Universal Credits - Self Employed

samasama

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

People with "a better work ethic, tons more motivation and drive" don't limit their working week to just 24 hours! 24 hours a week sounds more like the minimum self employed people have to do to maximise their welfare payments or/and avoid JSA conditions.

My first response to that is far too rude to type. How dare you assume you know my situation (or any others).

** rant follows - fuelled by anger, re-written to try to remain rational! **

For many many years I was a complete workaholic, easily averaging the 60+hrs a week that doesn't get you a medal or entitle you to judge others. I was laughed at by mums on benefits at the school gates when they were planning their 3rd holiday or new car. I survived on coffee and the desire to provide the best for my kids. I did not choose to be a single parent but I was damn sure we'd have a good life.

And then all those years of working so hard took their toll and I'm left too ill to do it any more. Like many others, I work part-time because I'm too ill to work full time. The doctor says so. The specialist says so. But according to ATOS I'm perfectly OK and should be working 40hrs a week!!!!!

I'd love to work more (actually I average 28 normally, but lately it's dropped because of customers' requirements - something I obviously have no control over). I am very motivated and driven - I am also extremely frustrated that my body can't keep up any more.

I suppose I could just give up and spend my life on the dole, after all there's not a single employer in their right mind that would employ me as I'd have to tell them my abilities are seriously limited by my illness (working for an hour has to be followed by 10-15 mins total rest to enable me to continue functioning ... after 3 hours of that I'd need an hour or two to recover). At present I work 3 or 4 hours with rest, then an hour or two once the kids are snoring. Weekends see me resting completely - I have no life outside that.

I wish I was healthy enough to work the 60+hrs a week - then perhaps I could imply others are workshy scroungers.

** rant over ... I'm a calm person really, but I can't help being ill, didn't plan to be a single parent and would love to be able to live without benefits **

On a less grumpy note - I appreciate the information that is provided here, however this is a terrifying time for those of us who AREN'T ABLE to work more than part-time. I realise there are plenty out there that play the system - but that doesn't mean everyone is.

samasama

Back to normal after my earlier tantrum LOL.

A couple of other questions …

What happens if a self-employed person is ill? I'm due a major op - I won't be able to work for at least 4 weeks, probably longer. During that time my average hours will drop and my income will disappear (fortunately my customers are willing to plan their needs around it and not find someone else). As the self-employed don’t benefit from sick pay, it made me wonder how UC will react if your circumstances vary month-to-month? For instance:
month 1 : 35 hrs pw
month 2 : ill - 0 hrs
month 3 : recovering - average 20hrs pw
month 4 : 35hrs again
How flexible is the system? Everything I've read seems to imply it assumes regular patterns of working. How quick will it reaction to a change of circumstances - and if it replaces ESA, how does the system trigger the ATOS interrogation and how does it treat temporary but serious ill-health. Obviously employed people have the luxury of sick pay, do we lose everything?


Also – how does UC treat child maintenance? My ex pays as and when he feels like it and only on the understanding that I prove the money went on the kids (I literally have to give him receipts!). Will child maintenance become “income” or still be disregarded?

Self-employed people usually have a good idea of how the business is doing, then give their paperwork to a bookkeeper or accountant at the end of the year to do their accounts. Lots of them don't have time to do it themselves (or the know-how). Their costs are going to increase because they'll need monthly reports back - and anyone who's dealt with an accountant knows it can take months to get them to deal with your paperwork - so expecting them to give you a monthly report in a matter of days is just laughable. The additional paperwork burden for the self-employed will be huge - and even accountants' groups have said it's not feasible (despite the fact they will be the big winners!).

MissMoneypenny

samasama wrote: »

But according to ATOS I'm perfectly OK and should be working 40hrs a week!!!!!

That's why Labour brought in these medicals. Did you appeal?

samasama wrote: »

I suppose I could just give up and spend my life on the dole, after all there's not a single employer in their right mind that would employ me as I'd have to tell them my abilities are seriously limited by my illness

If you are claiming tax credits, then you are already living on benefits.

JSA is £71 per week and you would have to attend work programmes or be sanctioned. How would you manage on just £71 per week cash for JSA for all your bills? Once your children are too old/left home, you can't continue to claim their benefits money too and there are no other benefits to replace that lost money; all you will have is that £71 per week cash.

BigAunty

samasama wrote: »

...


Also – how does UC treat child maintenance? My ex pays as and when he feels like it and only on the understanding that I prove the money went on the kids (I literally have to give him receipts!).

Go through the CSA - your mutually negotiated agreement is obviously a bit one-sided and subjects you to stupid controls and conditionality. Under the CSA, he is obliged to pay a percentage of his salary on a regular basis without you having to justify how it is spent.

samasama

BigAunty wrote: »

Go through the CSA - your mutually negotiated agreement is obviously a bit one-sided and subjects you to stupid controls and conditionality. Under the CSA, he is obliged to pay a percentage of his salary on a regular basis without you having to justify how it is spent.

