Council say I'm not earning enough as Self Employed

BigAunty

tomtom256 wrote: »

Notional income or assumed income comes to mind. It's somewhere in the regs.

Is this definately applicable to HB though? There are plenty of people who post on this forum that they are hacked off with JSA and are signing off, but who ask if they can still claim HB, and they are routinely told they can.

Notional income I've heard quoted for Universal Credit which, if it gets implemented, will insist that the self employed aspire to earning the Minimum Income Floor (the NMW) and could be treated as if they are earning it (notional income) even if they aren't in reality?

I've also heard it quoted for deprivation of capital, when benefit assessors have caught someone who deliberately gave away their capital in order to qualify for means tested benefits. They can treat the applicant as if they still have that money - notional capital.

tomtom256

BigAunty wrote: »

Is this definately applicable to HB though? There are plenty of people who post on this forum that they are hacked off with JSA and are signing off, but who ask if they can still claim HB, and they are routinely told they can.

Notional income I've heard quoted for Universal Credit which, if it gets implemented, will insist that the self employed aspire to earning the Minimum Income Floor (the NMW) and could be treated as if they are earning it (notional income) even if they aren't in reality?

I've also heard it quoted for deprivation of capital, when benefit assessors have caught someone who deliberately gave away their capital in order to qualify for means tested benefits. They can treat the applicant as if they still have that money - notional capital.

Yes I had a joint working case recently where it was used, customer declared 16 hours paid work a week. It transpired they where actually doing 35 hours a week with 19 hours unpaid as voluntary work.

As they didn't work for a charity it was deemed that they should be paid NMW for the full 35 hours, which was applied to the claim.

Caused quite a large overpayment.

It could be the volunteering part that was the issue.

BigAunty

tomtom256 wrote: »

Yes I had a joint working case recently where it was used, customer declared 16 hours paid work a week. It transpired they where actually doing 35 hours a week with 19 hours unpaid as voluntary work.

As they didn't work for a charity it was deemed that they should be paid NMW for the full 35 hours, which was applied to the claim.

Caused quite a large overpayment.

It could be the volunteering part that was the issue.

Woah! The company failed in their legal obligations to pay the HB claimant the NMW and the employee got clobbered? Shafted by employee and state? Wow.

Icequeen99

tomtom256 wrote: »

Yes I had a joint working case recently where it was used, customer declared 16 hours paid work a week. It transpired they where actually doing 35 hours a week with 19 hours unpaid as voluntary work.

As they didn't work for a charity it was deemed that they should be paid NMW for the full 35 hours, which was applied to the claim.

Caused quite a large overpayment.

It could be the volunteering part that was the issue.

I can't see how notional income rules could be stretched like that, it only applies in employed cases because of the NMW laws which don't apply to the self-employed.

The NMW x 35 hours in UC is not part of notional income - that is a separate set of rules .It is the minimum income floor.

IQ

tomtom256

BigAunty wrote: »

Woah! The company failed in their legal obligations to pay the HB claimant the NMW and the employee got clobbered? Shafted by employee and state? Wow.

Not shafted by the state, maybe should of explained the true facts at the start of their claim. Why should the state subsidize employers!

Funny how they got paid for 16 hours though so they could get tax credits etc. But this digresses the topic.

Thank you IQ, didn't realise it wouldn't be the same for self employment.

extrastrongbint

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

For decades so called 'self employed' claimants have been able to complete a form once a year with Mickey Mouse figures and get Working Tax Credits and Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support with nobody taking and serious notice because that person is removed from the unemployed figures.

I have lost count of the number of eBay sellers, website designers etc who weren't really self employed but living off their Working Tax Credits.

You state that having to provide proof of your income and expenditure every 3 months would "Obviously this would be a disaster".

Why is the scrutiny of your income "...a disaster"?

You are receiving taxpayers money - as a taxpayer I welcome your Local Authorities scrutiny of your finances to ensure you are correctly receiving taxpayers money.

Um...no - what I actually said was losing my HB would be a disaster. I don't care about the scrutiny and to suggest I am not legitimately working is just plain old rude!

haras_nosirrah

tomtom256 wrote: »

Yes I had a joint working case recently where it was used, customer declared 16 hours paid work a week. It transpired they where actually doing 35 hours a week with 19 hours unpaid as voluntary work.

Why would anyone work 19 hours a week unpaid when it is not for a charity?

By any chance did they know the employer on a personal level? Maybe even a relative

Weary_soul

This makes it a bit clearer as to what they're aiming for.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/7568/

NYM

Betterware Catalogue Agents, Avon Reps and even Big Issue sellers will now be expected to earn the MIF ?

arcon5

Maybe i'm wrong, but this thread basically reads to me that you're happy with jogging along as you are and don't want to do anything to bring greater enrichment to your life and get off benefits and want to find a way of stopping the state from pushing you to better the business or yourself or find employment that would allow you to make ends meet without their full financial support.