Threatened to be cut off.

The-Joker

NorthFin wrote: »

How long can you use emergency credit? For example after a week or two, will the emergency credit stop?

I don't know but as far as I can see with electricity they are not allowed to switch you off. So you could keep using emergency supply for a long time. I don't know what the end game is, I mean you would get a lot of nasty red letters.

Maybe we could get an answer from someone, what happens after a few months on emergency supply?

SwanJon

The-Joker wrote: »

I don't know but as far as I can see with electricity they are not allowed to switch you off. So you could keep using emergency supply for a long time. I don't know what the end game is, I mean you would get a lot of nasty red letters.

Maybe we could get an answer from someone, what happens after a few months on emergency supply?

As above - you don't get months of emergency supply - you get about £5 which will last most people a few days.
The emergency is there to allow you time to go to the shop, not to give free electricity.

If I don't buy beer, it's not the off licence cutting me off, and this is the same. If someone on a prepayment meter doesn't top up they will have no electricity, but it is not the supplier cutting them off.

You don't get bills on a prepayment meter, so you won't get any 'nasty red letters' - in this case the OP has already had those - before the prepayment meter was fitted.

sniggings

Andy_WSM wrote: »

You are wrong on two counts.

Before I became disabled I was on a good wage and saved money for any eventual rainy day. As it turns out, the rainy day turned into monsoon season and I am currently unable to work. Because I have more than, whatever the threashold is, in savings I get no help with the cost of living, other than the £70 a week ESA payment (£3,640 a year). That is, in effect, my income.

Despite a long and tiring battle I have still not managed to claim disability payments as, despite the fact I am virtually housebound and spend 2 or 3 days a week drugged up and sleeping, I am not disabled enough!

I am not entitled to Council Tax benefits (due to savings) so still pay £105 a month to the local council, which is a third of my "income" and I do not have a mortgage or pay rent.

More fool me for not !!!!ing it up the wall when I was working, because if I had, the state would be looking after me now. As it stands, they've got their hand in my pockets until I practically run out of money and then I may get some additional help.

Lesson learnt. In my next life. Don't work so hard that you burn out and become chronically ill and have some nice holidays rather than save!

I did say like for like, if you have savings then of course you won't get the same as someone that doesn't.

The benefit is a safety net, not to draw on if you can support yourself.

So sorry I'm not wrong, the point I was making was that the benefit system is there for all, you hear the tories keep claiming that such and such doesn't get a spare bedroom so why should those on benefits etc etc my point is they too would be entitled to the same level of benefit so they either have savings so don't need the benefit or they already get more than the benefit they are claiming is too high.

Andy_WSM

sniggings wrote: »

I did say like for like, if you have savings then of course you won't get the same as someone that doesn't.

The benefit is a safety net, not to draw on if you can support yourself.

So sorry I'm not wrong, the point I was making was that the benefit system is there for all, you hear the tories keep claiming that such and such doesn't get a spare bedroom so why should those on benefits etc etc my point is they too would be entitled to the same level of benefit so they either have savings so don't need the benefit or they already get more than the benefit they are claiming is too high.

And where do you think my savings came from? No one gave them to me! - and I've not earned the sort of money that is being referred to as a "cap" either but I'm not prepared to discuss my finances with you, just suffice to say I spend nowhere near the amount of money that people receive in benefits.

Anyway my original point was simply, if you haven't got it, you shouldn't spend it. I was frustrated to read that someone has ice creams in their freezer that they are worried about melting because they can't afford the electricity to run the freezer.

Priorities.

sniggings

Andy_WSM wrote: »

And where do you think my savings came from? No one gave them to me! - and I've not earned the sort of money that is being referred to as a "cap" either but I'm not prepared to discuss my finances with you, just suffice to say I spend nowhere near the amount of money that people receive in benefits.

Anyway my original point was simply, if you haven't got it, you shouldn't spend it. I was frustrated to read that someone has ice creams in their freezer that they are worried about melting because they can't afford the electricity to run the freezer.

Priorities.

quite happy to disuss all the points you bring up but you replied to my post, then side track it with points I was not defending.

