JSA and fixed term deposit savings

dmg24

ceridwen wrote: »

Nice to know you're still one of my greatest fans - NOT! DMG...:cool:

The thing is - does anyone FROM THE DWP have "chapter and verse" they can quote one way or another on this?

The "textbook" they go on and the specific details from that is what we need

....unless and until the DWP can produce concrete written proof absolutely specific to this circumstance - it is worth O.P. taking a commonsense view on this and asking for benefit and, if its refused, appealing about it.

He has nothing to lose - and may well have much to gain..

...or are you saying that YOU personally work in a high-up position in the DWP and can produce concrete proof one way or the other on this particular circumstance?:)

You need to refer to Chapter 29 of the DMG. Specific enough for you?

CCFC_80

ceridwen wrote: »

Did you take the matter to appeal though?

I didn't persue it as I qualified for CB JSA but didn't think I would be able to do so which is why I asked them the initial question.

I did get a response from someone by letter, presume Quite high up beforehand stating no-way whatsoever would I get IB JSA. I don't think I would have appealed anyway because looking at it from their point of view and as mentioned earlier people could just move their savings into a fixed rate scheme denying them access and qualify for benefits.

tonybur

In nutshell... your fine they SHOULD disregard it in full

FROM THE JSA PROCESSING GUIDE (DMG)

"Money that is not available to the customer cannot be treated as income, and must be fully disregarded until which time the customers right to call upon such funds"

This presumes that you have not invested the money a weeks before claiming .. as this would be classed as depravation of capital- in which case it would attract notional income ( be taken into account at the rate of £1 in every £250 or @1/500 depending on age..

hcb42

I would have thought this would be declined, otherwise it is wide open to abuse...and others then have to fun people who might actually have a load of dosh, like the op here!

ceridwen

dmg24 wrote: »

You need to refer to Chapter 29 of the DMG. Specific enough for you?

As we dont have access to this - please produce an online link to study.

leamingtonspaceman

This would go to a 'decision-maker.' The 'rules' are flexible...they have to be as each case is individual and judged on its own circumstance. If the OP then disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it. Even if the appeal fails there are further avenues to explore. Your MP may be a good person to visit.

There are specific rules but they can be interpreted differently for the benefit of the customer. A prime example of this is 'full-time' education. You can be in full-time education but only attend Uni/College one day a week for 10 hours (like a friend of mine who attends 9am-8pm)...but you still have 6 days free to work. But if you have to attend Uni/College four days a week for 2.5 hours a time, it's still 10 hours but limits your employment options. Same 'rule'...different interpretations.

I have a friend who claimed HB and CTB for a short time even though they owned a property. They were renting it out and the contract stipulated a two-month notice period to the tenants to move out. This was legally enforceable so for those two-months she was entitled to benefits. The 'rules' were made flexible to accommodate all parties.

There is always discretion in any given situation...even with benefit legislation.

As regards commenting on 'funding those who have loads of dosh', my friend has worked and paid into the system. It isn't her fault that circumstances have dictated she be in a situation whereby she needs help from the state for two-months. That is why decision-makers exist...to review these situations sensibly.

ceridwen

helencbradshaw wrote: »

I would have thought this would be declined, otherwise it is wide open to abuse...and others then have to fun people who might actually have a load of dosh, like the op here!

But then O.P. might be an ordinary person in the street on a low wage for many years - BUT has now worked for many years and been saving their money (ie rather than spending it). I've only ever been on low salary:(:mad::( - but because of how old I now am I simply have run out of things to spend money on (apart from further - expensive - work on my house) - so I have no option but to save it (or I could give it away to a good cause - but then it wouldnt be available for that expensive work on house).

But we've been down that route MANY times before as to whether its okay to penalise someone who has saved rather than spent their spare cash....so dont want to go down it yet again.

ceridwen

leamingtonspaceman wrote: »

This would go to a 'decision-maker.' The 'rules' are flexible...they have to be as each case is individual and judged on its own circumstance. If the OP then disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it. Even if the appeal fails there are further avenues to explore. Your MP may be a good person to visit.

There are specific rules but they can be interpreted differently for the benefit of the customer. A prime example of this is 'full-time' education. You can be in full-time education but only attend Uni/College one day a week for 10 hours (like a friend of mine who attends 9am-8pm)...but you still have 6 days free to work. But if you have to attend Uni/College four days a week for 2.5 hours a time, it's still 10 hours but limits your employment options. Same 'rule'...different interpretations.

I have a friend who claimed HB and CTB for a short time even though they owned a property. They were renting it out and the contract stipulated a two-month notice period to the tenants to move out. This was legally enforceable so for those two-months she was entitled to benefits. The 'rules' were made flexible to accommodate all parties.

There is always discretion in any given situation...even with benefit legislation.

A very good post and I reckon that about sums it up nicely. After all - just where does one draw the line? There has to be a degree of flexibility (to allow for commonsense considerations like OP's situation). Certainly the DWP doesnt expect someone to take out any money they have put into a pension to the best of my knowledge. That money is, I believe, regarded as sancrosant and they dont try and make the claimant take it out - even if they could - because they accept that its "pension" and NOT accessible "savings".

leamingtonspaceman

Yes ceridwen...another prime example of why flexibility exists in the system. Good post.

If someone earns 30k a year and saves their surplus cash, and then someone who also earns 30k spends their surplus, they have both paid the same tax and NI. Why should the person who has saved be denied help from the state should they need it? If they were ill they wouldn't be denied NHS treatment and told to go private because they have saved.

scooby088

Speaking from personal experience i had about 20,000 in two bank accounts, when i made a claim for CB JSA i showed my bank statements to the person you take the forms back to and he said i didn't think that i could make a claim, but he'd put my forms through the system. Fast forward 12 months I was sent a letter from the benefit fraud investigation team and put through the mill having to answer questions.

There was no fraud, but i have been told now that there was an over payment in benefit to the tune of about £160. I wouldn't take what is said by the customer advisors at the jobcentre as set in stone, they are about as clueless as me.