[Almost Resolved] JSA has been signed off - Am I looking for work or self employed?

TonnnnUK

CKhalvashi wrote: »

You’re right in that the correct claim is WTC in this instance.

OP need to be fast in doing this, as can only be backdated 3 months etc etc etc. I’m routinely filling in WTC forms with new employees and try to get this done as soon as I have a few hours free, rather than leaving it to the last minute.

As posted earlier in this thread I do not meet the criteria to class as doing remunerative work or being self employed. But thanks for the info regardless.

dookar

TonnnnUK wrote: »

Ahh yes, it is, and I am and always have been available for work. I think I can fully justify things with the official HM C&R documentation with regards to being classed as self employed.

If they go the route that I am not doing enough in terms of job seeking time, it's double standards because my "lack of jobseeking" seemed acceptable before I was adding these other activities onto my work sheet.

I can compromise with them though as a last resort. I honestly didn't realise that my eagerness would result in me losing my entitlement to JSA, since I was trying to find would, I thought it appropriate to put down.

So I could say to them that I will continue to job seek as normal and limit the time I work on my side venture so that it is less than 16.5 hours a week. Would they likely strike that deal with me?:money:

They don't strike deals, they enact the law (or at least they should, they haven't in your case). You should request your case is sent to a decision maker, if you receive an adverse decision, reduce the time you spend on your pursuit of self employment

TonnnnUK

dookar wrote: »

They don't strike deals, they enact the law (or at least they should, they haven't in your case). You should request your case is sent to a decision maker, if you receive an adverse decision, reduce the time you spend on your pursuit of self employment

Thanks, yes that's what the woman on the phone said, about a "decision maker". So that's who I am going to meet tomorrow at 9am. As said, I am willing to "compromise" the issue and reduce the time spent pursuing self employment.

I have sufficient and common sense responses to any issues they present to me which abide by the HM R&C terms for self employment and with regards to suitably seeking employment.

Would there be a danger that they decide that I have not been sufficiently seeking work the entire time and that instead of it being my EO's fault for signing my sheet, it is mine and they seek to reclaim all money paid out to me? Or is that just me thinking too much that the world is against me? :rotfl:

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed here as it has helped me, and reassured me a great deal.

I'll be back to report what happens.

TonnnnUK

So I went in at 9am and yet more shambles, really is quite laughable. Said I had an appointment at 9, my name wasn't down. There was confusion as a lady made some calls and eventually I was sent up to talk to the woman I said to ask for.

I explained the situation and initially she was in agreement with the others who had said I was deemed self-employed. I had some print outs and explained according to HMRC I was not self employed, and she mentioned something about that according to job centre's definitions I am. I questioned how they can have differing definitions. After some more reading of her screen she must have found a section on self-employment and eventually she agreed with me, I was still doing sufficient job seeking and had availability and so I was meeting the requirements for JSA.

She the went away and she came back with a form to fill out to go to a decision maker. In this form it required the job search I was doing between 2 certain dates. I only had my jobsearch info with me so we had a quick look on their search function and noted down some jobs. I found jobs from JCP, job site and total jobs so these details on the form are sketchy, but how much can they look into them anyway?

Another point of the conversation was that I asked if my EO should have advised me on the time spent working on my activites rather than just to cut off the JSA and the lady agreed that the EO probably should have done.

Anyway I'm due back next week to find out whats going on, and they should have a decision by then.

I still stand by my case that by setting up a site (could be interpreted as promoting my skills/experience), and reaching out to do free work for charities (gaining experience and hopefully gain referral work), I have been taking sufficient steps to gaining employment of some kind, whether it be hired or self employed. And that is the whole aim isnt it?

If they turn around and say no, I'll get back to them stating I've quit my "job", will promise to apply to a few jobs each week and spend the rest of the day watching TV, so that I am eligible.

I'm kinda past caring though. I have a meeting this week with a charity regarding my side venture, so hopefully this will be the launchpad I need.

zzzLazyDaisy

Your problem is the 16.5 hours. If you work 16 hours or more you are deemed to be unavailable for work. This would also be the case if you do voluntary work for 16+ hours a week, even though it is not remunerative. So whatever the outcome of the review by the decision maker, I suggest that you cut back the hours that you spend on building up your business to something less than 16 hrs.

Also, you should be aware that there have been cases where people have done this sort of un-remunerated work with a view to increasing the prospect of work, only to find that when they do earn some money, the earnings are spread backwards over the previous period and so they are deemed to have been overpaid and the money clawed back (I think the logic is that the earnings would not have been possible without the hours of unpaid work that were put in, so in reality the money represented back pay for that period).

Good luck!

TonnnnUK

Thanks LazyDaisy for the information. I did say to the woman I spoke with today that I can cut back the work I am doing if that's what's required but I dunno if it has now gone too far to have that compromise? I am about to call her anyway so I will enquire. I'm not happy that I was never told that by putting up a website and seeking clients that it could be deemed as self employed or working over this 16.5 hour. As far as I was concerned I was expanding my job search. Instead of saying you need to do less in future, the EO just signed me off there and then.

The logic is still totally flawed in my opinion. If I was taking steps to find clients, if that ever comes to fruition I would then be able to sign off as self employed. Who's to say that I am more likely to get a job applying to vacancies than trying to make work for myself? Both instances are forms of seeking work, either to be employed by someone else or to be able to go self employed. Surely I am/was being productive in my pursuit to find work was I not?

If they don't see it in that instance, there is some serious problem with the system!

