not the first time you have been asked not to do it.

The OP stated that her partner was earning £300 a week before tax. So you really think that they are still entitled to IS. Please, even if he was working less than 24 hours a week. With a gross income of over £15K they are still not going to get IS. So looking at your link means nothing. As IS is means tested think you need to read the link yourself.
How much do you get?

The amount of Income Support you may get varies according to your individual circumstances. Some factors that can affect how much you'll get include:

• any earnings you or your partner or civil partner have

The only help they will get is WTC and CTC and maybe some help with council tax and rent this has already been stated.


Yours


Calley

Please do give me an example of a time when I have been asked not to do this? It's news to me. Whereas I will show you countless posts where I have given very good, helpful advice. We are all allowed a tiny, tiny little slip now and again. The only mistake I made here was suggesting they may get some IS, but I never committed to anything.

Lets be clear, I do not like to tell people what to do. I like to guide them in the right direction, which is exactly what I did in my first post on this thread.

I'm not sure why you've decided to single me out and attack me like this, there are a lot of people on these boards that give very bad advice, are very unfriendly and are out to cause trouble. All I did was try to give somebody some helpful advice. I have never claimed to know everything, nobody knows everything, not even you.

AsknAnswer

I have no advice for the OP as it has already been provided by others, nothing to add.

I didn't see anything wrong in hayley's post. To be frank, I would much rather see someone come on, state what hayley did - emphasising that they "think but don't know" and providing a link, than someone who comes on gives completely dud advice, with no indication that they aren't certain of the advice they are giving. At least in the manner Hayley posted, the OP is aware from the outset that the respondant isn't 100% certain, and there is a link for them to follow up on, until someone who does know can advise in more detail.

Yes, it's obvious to us who know the OP will lose her IS but it is not obvious to hayley - she was only trying to offer some help until someone else came along and made it clear she was unsure - I see nothing wrong in that.

before_hollywood

calleyw wrote: »

As has already been said she will not get IS.

Hayley as I have highlighted in red you say you don't know, so why do you say anything. Would it not better to saying nothing at all.

For a couple without child the DWP say they need a £100 a week to live on. According to the OP her partner earns £300 before tax. So hardly think that they going to keep IS.

That £15600 before tax. So they should be able to get some WTC as for a couple with no children the limit is £18200. And should get CTC.

The WTC may help with some other underlying entitlement such as help with rent and council tax and free prescriptions etc.

Yours

Calley

a little bit harsh to be fair :eek:, my ex was (and still is) a tax assessor of some desription for revenues and customs (when we were together she assessed wtc entitlement), and she would have advised in exactly the same way outside of work as hayley did (the rules are very complicated and while at work she can look things up and get exact figures, outside of work she wouldnt)

from what i remember the i.s would stop as it goes from household income but it would become tax credits (i have to make it clear for the benefit of everyone that reads this, i dont have exact figures, my only qualification to answer is that i used to go out with a tax credit assessor)

calleyw

AsknAnswer wrote: »

Yes, it's obvious to us who know the OP will lose her IS but it is not obvious to hayley - she was only trying to offer some help until someone else came along and made it clear she was unsure - I see

nothing wrong in that.

So you are saying is better to give misleading advice then not say anything at all.

To me if you don't know what you are talking about it is better to leave the threads alone.

I don't reply to a lot of threads on here as I just don't know the answers. And feel that is both wasting my time and other OP's and giving them false hope that is not there.




Yours


Calley

calleyw

before_hollywood wrote: »

a little bit harsh to be fair :eek:,

Harsh if you say so.

To tell someone to stop giving out misleading advice. I don't work for the DWP and have no dealings with IS but do know that the income the OP was on about that they would not get IS.

Ok so the OP moves in her partner they will have one heck of shock to find out they are not entitled to IS on what hayley11 has said. Don't think that the DWP are going to to happy when the op says well someone on a forum told I would still get IS.

