NHS Penalty Charge Notice received

GirlFromMars_2

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

The OP states that they weren't aware that there were two kinds of JSA. Even I wasn't aware until now so it is a mistake that I might have made too. The payments are even the same too so it is just a matter of terminology it would seem!

What I don't get is why you'd be able to get free treatment with one and not with the other!

JSA-IR is means tested, and only given to people who are below a certain income level.

JSA-Conts is based on Contributions, and is available whatever the recipients other income.

Things like free dental treatment are only available to people who have been means tested and fall below the specified levels. JSA-IR is a qualifying benefit that means they've been means tested by the DWP and are entitled to free treatment.

peter999

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

The OP states that they weren't aware that there were two kinds of JSA. Even I wasn't aware until now so it is a mistake that I might have made too. The payments are even the same too so it is just a matter of terminology it would seem!

What I don't get is why you'd be able to get free treatment with one and not with the other!

You could have loads of money in bank and get Contribution Based JSA, as it is not dependent on income or savings.

peter999

You made a mistake & your responsibility what you sign.

gettingready

.. and it extremely unfair for people in receipt of income based JSA NOT to be entailed to free prescriptions/dental.

After all the amount of income based and contribution based is exactly the same so both (or neither) should get free prescriptions/dental.

I have prepayment certificate for meds - it is only £104.00 per year and can be paid monthly over 10 months at £10.40 per month. Got the same for my 24 yo daughter.

I wish there was something like that for dental too.

I am not on any benefits but can see how people can struggle here.

gettingready

peter999 wrote: »

You could have loads of money in bank and get Contribution Based JSA, as it is not dependent on income or savings.

Yes (notice could have not really has) and that makes it even more unfair as someone who CONTRIBUTED gets less than someone who never did - that is simply wrong.

peter999

gettingready wrote: »

Yes (notice could have not really has) and that makes it even more unfair as someone who CONTRIBUTED gets less than someone who never did - that is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, that's the system, it is means tested.

If they don't have loads of money and are on JSA(Cont), I think they can get help via another route, but they they need to apply, as they don't automatically qualify.

gettingready

Wrong, very very wrong to penalise people who worked and contributed to give to those who never did.

Frankly contribution based should be higher all together and relative to contributions having been made (irrespective of any savings - if any exist) when the other should be just basic amount.

As it is - working people falling on hard times are always worse off then those who never bothered to work.

peter999

gettingready wrote: »

Wrong, very very wrong to penalise people who worked and contributed to give to those who never did.

Frankly contribution based should be higher all together and relative to contributions having been made (irrespective of any savings - if any exist) when the other should be just basic amount.

As it is - working people falling on hard times are always worse off then those who never bothered to work.

What has this got to do with anything ?

Most people contribute, stop changing subject and diverting thread.

I have explained they can still get help.

Elvisia

Write an appeal to request they remove the penalty charge, explain in very clear terms that you were told by the nurse that you weren't liable since you were on JSA and you were unaware there were two types and you were committing an offence. Had you realised this you would have paid for the treatment. Regardless of whether you should have known etc it is always worth appealing these things, I've had a couple of penalty charges removed this way.

Podge52

gettingready wrote: »

Yes (notice could have not really has) and that makes it even more unfair as someone who CONTRIBUTED gets less than someone who never did - that is simply wrong.

On the face of it, it does seem unfair but the government deem you have earned enough in the previous two years to have made provision for yourself. The person on income based hasn't had that opportunity.