Proof of unemployment?

SarEl

The likelihood is that this is a job created, and at least part funded, on the basis specifically that the person taken on be unemployed, so the employer must provide that evidence to claim their payments. There are many such schemes and we have used them in the past for junior positions (and would again if we had any available). The employer sounds as if they are complying with the terms of their funding - so not their fault. Many people choose to be "not-employed" but not unemployed - including some carers, parents and lottery winners. There is a fairly big disctinction and it's used in, amongst other things, the census categories. People who are not in paid work may not be seeking employment, but also may not be claiming. I think the term used, if I recall correctly is "economically inactive" - meaning that they are within the range of working years, not claiming benefits and not seeking work. But I am willing to stand corrected - I am reaching into my memory as to whether this is the correct term or not - I just know there is one.

hermum

smileylondongal wrote: »

I was on contributions too which ended and I kept signing on so the JC could carry on taking care of them for me. I would go back and sign on just for this - pain in the bottom, I know, but it's better they're taken care of than to have gaps when you reach state pension age.

I'd also go back and challenge the employer on this - just because they've never had it before does not excuse their inflexibility. It's not your fault your out of work and your partner does work! It's a ridiculous reason for someone to not give you a job so go back and try the person's manager.

I'm sure that they will then welcome you with open arms.

Kyrae

Thanks SarEl, that's very interesting! Looks like I wrongly presumed that in government statistics somewhere I was classed as unemployed as i'd given that as my status on the census and as the government wont have any record of me working at present, just goes to show that when the government are giving statistics on unemployment levels... there's probably a lot more unemployed people looking for work out there who aren't being counted as they're not signed on as jobseekers. Thanks again everyone for the help and input, will let you know how I get on tomorrow ringing jobseekers etc.

SarEl

Kyrae wrote: »

Thanks SarEl, that's very interesting! Looks like I wrongly presumed that in government statistics somewhere I was classed as unemployed as i'd given that as my status on the census and as the government wont have any record of me working at present, just goes to show that when the government are giving statistics on unemployment levels... there's probably a lot more unemployed people looking for work out there who aren't being counted as they're not signed on as jobseekers. Thanks again everyone for the help and input, will let you know how I get on tomorrow ringing jobseekers etc.

That is certainly true - a lot of people seeking employment are not in the figures. But I suppose it is swings and roundabouts - there seem to be a few in the figures not seeking employment

kitschkitty

The JC signed OH & I off when he found full time work and told me it wasn't worth the hassle of signing for NI credits, as by the time I'm of pensionable age there probably won't be such a thing!

I hadn't considered it might cause any issues being a "non-employed" housewife.

morganedge

maybe they're not signing on because they have over the allowed amount in savings?
Or maybe they just have a little in savings but are able to get by without signing on.

Im suprised at everyone questioning why they aren't signing on. (not that I disagree with everyone)
But I always thought people on this forum hate people who sign on, and saw it as a complete last resort and only when completely necessary and not when you can get by without?

Not sure about the answer to the question though. Just a P45 from your last job maybe? Bank statements maybe??

LittleVoice

morganedge wrote: »

maybe they're not signing on because they have over the allowed amount in savings?
Or maybe they just have a little in savings but are able to get by without signing on.

Im suprised at everyone questioning why they aren't signing on. (not that I disagree with everyone)
But I always thought people on this forum hate people who sign on, and saw it as a complete last resort and only when completely necessary and not when you can get by without?

Not sure about the answer to the question though. Just a P45 from your last job maybe? Bank statements maybe??

A P45 shows you left a job at some point, it doesn't prove that you haven't worked since.

Bank statements - given someone can have multiple current accounts, I'm not sure this would prove anything at all other than perhaps the payments from a particular source were no longer appearing in that account (but they could have been switched to another).

smileylondongal

hermum wrote: »

I'm sure that they will then welcome you with open arms.

Yes, they should indeed!

I understand it may not be the employer's fault if the role is govt funded but if employers don't speak up no one can help change these ridiculous guidelines. If the poster is picked as the top candidate for the job, and the last hurdle is not getting the role on this very silly technicality, can no one else see how ludicrous that is? How on earth is the poster supposed to prove it?

morganedge

kind of impossible to prove a negative.

SarEl

morganedge wrote: »

But I always thought people on this forum hate people who sign on, and saw it as a complete last resort and only when completely necessary and not when you can get by without?

I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem with people signing on. It's a entiltlement. I admit that I do have a problem with people who have no intention of ever signing off...