Originally went through CSA but he refused to see the kids while they were involved and told them (and all our friends) that I was stopping him seeing them. Plus of course the CSA cause all sorts of problems - like when I told them he'd had a £30k payrise (his work accidentally sent a payslip to our home, a year after he moved - never found out who to thank LOL). The CSA told me to put it in writing, which I did - they then sent a copy of that letter to him(!!!!) This to a man THEY refused to deal with by phone as he's so abusive. I suffered badly for that one.

So I agreed to arrange it directly with him and he's started seeing his kids again - had to do what's best for them (and safer for me too).

samasama

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That's why Labour brought in these medicals. Did you appeal?

Yep, gave them all the medical evidence, but a fluctuating condition just doesn't make you ill enough. Because I can sometimes work a few hours, they say I can work full time. The stress of the situation caused a nervous breakdown. I am now more ill than if I hadn't applied. Working when I can, topped up with the benefits I'm currently entitled to (and help from friends/family when they can) - that means we scrape by. But I guess under the new system I'll have to look for a job to replace my part-time work, then I'll be off sick, then I'll have to apply for benefits................. and repeat ad infinitum.

By the time the kids leave home, my elderly disabled parents will be about ready to move in for me to look after (although my dad pointed out the other day that they've looked after me more this year!!).

In the meantime I'll hope for a miraculous improvement in my health, an end to the recession (so my customers spend more money) and ..... world peace :rotfl:

Reading some of the other threads on the forums, I half expect to get flamed for having an opinion ... read through the depressing one started by The White Horse (called Just Stop All Benefits) aimed at winding people up and some of the opinions were awful. I totally agree that the benefits system needs updating, simplifying and made more efficient. However, more focus needs to be on those who scam the system. Somewhere I saw a figure of 2% quoted - I'm sure there are more than that. I think more effort should be put into making the system work properly as that would account for about 20% of the savings they need to make!! If you add in the tax/VAT fraud figures, that'd be even more ... it's a bit like the water companies - yes we're going to put up prices even though we could make more money by mending all the leaks, but it's easier to make you suffer because we might have to work harder otherwise.

BigAunty

samasama wrote: »

..
So I agreed to arrange it directly with him and he's started seeing his kids again - had to do what's best for them (and safer for me too).

You are stuck between a rock and a hardplace. If it were me (easy to say, of course), then I think I'd prefer to be in control, receive the money to raise the children without the toxic relationship and not be party to blackmail. It's not good for them if you don't know where the next pennies are coming from and are raising them on a very low income while he lives the life of riley.

He's got you over a barrel because he is blackmailing you by withdrawing from the children and you've got him over a barrel if you want to stop fretting about the cost of raising the children by using the CSA as the intermediary instead of having him pick fault in your budget on a regular basis and be a tightwad.

If he only wants to be a father on his own terms (being miserly with his child support payments and controlling how you spend it to the nearest penny), and only wants to see them if he can get away with paying virtually nothing, then he's no father at all.

But as I said, you're the one with the dilemma, not me, it's easy to be a keyboard warrior, hope you don't mind my musing.

MissMoneypenny

samasama wrote: »

Originally went through CSA but he refused to see the kids while they were involved and told them (and all our friends) that I was stopping him seeing them. Plus of course the CSA cause all sorts of problems - like when I told them he'd had a £30k payrise (his work accidentally sent a payslip to our home, a year after he moved - never found out who to thank LOL). The CSA told me to put it in writing, which I did - they then sent a copy of that letter to him(!!!!) This to a man THEY refused to deal with by phone as he's so abusive. I suffered badly for that one.

So I agreed to arrange it directly with him and he's started seeing his kids again - had to do what's best for them (and safer for me too).

I'm sure your friends know what he is really like and if they still side with him, then they are strange people and aren't worth having as friends.

He seems to like to control you; as many ex's seem to from reading the CSA board (that's probably why they are ex's) but payments through the CSA will stop all of that. Are you really sure he is safe around your children?

BigAunty

I have to agree - controlling your finances, emotional blackmail, isolating you from family/friends - are all textbook features of domestic abuse (see the Womens Aid website) so it's a shame that unfortunately you are still subject to a power imbalance and being manipulated even though you are not still in the relationship.

samasama

I don't mind the musings or opinions - he's a horrible person and it took many years for me to break free of his control.

My decision to ditch the CSA was partly thanks to their stupidity (above) which was more painful for me than them (once too many times, couldn't go through it any more), and partly because it meant he'd agree to see them (far better that they had a poor but regular relationship and could make their own minds up in their own time).

Anyway, life's better now (well in that respect anyway). The kids see through his bull**** and his only control is over how I spend the maintenance. That said - it's only fair that it goes on the kids, it's the only way they really get any treats as I don't have spare cash. Hopefully UC won't treat maintenance as income, that would seriously penalise children.

Raises an important issue about the logistics of UC - the controlling partner in an abusive relationship will now have even more control