Just got married (Sad face)

Youngest78

For the record, we've not been swindling things. As you can see, I'm not even familar with the very rules I'm meant to be bending. Our living circumstances have been very complicated over the past two years due to my job and bereavement but suffice it to say that during the time she's been claiming we've not been living together.

I think I've gathered the general concensus of opinion so thanks for the responses.

Tofudragon

Years ago when I moved cities and lived with a partner, I was unemployed whilst they worked full-time, because we lived together I wasn't able to claim JSA at all from what I was told (luckily I got a part time job a couple of weeks afterwards) but basically I was told at the job centre that my partner had to provide for me with working over 24 hrs regardless of how much earnt - it's a cut off point with no wiggle room.

If you both lived together before marriage, your partner shouldn't have been getting JSA unless it was contributions based.

About the debt your partner has - has the idea of a Debt Relief Order been discussed?

Youngest78

Poppie68 wrote: »

Circumstances? If you mean peoples incomings and outgoings that is purely a choice..Some people choose to be frugal and some live beyond their means, the benefit system is not there to fund someones choices is there (well should be!) to provide a safety net for peope that are in need. Being in debt is not a circumstance that is taken into account...have you been onto the Debt Free board, some excellent advice on there.

I honestly, for the life of me, do not understand why some people seem to have taken such exception to the things I've asked on here. I'm not out for a free ride or money for nothing. I regret even mentioning the word debt now but that was only insofar as my own debt. The JSA was a justifiable safety net for my wife when she was entitled to it. She earned a living, she had no part in losing her job and has worked her !!!! off tirelessly to find another. Yes, she had to allow for a fraction of it to honour minimum repayments on her debts, but she factored it in and made it work and didn't ask for anything else. You seem to be taking exception to some idea that I'm somehow asking for or expecting something we shouldn't be entitled to and yet you know nothing about our circumstances. My whole point is the principle. WE may well not be entitled to anything (because of income, debt or whatever), but it just surprises me that the decision is NOT mean-tested because there are surely people out there on far less than I am with no debt who work more than 24 hours and don't qualify either.

Poppie68

Do you rent your property? Have you looked in housing benefit? If your not earning enough you maybe able to claim a little help with that.

Mojisola

Youngest78 wrote: »

Hi,
I have been with my partner for some time now.

Youngest78 wrote: »

you know nothing about our circumstances.

We know what you have told us - I took your first post to say that you have been a couple for some time.

Youngest78

Mojisola wrote: »

We know what you have told us - I took your first post to say that you have been a couple for some time.

We have, and?

When I referred to our circumstances my point was that it is not means-tested.

Poppie68

Youngest78 wrote: »

I honestly, for the life of me, do not understand why some people seem to have taken such exception to the things I've asked on here. I'm not out for a free ride or money for nothing. I regret even mentioning the word debt now but that was only insofar as my own debt. The JSA was a justifiable safety net for my wife when she was entitled to it. She earned a living, she had no part in losing her job and has worked her !!!! off tirelessly to find another. Yes, she had to allow for a fraction of it to honour minimum repayments on her debts, but she factored it in and made it work and didn't ask for anything else. You seem to be taking exception to some idea that I'm somehow asking for or expecting something we shouldn't be entitled to and yet you know nothing about our circumstances. My whole point is the principle. WE may well not be entitled to anything (because of income, debt or whatever), but it just surprises me that the decision is NOT mean-tested because there are surely people out there on far less than I am with no debt who work more than 24 hours and don't qualify either.

I have'nt taken exception at all, but i think you have.
I was'nt on about you specifically i was responding to your post saying 'they don't take into account peoples circumstances' i was speaking generally.

As for the answers you have been given...well people can ony respond correctly to posters when more precise details are given and we are all trying to read between the lines as you are being vague about some things.

For example you could actually state how much you earn and how many hours you work, but you have only stated over 24hours. No one is being nosey just there is not alot to go on. Have you tried the Turn2us calculator?

Youngest78

Ok, point taken. Maybe I have been a little thin-skinned, it's only because we really, really aren't free-loaders and this thread was never meant to be a childish and hysterical rant about not getting something we don't deserve. I've deliberately kept it generic because the policy seems to me generic. It's our job (mine and hers) to sort ourselves out.

I do appreicate the responses, though, because if nothing else I've come away a little bit the wiser.

Mojisola

Mojisola wrote: »

We know what you have told us - I took your first post to say that you have been a couple for some time.

Youngest78 wrote: »

We have, and?

When I referred to our circumstances my point was that it is not means-tested.

If you have been living together and your partner was claiming means tested JSA, she should have been declaring the household income. If she wasn't, she was claiming fraudulently.

If you have been BF/GF but not living together, she was entitled to her JSA.

When_the_going_gets_tough

Many people do not realise that the government considers £110 per week plus housing costs (up to a certain amount) is enough for 2 people to live on. This may not seem much but that is what they expect, and that is all that 2 unemployed people living together will get. Harsh but there you are. Do try for housing benefit that may help you a little.