My point is a very simple one, like for like everyone is entilted to the same benefits, so if you are not, as said you either have savings so don't need help or have more than the person on benefits.

It's impossible for someone on benefits to be better off than someone not on benefits, it's as simple as that, so lets not use those on low incomes as a scape goat for all the countries problems,because at the end oft he day as I keep saying we as a country give more than twice the amount of unemployment benefit away each year in foreign aid, whether i agree with that is not the point, but if we can't afford to pay the unemployed then how on earth can we afford to give over twice that amount away each year...my point is we can afford it, the unemployed are being used to cover over the real problems, such as tax avoidance, pensions are over half of the welfare bill,low wages etc etc and people like you are falling for it.

Andy_WSM

sniggings wrote: »

It's impossible for someone on benefits to be better off than someone not on benefits, it's as simple as that,

You are obviously more out of touch than the current Government, who acknowledge there is an issue with Benefit claimants sometimes receiving more than people in work.

sniggings

Andy_WSM wrote: »

You are obviously more out of touch than the current Government, who acknowledge there is an issue with Benefit claimants sometimes receiving more than people in work.

there you go again, the governments "acknowledge" is a cover so you don't see the real problems, slag off those on benefits then you are not seeing the real problems.

How on earth can someone be worse off than someone on benefits...the person not on benefits as said can claim too, so if their wages are lower than the benefit level then they too can claim, yes if you compare a woman with 20 kids on benefits to a single guy on £15k,yes the woman would be better off, but that's not like for like.

You just don't get it, everyone in the country is entitled to the same level of housing benefits and unemployment benefits so they either, like you have to much savings or are already getting more than the benefit level.

The tories best one yet is the bedroom tax, saying why should those out of work have a spare bedroom, well first lets face it, most working people wouldn't want to live in a council place with 10 spare bedrooms never mind 1, and the spare bedroom was probably forced on them because of a lack of 1 bed places, and the daft fact is, if that same person goes private rented they can have as many spare bedrooms they want and still get the full rate of housing benefits and lastly if the working person can't afford the rent they too can claim, so how on earth can the worker be worse off?

(yep having savings and a mortgage rules you out but if we want to tighten the benefits rules like you sound you argree we can we really have someone living in a house worth maybe ££££££££ and still claiming mortgage payments)

Cardew

sniggings wrote: »

You just don't get it, everyone in the country is entitled to the same level of housing benefits and unemployment benefits so they either, like you have to much savings or are already getting more than the benefit level.



so how on earth can the worker be worse off?

Depends how you define 'worse off' and you seem to dismiss 'too much savings' as of little consequence.


Throughout the lifetime, of even the oldest contributor to MSE, we have been exhorted by various Governments to 'save for our old age'.


However even a modest level of savings disqualifies someone from many benefits. Therefor a worker, in rental accommodation, can receive lower benefits than the unemployed, and thus be 'worse off'.


Anyway this is not really the platform to discuss social security payments.

Andy_WSM

Thanks Cardew.

Can't hear him anyway now. No matter how loud he shouts.

This message is hidden because sniggings is on your ignore list

sniggings

Cardew wrote: »

Depends how you define 'worse off' and you seem to dismiss 'too much savings' as of little consequence.


Throughout the lifetime, of even the oldest contributor to MSE, we have been exhorted by various Governments to 'save for our old age'.


However even a modest level of savings disqualifies someone from many benefits. Therefor a worker, in rental accommodation, can receive lower benefits than the unemployed, and thus be 'worse off'.


Anyway this is not really the platform to discuss social security payments.

there are issues with benefits and whether savings should stop you getting those benefits, I would disagree the level is "modest" tho before benefits stop because of savings. A few thousand to many is not modest.

Therefor a worker, in rental accommodation, can receive lower benefits than the unemployed, and thus be 'worse off'.

Of course a worker will in general get less benefits then a non worker, that's just common sense, we are talking total income here, and a worker in rental will always be better off than a non worker...yep not by much if that worker is on min wage but still better off. Which was the point I was making