What are we entitled to?

alwaysonthego_2

hayley11 wrote: »

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

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?

I was referring to the above comment.

alwaysonthego_2

Anyway what is the point arguing as Hayley has been corrected and hopefully she has learnt something useful.

hayley11

I learnt nothing from Calley, except that she likes to personally attack people for no reason at all. You corrected me straight away and I was happy with that. There was no need at all for her to go on the way she did.

hayley11

OP - must apologise for hijacking your thread but when somebody is having a go at me like that, for no reason, I feel the need to defend myself.

calleyw

hayley11 wrote: »

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.

I have no problem at all. Fine you have pointed the OP towards entitled to.

The best you can then do is to leave it up to the OP to look in to it. Not go "You might even get to keep some of your IS but you'd have to check."

I grant you did say check. Even me who has no connection what so ever with IS knows that it is not true. So would not have mentioned it.

I agree no one should take anything as gospel on a forum. But people do. People still believe about common law marriage it does not exist and has not for 300 odd years.

I am not picking on you personally if that is what you are feel but the information you are giving. Which is not wholly correct.

I give my time and info for free. And I make sure that I am as right as I can be by providing links to back up what I say. But is obvious they are not wanted here. Because of course I have no idea what I talking about and not allow to comment. I will leave it to the experts :rolleyes: on here.

Yours

Calley

calleyw

AsknAnswer wrote: »

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.

Hayley pointed the OP to the entitled website and then expressed her own opinion that still might get IS.

Even saying that I don't know. Would it not just have been better to give then entitled website and leave it at that. Rather than post her uncertainty.

As I said this not a personal attack on Hayley at all. I have no problem with her at all. If she wishes to see it as that that entirely up to her. Let her report me if shes wishes to do.

You have to remember that a lot of people that post here are at there wits end and can't cope and need help. Which means they read more in to things then there is. And then grasp at hope that is not there.

Any how I have better things to do then hang around having a non-argument just because I don't agree with the advice that another poster has given.

I hope you all enjoy a nice quiet afternoon I know I will as I will be away from my computer.

Yours


Calley

Bessie_Braddock

OP

I tried the online tax credit calculator and put in your details to get a best guess assessment. Assumed both of you were 30 years old & used £15600 as his earnings p.a.

It's coming out with £1991 pa in Child Tax Credit and £678 pa in Working Tax Credit. You might want to try that yourself here :-

h ttp://w ww. taxcredits. inlandrevenue. gov. uk/Qualify/DIQHousehold.aspx

(remove the spaces in the link, it won't let me post links because I'm a new user)

You might also qualify for help with rent, council tax etc. Perhaps someone with expertise in that field can give advice on that when they pass by.

before_hollywood

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.

Yours


Calley

i would say its logical to check the figures before deciding what to do if its at all possible

for more accurate advice i would contact my ex but she is rarely around on a sunday and on the rare occasions we speak its not about work

bengaltiger

IS is a income/means tested benefit. All income, savings etc will be taken in to account when a decision is reached on a claim. The only was to know if you are entitled is to make a claim and insist on a written decision.

All scenarios below are impacted by savings, earnings and whether the applicant has a partner etc.

IS is payable to Lone Parents whose youngest child is under 12, this changes to 10 in October and 7 in october 2010

A person who is caring for someone who is receiving the care component of DLA/AA at the middle or higher rate - the carer may be entitled to carers allowance too

A person whose partner is too ill to work and who has to stay at home to look after children and the partner is not entitled to any benefits

A single woman who has no other or a low income who is within eleven weeks of her expected date of confinement

A couple who are both unemployed where there is no other income the woman is within eleven weeks of her expected date of confinement and for so many weeks after they will then have to decide who will claim JSA

As a top up to statutory sick pay

As a top up to incapacity benefit, though IB is gradually being replaced by ESA

a young person who is enstranged from their family and in full time education (A levels or below) and no one is in receipt of child benefit for them

No income and serving on a jury

the above list is not exhaustive
There are other circumstances that someone may be entitled to IS, but the rules are complicated. In the OP situation she does not seem to fit any of the above categories. The entitlement to IS would cease based on the fact that she will no longer be classed as a LP if her partner moves in. CTC and WTC may be payable. When her partner moved in she must report a change of circumstances. Beware: If her partner stays nights with her it may be considered that they are living together for benefit purposes.

savvy

I suggest the nitpicking ceases and this thread gets back on track for poor Scampie, there is absolutely nothing worse than when you get the courage to post a genuine problem expecting, in some cases, vital help/support to your quandary and the thread gets degraded into bickering!!

Sorry Scampie, welcome, it's not always like this on MSE