Employment and support allowance- help

Nicop89

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Mmmmmm - a good point.

But don't you think it is a coincidence that the OP is only doing 15 hours for £90 a week?

What do you mean by this? The position I applied for was part time, I get £6 p/h and work 3 hours a day Mon-Fri.
I have been doing this job for 3 years. All of what has been made clear and proven to the job centre.
A Coincidence? How do you mean?

pmlindyloo

Hi OP

Sorry to post so late but have just got in.

I am so glad that you have returned as have been following your post with interest. I hope that you have had time to read all the posts now.

I have been confused (as have others) about whether you and your partner are both receiving ESA and you are doing 'permitted work' or whether it is only your partner who is the only one who is receiving ESA and you are doing part time work.

People have been giving different answers according to which scenario it is.

I apologise if you have taken offence at my comment. If you read the posts you will see that it was an attempt to work out which scenario is correct.

Permitted work is when you are on ESA and work for less than a certain number of hours and earn less than a certain amount. If you are on ESA as well as your partner then you could be doing permitted work. If you are not on ESA and doing a part time job then your benefits would be worked out differently.

It is, as you are finding, extremely complicated!

I hope after you read the posts you will understand what I am talking about.

I did not intend to cause any offence and was not 'having a go' about your working hours. Rather I was looking for clues from your post to see which of the 2 situations it was.

It is very difficult to 'interpret' what people say on forums.

Honestly I am a nice person and would not dream of 'judging' anyone's situation!

Hope you get it 'sorted'.

Anubis_2

Thank you pmlindy, the rules can have a double meaning, hence why I was trying to find more concrete evidence which you and a couple of others, who's posts I thanked, have clarified.

I did not want to state that the OP could earn as a FACT (and never did) based on his partner being sick, so I quoted the ESA rules on permitted work incase it was a double claim as the OP themselves stated that their earnings were allowed as the permitted work rule ( therefore giving the impression it is a double ESA claim.) and covering both angles.

As for arguing, there seems to have been only one person attempting to do that, and there was no misinformation given. It's a shame some bring personal agenda into someone's thread. Not the first time this has happened.

krisskross

Anubis wrote: »

the rules can have a double meaning, hence why I was trying to find more concrete evidence which you and a couple of others, who's posts I thanked, have clarified.

No they can't. You find me a benefit rule that has a double meaning and I'll buy you a pint

No one should be posting benefit advice unless they are certain of their knowledge and facts. People post here for information, not for what someone 'thinks' it might be.

Anubis_2

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

For ESA(IR) the claimant can perform Permitted work and a partner can work up to 24 hours with any income deducted from the ESA(IR).

MrsManda wrote: »

It may be worth reading the DWP Decision Maker's Guide Chapter 41 ESA Conditions of Entitlement:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch41.pdf

41100: Additional Conditions for ESA(IR) says in order to be entitled to ESA(IR) a claimant must not have a partner who is in remunerative work
Whether the partner is counted by the DWP as being in remunerative work can be found at 41301 in the same document with a flowchart at 41319

41121 and 41187 have details on the effect of the claimant working and permitted work.

Can someone clarify these two differing points?

One remunerative and one not?

EDIT: From document:

41485 Claimants partners are treated as not being in remunerative work where they are

1. part-time fire and rescue officers1
2. auxiliary coastguards for coastal rescue activities2 or
3. working part-time in the manning or launching of a lifeboat3 or
4. members of a territorial or reserve force4.

1 ESA Regs (NI), reg 43(1)(e)(i); Fire and Rescue Services (NI) Order 2006, art 3;
2 ESA Regs (NI), reg 43(1)(e)(ii); 3 reg 43(1)(e)(iii); 4 reg 43(1)(e)(iv)

krisskross

Anubis wrote: »

Can someone clarify these two differing points?

One remunerative and one not?

It's the 24 hours a week that decides. Over appears to be classed as remunerative, under not.

Cpt.Scarlet

Anubis wrote: »

Can someone clarify these two differing points?

One remunerative and one not?

You need to read 41301 and following paragraphs that detail the exceptions, one of which is not working more than 24 hours.

pmlindyloo

Anubis wrote: »

Thank you pmlindy, the rules can have a double meaning, hence why I was trying to find more concrete evidence which you and a couple of others, who's posts I thanked, have clarified.

I did not want to state that the OP could earn as a FACT (and never did) based on his partner being sick, so I quoted the ESA rules on permitted work incase it was a double claim as the OP themselves stated that their earnings were allowed as the permitted work rule ( therefore giving the impression it is a double ESA claim.) and covering both angles.

As for arguing, there seems to have been only one person attempting to do that, and there was no misinformation given. It's a shame some bring personal agenda into someone's thread. Not the first time this has happened.

I don't think that the rules have double meanings

I think it was the OP's original post that was confusing and no-one was sure whether it was a joint claim for ESA (both being on ESA and the OP doing pemitted work) or OP's partner on ESA and OP doing a part time job.

At least, that's what confused me!

Nicop89

I think i need to set notifications on lol as I don't know when anyone has replied or not.
Since last posting on here I think I might have sorted it out.
Any way my partner applied for ESA and as we are living together they put me on as well. To be honest I don't know what they have done. When my partner asked why it says for you and your partner they said it's because your living together. Anyway They allowed me to work 15 hours a week and earn £90. I think what has happened is that they gave me the permitted work and because it had been over 52 weeks now they have stopped allowing me to do it so have taken money of the benefit.
This is fine by us but we just wish we got a letter explaining what was going to happen. Also we were never told about the permitted work thing we just gave them all the information they needed to know. Anyway since then we have been to the advice centre and they said it's probably what I have wrote above. Anyway they asked for a letter to be sent out to us explaining everything.
Thank you all again for your reply's

Anubis_2

Nicop89 wrote: »

I think i need to set notifications on lol as I don't know when anyone has replied or not.
Since last posting on here I think I might have sorted it out.
Any way my partner applied for ESA and as we are living together they put me on as well. To be honest I don't know what they have done. When my partner asked why it says for you and your partner they said it's because your living together. Anyway They allowed me to work 15 hours a week and earn £90. I think what has happened is that they gave me the permitted work and because it had been over 52 weeks now they have stopped allowing me to do it so have taken money of the benefit.
This is fine by us but we just wish we got a letter explaining what was going to happen. Also we were never told about the permitted work thing we just gave
them all the information they needed to know. Anyway since then we have been to the advice centre and they said it's probably what I have wrote above. Anyway they asked for a letter to be sent out to us explaining everything.
Thank you all again for your reply's

Yes, I thought you would be classed as also claiming ESA as I said, and hence why I thought the 52 week rule may apply in your case

It just goes to show how "ambiguous" some of the dwp rules can be

Thanks for the update!