If you are not sure the best thing to do is to point people towards the entitledto website. Not 100% accurate but would give the OP a better idea of they would be entitled to.

Yours


Calley

hayley11

What false hope did I give? I really do feel like you have seriously overreacted to this. And I really didn't appreciate you saying I often give misleading advice and that "I have been asked not to" That was a complete lie and totally uncalled for.

Anyway I did advise the OP correctly in my first post and I shall carry on posting on these boards.

Thanks Asknanswer and before hollywood

alwaysonthego_2

hayley11 wrote: »

Anyway I did advise the OP correctly in my first post and I shall carry on posting on these boards.

I am not getting at you Hayley, even though your first post was correct it was not relevant to the op because IS is only intended for a small group of people such as single mums and people with a disability and not usually for healthy couples. If they were able to claim income based benefits it would be IBJSA not IS, but obviously their income is too high.

Nobody is telling you to stop posting as I have seen you give some good advise and I am certainly not perfect, I hope you have learnt something useful that you can use in the future.

hayley11

hayley11 wrote: »

According to this link - you cannot usually claim IS if your partner is working more than 24 hours a week, i'm assuming if he's earning around £15600 a year, he works more than that?

Have a look at www.entitledto.co.uk This will give you a good indication of what benefits you may get if your partner moves in with you.

hayley11 wrote: »

Your partner is earning a lot more than what you get from being on income support. And it's not just about money is it? Surely anybody decent would prefer to work than not?

Nobody is saying you won't get anything by the way, you might still be able to get housing/council tax benefit and tax credits. You might even get to keep some of your IS but you'd have to check.

(edited because obviously by putting I don't know in, I clearly don't know what i'm talking about When really I meant, I don't know 100%)

calleyw wrote: »

Harsh if you say so.

To tell someone to stop giving out misleading advice. I don't work for the DWP and have no dealings with IS but do know that the income the OP was on about that they would not get IS.

Ok so the OP moves in her partner they will have one heck of shock to find out they are not entitled to IS on what hayley11 has said. Don't think that the DWP are going to to happy when the op says well someone on a forum told I would still get IS.

If you are not sure the best thing to do is to point people towards the entitledto website. Not 100% accurate but would give the OP a better idea of they would be entitled to.

Did you actually read any of my posts? Or did you literally see the words "I don't know" and jump on that? Because if you had bothered to read them, you'd see that I did direct them to entitled to. I also gave a link to the page on directgov relating to income support.

The only reason I replied further was because the OP was suggesting staying on benefits is better than actually working, I never once suggested they would get IS, I didn't know the exact figure so I said she may but she would have to check. (and then alwaysonthego corrected me in a helpful way and it could have been left at that)

And i'm sorry, but if anybody comes on here looking for advice, they should never take everything anybody says as gospel. Just like on any other board on MSE.

I honestly don't know what your problem is, because you obviously have one but you need to get over it.

hayley11

alwaysonthego wrote: »

I am not getting at you Hayley, even though your first post was correct it was not relevant to the op because IS is only intended for a small group of people such as single mums and people with a disability and not usually for healthy couples. If they were able to claim income based benefits it would be IBJSA not IS, but obviously their income is too high.

Nobody is telling you to stop posting as I have seen you give some good advise and I am certainly not perfect, I hope you have learnt something useful that you can use in the future.

I directed them to the entitled to website so they could see what, if any benefits they could get. How is that not relevant?

AsknAnswer

calleyw wrote: »

So you are saying is better to give misleading advice then not say anything at all.

You obviously have a problem deciphering English, my friend. Advice cannot be misleading where a poster has clearly stated "I don't know, you'd have to check" and when that poster has provided a link to a website where the OP can find out for herself.

Advice which is misleading is when the poster states something to be fact when it is not, and makes no attempt to advise that they are uncertain, allowing the OP to believe the advise is correct when it is not. Hayley was clear in her post about her uncertainty.