Permitted Work

beardy_rich

I am currently claiming Incapacity Benefit and have decided that I now want to try and return to work, hopefully full-time (eventually).

I know about the permitted work rules that state that I have to work less that 16 hours/week and earn less than £95/week BUT... the 16 hours /week rule is an average figure I believe.

Does anyone know how this average is calculated? It could be averaged out over a calendar month, four-week period, 52 weeks???

Also, what happens if I go over my allowed hours or earn more than £95 per week? Does my Incapacity Benefit stop completely or just for a period of time?

stazi

I would contact JCP and get them to answer your questions in writing.

cit_k

and hope they dont send you for a medical and atos use your permitted work to declare you as fit as a fiddle and kick you of sickenss benefit before you are ready.

The DWP admit this can be a problem, but it varies according to the actual decision maker, as there is no set procedure.

NASA_2

I know it is shocking stuff to use the fact someone is working to find that they might be able to work. Defies natural justice that.

The permitted work is averaged over a set period if there is a set pattern of work. I cant remember and cant be bothered checking out what the system is for no set pattern.

NASA_2

They should just get rid of the Permitted Work regulations altogether. Its idiotic that people can claim a benefit for those who are too sick to work - while they are working and potentially getting close to £5,000 a year via employment. Nuts.

And it is absolutely right that they use that information 'against' people. Working is probably a decent sign that someone can work.

Indie_Kid

goffo wrote: »

How will you know how you will feel if you did some work without actually trying to do some?

You can work up to 16 hours on PW - I personally think anyone who does that is fit for work.

NASA_2

goffo wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree on that one!

What ever your opinion is it cannot be right given the whole purpose of this new benefit (Employment & Support Allowance) is to try and get people back into some sort of work.
Are you suggesting that it be 'black & white'? You are either too ill to work or fit enough to do some work. Where is the middle ground?

How will you know how you will feel if you did some work without actually trying to do some?

The main reason of getting rid of IB was that there was no incentive to get out there 'and dip your toes in the water' a little.

If they do make a point of using that information against you as a matter of course and as proof of getting better, then all you will end up with is nobody attempting anything.

So it is acceptable for the taxpayer (And I accept that some people who carry out permitted work have been long term taxpayers) to subsidise someones part time wage?

Its not the case that everyone who undertakes PW does so after making their claim. You can be employed, claim ESA, and receive it under tha PW rules without ever having stopped working.

How on earth can that be right? They have proven that they are fit for work.

NASA_2

Permitted Work exists on IB - dont really understand how removing it is 'going back' to IB. It would be a total change from IB.

NASA_2

goffo wrote: »

No not really, they are ill - they have a doctors certificate to prove it. All they are doing is exactly what the government has told them to do.

Instead of sitting on their backsides claiming IB and not attempting any work, ESA gives them the opportunity to ease back into work and still be ill. It's called a gradual return to full time employment.
ESA is continued to be paid as a consequence of that gradual return back to full time work.

Being only allowed to work up to 16 hours a week, is part time - so due to their illness they are losing money, ESA is there to support that loss until they can go back to full time hours.

Being 'ill' isnt what entitles you to claim IB or ESA - as silly as that might sound on first hearing it.

Ability to work is what governs entitlement.

Someone with HIV/AIDS, for example, is by any definition ill or a carrier of a disease/virus. They are absolutely able to work though as long as the illness hasnt gone untreated etc.

I've got some mental health issues yet I work.

PW is an absurdity.

NASA_2

goffo wrote: »

But is Permitted Work under IB less attractive to the claimant?

Cant see how - its the same rules.

Indie_Kid

goffo wrote: »

Where no one works, because if they did they would lose their benefit.

IB is at least £91.40 per week. Why should someone be allowed to receive that plus wages of up to £95 and not lose benefits?