Nyfle

Disappointing that this isn't resolved, it should have been quite a simple reversal. Also, apologies for not coming back on the weekend like I said I would. I noticed on Sunday night that dookar had posted all you should have needed, then had difficulties actually posting...

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Your problem is the 16.5 hours. If you work 16 hours or more you are deemed to be unavailable for work. This would also be the case if you do voluntary work for 16+ hours a week, even though it is not remunerative. So whatever the outcome of the review by the decision maker, I suggest that you cut back the hours that you spend on building up your business to something less than 16 hrs.

No, that is absolutely incorrect. I don't know why so many people believe this to be true...

From DirectGov (here):

For example, if you receive Jobseekers Allowance, you can volunteer full time as long as you are still actively seeking employment. Also, you must be able to attend job interviews at 48 hours notice and available to take up paid work at one week’s notice.

There is no magical 16hr rule (or 16.5 as you say). What's important is that one is still meeting the terms of the JSAg, is looking and available for work etc.

TonnnnUK wrote: »

Thanks LazyDaisy for the information. I did say to the woman I spoke with today that I can cut back the work I am doing if that's what's required but I dunno if it has now gone too far to have that compromise? I am about to call her anyway so I will enquire. I'm not happy that I was never told that by putting up a website and seeking clients that it could be deemed as self employed or working over this 16.5 hour. As far as I was concerned I was expanding my job search. Instead of saying you need to do less in future, the EO just signed me off there and then.

The logic is still totally flawed in my opinion. If I was taking steps to find clients, if that ever comes to fruition I would then be able to sign off as self employed. Who's to say that I am more likely to get a job applying to vacancies than trying to make work for myself? Both instances are forms of seeking work, either to be employed by someone else or to be able to go self employed. Surely I am/was being productive in my pursuit to find work was I not?

If they don't see it in that instance, there is some serious problem with the system!

With any luck you'll get the right decision now that it has been referred for DMA. Do you know if your claim has actually been closed?

TonnnnUK

Hey dont worry for not coming back over the weekend, you do have your own life!

I don't know why during our conversation we couldn't have just agreed that I work less than the 16.5 hours they have the issue with. Though maybe it's because I have verbally said to them that I have worked for over the 16.5 hours and because that is in the past and has happened they need to look into it? I am not so sure.

I just hope that if they disagree with my "appeal" they don't just then close my claim, but instead suggest I work less on that stuff.

I believe that the claim is still open because the sign off sheet was initially misplaced from last Tuesday. I had got a payment last week also, which confused the lady I was dealing with. So it seems my EO is pretty inept at his job anyway. So I think it is now on hold until this decision comes back.

Nyfle wrote: »

Disappointing that this isn't resolved, it should have been quite a simple reversal. Also, apologies for not coming back on the weekend like I said I would. I noticed on Sunday night that dookar had posted all you should have needed, then had difficulties actually posting...



No, that is absolutely incorrect. I don't know why so many people believe this to be true...

From DirectGov (here):

For example, if you receive Jobseekers Allowance, you can volunteer full time as long as you are still actively seeking employment. Also, you must be able to attend job interviews at 48 hours notice and available to take up paid work at one week’s notice.

There is no magical 16hr rule (or 16.5 as you say). What's important is that one is still meeting the terms of the JSAg, is looking and available for work etc.



With any luck you'll get the right decision now that it has been referred for DMA. Do you know if your claim has actually been closed?

Elvisia

Hi - You would be allowed to sign on and do this website if you said you were doing it in the evenings or the weekend. It's totally up to you what you do in your spare time. The reason they got sniffy about it you putting it on your sheet of things you are doing to look for work is because you have a written agreement that you will look for work in specific areas - I assume teaching - and that this does not come under those specific areas and therefore you would be breaking the agreement. I know this because my friend works for the JC and he explained when people go in to sign on with him he's just checking their job seeking matches what he's got on his system.

I am looking to do the same thing though, sign off and start up my own private tuition business. I rang the National Insurance people who were very helpful about my NI credits - they said not to pay them until I was properly working as I would end up over paying. It's always worth putting in phone calls to the tax and NI office who are generally very good. Having just been called into the JC today for an interview with a compliance officer which scared the daylights out of me but turned out it was a computer error, I am not in the best moods to say the JC know their ar*e from their elbow!!

TonnnnUK

So finally an update! I was supposed to receive a decision in writing, which failed to turn up and today (my normal signing day) I had an appointment booked in with the lady who I discussed the appeal with. Last week when she started writing out my appointment I told her I didn't want to see my original EO anymore, so I think I will just see her instead now. That's good.

So she asked if I had received the decision and I said no. She checked on the system and they've agreed with me and overturned it. She said on the grounds that I have always been available to work, but she still said I can't really do the amount of "work" I was doing previously.

I hammered out applying to jobs this week to make a point on my looking for work sheet, and she asked if I was aiming to go self and I said no. What I do for myself will be kept to myself from now on, what they don't know, they can't act (wrongly) on.

So eventually we have come to a good conclusion where common sense has prevailed, but it took a good while to get there!

What was worrying is that my EO, the lady I spoke to on the phone and my new EO who I discussed the appeal with all said that I was "working" and should be signed off. Though during the appeal meeting and after she read some of the JCP guidelines my new EO eventually believed I was correct, but it did take that extra bit of reading to get to that. This tells me that there is definitely some misunderstanding going on throughout the job centre staff and they need to rectify it! Other people may not contest such a decision and they'd be losing their entitlement because the staff are ill-informed about all the regulations.