Daughter absolutely potless dont know where to turn

krisskross

debrag wrote: »

So what's the min you can live abroad and return with benefits? The mother seemed to do it easily enough. Or does it go on working years?

Mother may have worked when she returned to UK or had enough money not to need benefits immediately.

shazm.69

skintandscared wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand why they came to the UK from Spain. They had no money there, but they have none here either. If your daughter is taking care of the kids, the only one of them who can feasibly work is the father and he would stand a much better chance of getting a job in his home country.

Why did they come to the UK?

Because she is only 20 and was there alone and homeless she needed her MUM!

shazm.69

princessdon wrote: »

Op admits they came here to claim benefits as they were not entitled to Spanish benefits, I also think (could be wrong here) that op returned back herself from Spain when she couldn't get benefits and claimed (possibly still claiming) a while ago as job hunting is harder than they thought.

With that in mind, you can see why they are asking questions when they arrive in the uk, no jobs, no home and expect to be housed and have benefits. I understood the residency test looked at whether the intention of entering the country was benefits.

They left a home etc over there, op knows jobs are limited so why come?

Did i say they left a home over there NO i said they were made homeless!
Do you honestly think i would allow my daughter to live on the streets in a foreign country she didnt choose to move to spain we all went and then her Dad deserted us and moved back to uk. We were all stuck there i was working 8 hrs a day for 25 euros 7 days a week and still couldnt afford to live.

shazm.69

MinaMina wrote: »

well if you think this. why are you here, you might as well delete your account then ? Makes senses right?:D

No you should delete your account actually as all you do is poke your nose in and cause trouble because you obviously havent got any knowledge to give any constructive advice. You need to grow up,stop causing trouble and get a life maybe go find a job so that your not surfing on here all day waiting for your next thrill!

welshmoneylover

At no point have you backed up any of your posts with any references to any job seeking activities.
All anyone had read is what can we claim. No wonder people are cheesed off.

Miss_Havisham

shazm.69 wrote: »

Did i say they left a home over there NO i said they were made homeless!
Do you honestly think i would allow my daughter to live on the streets in a foreign country she didnt choose to move to spain we all went and then her Dad deserted us and moved back to uk. We were all stuck there i was working 8 hrs a day for 25 euros 7 days a week and still couldnt afford to live.

Blimey, what a shambles!

Perhaps her father could help ?

Could you go out to work and have your daughter or her boyfriend look after your kids ?

Could the kids be fostered temporarily until your daughter gets back on her feet ? Could the boyfriends family help - financially or letting him move in with them.

szam_

shazm.69 wrote: »

No you should delete your account actually as all you do is poke your nose in and cause trouble because you obviously havent got any knowledge to give any constructive advice. You need to grow up,stop causing trouble and get a life maybe go find a job so that your not surfing on here all day waiting for your next thrill!

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say 'people poking their nose in'. If this bothers you, then why would you seek advice on an internet forum posting details for everyone to see?

I also believe the person you're having a go at in the post, the post you quoted wasn't aimed at you but someone else.

And to save you having a go at me for a reasonable post as you have seemed to have done since your original post, and ignored peoples legitimate questions; i have a job and i'm only up so late because i'm working lates this week, and quite frankly, from your attitude since your original post, i wouldn't like to 'poke my nose in' your business, i was just browsing about. It irks me that instead of also replying to people who have genuinely tried to offer advice, you've ignored them and exclusively responded to people who've angered you; couldn't you just ignore them and just get the advice from people who are trying to help?

My $0.02

welshmoneylover

szam_ wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say 'people poking their nose in'. If this bothers you, then why would you seek advice on an internet forum posting details for everyone to see?

I also believe the person you're having a go at in the post, the post you quoted wasn't aimed at you but someone else.

And to save you having a go at me for a reasonable post as you have seemed to have done since your original post, and ignored peoples legitimate questions; i have a job and i'm only up so late because i'm working lates this week, and quite frankly, from your attitude since your original post, i wouldn't like to 'poke my nose in' your business, i was just browsing about. It irks me that instead of also replying to people who have genuinely tried to offer advice, you've ignored them and exclusively responded to people who've angered you; couldn't you just ignore them and just get the advice from people who are trying to help?

My $0.02

Huh?

Message 2 short.

szam_

welshmoneylover wrote: »

Huh?

Message 2 short.

I was responding the consistent hostile remarks to people in this thread from the OP. At no point have i seen the OP reply to someones questions, who has been genuinely trying to help, that's what annoys me just reading through the posts.

