Jobseekers Allowance stopped

Vejovis

Arg wrote: »

Apart from cheating someone out of their money, again.

how did they do that, even if the incredulous tale is true the jobcentre did nothing wrong.

LisaB85

Arg wrote: »

Apart from cheating someone out of their money, again.

So you expect them to just keep paying even though the customer hasn't been in contact or signed on?

Falcon1_2

Hi,

I used to work at the job centre. After missing your signing, your claim for JSA is stopped after 5 days. They are not discriminating against you, they have no prejudice against you it is just the way the system works, then once your claim has been closed you have to reclaim.

However you are entitled to back date your claim, whether or not your back dated claim is successful isn't up to the local job centre, it is sent over to a different part of the Job Centre who will either approve or not your claim for back dating. When making your reclaim you need to write it as much detail as possible the reasons for missing your signing day.

I hope this is of some help.

Bluemeanie_2

I do not have compassion for the unemployed as such. I meant compassion for making a mistake. Especially where benefits are concerned. Yes it was a dim thing to do, but if you think you can get out of it, why not have a go?
I do agree OP read far too much into comment 2. Yes it was blunt and to the point, but not nasty and in post 3 it was interpreted as "mean" which was a bit OTT. Hence why I wrote that when things are written down it is easy to read to much into them and you cannot see tone. But I really do not see the need for the nasty personal comments abouts dyslexia and the like. Or making out because he/she didn't listen to the advisor going on and on that she is really stupid as some posters implied. I find it a bit self righteous for some posters to imply this. Can they honestly say they have read absolutely every term and condition and the like they have ever signed up to?
If you are not familiar with the benefits system (which you could argue is a good thing), it could be very easy to get confused. Then if you have dyslexia it can be harder to read the paperwork etc. I'm not saying it is an excuse per se, I just find it a bit judgemental to be so harsh on someone for a dim-witted mistake. I think if she can have a crack at getting the 3 weeks money or whatever, she may as well have a go? If her argument to the people does not hold water in their book, fine. But nothing to lose for having a go!

Bluemeanie_2

I just re-read all the beginning posts and see what you mean about OP picking fights...

Please just lay of comments about dyslexic people... I have to tell Martin off about referring to people as "dyslexics"!

Googlewhacker

Bluemeanie wrote: »

I just re-read all the beginning posts and see what you mean about OP picking fights...

Please just lay of comments about dyslexic people... I have to tell Martin off about referring to people as "dyslexics"!

ummmm enlighten me, what's wrong with labelling people like that please?

thanks

Notmyrealname

Bluemeanie wrote: »

Please just lay of comments about dyslexic people... I have to tell Martin off about referring to people as "dyslexics"!

They are dyslexic so what is the problem? Would you rather they were referred to as illiterate halfwits when they actually have a reason for poor grammar and spelling?

Its not like dyslexic is being used as an abusive term, in fact I don't think I ever have. Now !!!!!!, that is a term which was legitimate and then abused.

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

ummmm enlighten me, what's wrong with labelling people like that please?

thanks

People are not the sum of a condition that they happen to have, and people with disabilities commonly find it offensive to be described as though they are.

For what it is worth I think it is a fair point - describing a person as their disability focusses on their condition and what they cannot do or struggle to do, rather than on them as a person who may be "differently abled". Language is a powerful driver of attitude and if people with disabilities feel that this helps them to engage in a meaningful debate to shift discriminatory behaviours, then I think we ought to respect that.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

People are not the sum of a condition that they happen to have, and people with disabilities commonly find it offensive to be described as though they are.

For what it is worth I think it is a fair point - describing a person as their disability focusses on their condition and what they cannot do or struggle to do, rather than on them as a person who may be "differently abled". Language is a powerful driver of attitude and if people with disabilities feel that this helps them to engage in a meaningful debate to shift discriminatory behaviours, then I think we ought to respect that.

I agree totally with the sentiment but I have to say I find buzz phrases like the one I highlighted so jarring as to be counter-productive!

bendix

SarEl wrote: »

People are not the sum of a condition that they happen to have, and people with disabilities commonly find it offensive to be described as though they are.

For what it is worth I think it is a fair point - describing a person as their disability focusses on their condition and what they cannot do or struggle to do, rather than on them as a person who may be "differently abled". Language is a powerful driver of attitude and if people with disabilities feel that this helps them to engage in a meaningful debate to shift discriminatory behaviours, then I think we ought to respect that.

It was the OP who was so keen to mention in every second sentence that she was dyslexic. So much so, in fact, that it seemed to be her defining trait and was the sole cause of her losing her money.

Curiously though, she seems much more articulate and as good a speller as 90% of forum members, but let's not get too focused on that.

How about we come to a compromise and just label this particular OP a self-centred, entitlement-obsessed 'everyone is to blame except me' idiot?

Agreed? Is stupidity a condition too?