If the situation was as dire as being made out, then surely the first thought would be to give attention to those trying to help, rather than use 100% of her time replying simply to those who may be being less helpful/judgmental, and as in my original post, having a go at someone who wasn't even directing a post at the OP.

If someone is going to be consistently hostile to people, why, if i had any advice to give, would i want to help if there is a chance of the same treatment? People have already given advice and by the looks of it, a majority, if not all of it has been ignored. There is however a chance the OP may read this and think 'Maybe i should focus on my daughter' rather than just get angry. Slim chance by the looks of it, but worth a shot, just putting it out there really.

I also by no means support the perception of just being entitled to everything which has been portrayed, i'm just pointing out that the OP's efforts are being completely misfired in the wrong direction in this thread.

dktreesea

OP, the habitual residence test should be no more that 3 to 6 months, and for returning British nationals seeking to reestablish their ties to Britain can be granted immediately, but these days it seems to take around 2 years. And it shouldn't, imho, not for British nationals at least. Even the DWP's own guidelines say habitual residence should take no more than 1 to 3 months for British citizens.

A person who moves from one Member State to another in order to seek work is not a worker for EC regulations and is subject to the habitual residence test. So it's pretty clear that your child and her partner should be subject to the test.

However, I suggest you check out this site:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00416

and then click on the full report for The Habitual Residence Test ( PDF, 16 pages, 143.1 KB)

It's an interesting read, especially the bit about not being able to deny benefits to EEA nationals (i.e. your child's partner) exercising his right to move around the EU to find work. IIt's talked about under the case law section). So maybe your child's partner should be the one applying for benefits rather than her.

Also, the Child Poverty Action Group's handbook is worth a look at too.

This is from the DWP's decision making document

" A person’s financial viability may be a relevant factor, but the test for habitual residence should not be applied so as to prevent access to public funds. It must be
applied in a way that allows for the possibility of a claimant establishing both habitual residence and an entitlement to benefits. (as per case law:
1 House of Lords, Nessa v CAO (1999) 1WLR 1937 HL)
"
And this:

Appropriate period of time
071346 The appropriate period of time need not be lengthy if the facts indicate that a person’s residence has become habitual in nature at an early stage1. In some circumstances the period can be as little as a month, but it must be a period which is more than momentary in a claimant’s life history2. A period of between one and three months is likely to be appropriate to demonstrate that a person’s residence is habitual in nature. Cogent reasons should be given where a period longer than three months is considered necessary3. 1 House of Lords, Nessa v CAO (1999) 1 WLR 1937 HL; 2 CIS/4389/99; 3 CIS/4474/03

If you want to read the full document:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch0703.pdf

I have had some experience of the DWP myself. They are very unhelpful if you are returning to the UK and even tried to stop us obtaining national insurance cards. (I didn't have one because I left before I turned 16). We're self employed, so I didn't really care as we weren't entitled to anything anyway, but I wrote to the HMRC and copied it to our MP, saying regretfully we wouldn't be paying any taxes or NI contributions because we were unable to get NI cards and numbers. Lo and behold, we had NI numbers within two weeks of my letter.

My advice would be, once your daughter has been back 3 months, to reapply for benefits. If they are still refused, then get your MP involved and write to the DWP asking for a reason for the decision.

Actually, the DWP have a cheek. It makes me mad just reading about the way they are treating your daughter. I note this reply to an MP in 2002 from the then parliamentary Under Secretary for the DWP, Malcolm Wicks:

Shaw asked the Secretary of State these questions:

1). What action he has taken as a consequence of the European Court judgement of 25 Feb 1999 in the case of Swaddling;

2) What plans he has to review the habitual residence test.

In his Written Answer, Wicks replied:

"In its judgement in the Swaddling case, the European Court of Justice made it clear that people returning from a European Member state to re-establish ties in the United Kingdom can be treated as habitually resident on their return.

Following this judgement we reviewed the habitual residence test and decided to extend this important principle to people returning from any country overseas to re-establish ties here. These measures have resulted in fairer access to income-related benefits, while ensuring security against possible abuse of the benefits system by those with no real links to the United Kingdom."

Your girl is coming home, and presumably re-establishing her ties to Britain. She should have been granted habitual residence on return, let alone by now. Don't put up with it. Go to your MP. DWP jobsworths (and their ATOS lackeys) cause more misery in this country than the rest of the government departments put together.