Borrowing while on benefits. Is this allowed?

GwylimT

Why on earth are you building a wall, your neighbours as responsible for preventing an animal damaging or accessing another property, therefore I would be ensuring they paid for replacement fence panels.

Torry_Quine

cattermole wrote: »

No they were looking for advice on how the DWP would view the loan.

They were certainly not looking for advice on whether repairs to their house were necessary or not?! None of your business.

Why do you insist on being so antagonistic?

Poppie68 wrote: »

And you need to stop trying to turn other people's threads into battle grounds with your accusing and argumentative replies....

If members are uncomfortable with others they need to use the ignore function.

Well said

nannytone_2

cattermole wrote: »

Excuse me the OP made it absolutely clear they did not want to discuss whether their repairs were necessary or not and whether they should borrow money.

The benefits board is full of those who dole out moral messages/opinions rather than just answer the questions asked.

to be fair, i also asked if the repairs were necessary.

this wasn't about being nosey or irrelevant, just making sure that the OP couldn't be accused of deprivation of capital ( necessary repairs are allowed but home improvements aren't)

i never took anyone else comments as any different to my own

cattermole

nannytone wrote: »

to be fair, i also asked if the repairs were necessary.

this wasn't about being nosey or irrelevant, just making sure that the OP couldn't be accused of deprivation of capital ( necessary repairs are allowed but home improvements aren't)

i never took anyone else comments as any different to my own

Fair enough Nanny except borrowing money is not deprivation of capital I think has now been established by the OP themselves. So whether it is used for home improvements or essential repairs is irrelevant.

You are hardened to the Benefits Board Nanny comments like can you afford it? Are these repairs essential, you can get it done cheaper etc etc. I do see as being different and invasive.

Clearly it all had a profound effect on the OP, I don't think supporting someone who is clearly upset is being antagonistic or makes me always so!

Anyway the OP has left now so not a lot more to be said that will make any difference.

pmlindyloo

cattermole wrote: »

Fair enough Nanny except borrowing money is not deprivation of capital I think has now been established by the OP themselves. So whether it is used for home improvements or essential repairs is irrelevant.

You are hardened to the Benefits Board Nanny comments like can you afford it? Are these repairs essential, you can get it done cheaper etc etc. I do see as being different and invasive.

Clearly it all had a profound effect on the OP, I don't think supporting someone who is clearly upset is being antagonistic or makes me always so!

Anyway the OP has left now so not a lot more to be said that will make any difference.

Most of the comments that are now being seen as 'invasive' were posted before my link to say the loan would be disregarded and the DWP's comments from the OP (Must say the comment that it is still the bank's money is a bit weird but anyway...........:))

Most people were trying to find out whether the OP was having necessary repairs done which would probably not be seen as deprivation of capital (in the usual scenarios).

Others were warning the OP that their DLA may end when they have to apply for PIP, others were wondering if they could afford it and others were amazed that such a loan could be given in the first place.

Yes, some posts may have come across as a little abrupt but personally I think the OP was being just a little defensive.

Having said that we 'hardened posters' can be a little 'short' maybe and not spend time fully explaining why we're asking questions and perhaps even being less than 'friendly'.

It is a problem to get it just right all the time (guilty as charged) and I've noticed this often occurs when you answer the same question (just in a different form) over and over again'.

We forget the newbies are just that and don't know the 'good, the bad, the ugly' posters.

Must try harder!

cattermole

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Most of the comments that are now being seen as 'invasive' were posted before my link to say the loan would be disregarded and the DWP's comments from the OP (Must say the comment that it is still the bank's money is a bit weird but anyway...........:))

Most people were trying to find out whether the OP was having necessary repairs done which would probably not be seen as deprivation of capital (in the usual scenarios).

Others were warning the OP that their DLA may end when they have to apply for PIP, others were wondering if they could afford it and others were amazed that such a loan could be given in the first place.

Yes, some posts may have come across as a little abrupt but personally I think the OP was being just a little defensive.

Having said that we 'hardened posters' can be a little 'short' maybe and not spend time fully explaining why we're asking questions and perhaps even being less than 'friendly'.

It is a problem to get it just right all the time (guilty as charged) and I've noticed this often occurs when you answer the same question (just in a different form) over and over again'.

We forget the newbies are just that and don't know the 'good, the bad, the ugly' posters.

Must try harder!

Very fair comments x

takman

cattermole wrote: »

Fair enough Nanny except borrowing money is not deprivation of capital I think has now been established by the OP themselves. So whether it is used for home improvements or essential repairs is irrelevant.

You are hardened to the Benefits Board Nanny comments like can you afford it? Are these repairs essential, you can get it done cheaper etc etc. I do see as being different and invasive.

Clearly it all had a profound effect on the OP, I don't think supporting someone who is clearly upset is being antagonistic or makes me always so!

Anyway the OP has left now so not a lot more to be said that will make any difference.

How can asking questions to an anonymous poster be considered invasive?. That's the beauty of this type of forum that you can ask for details of situations because you don't know who each other are.

That's the reason I read these forums is because it gives me an insight into how other people save and spend their money which I find interesting. You can find out details due to the anomoninity that are not usually shared with other people. As long as no names or addresses etc are asked then no harm is done.

pmlindyloo

takman wrote: »

How can asking questions to an anonymous poster be considered invasive?. That's the beauty of this type of forum that you can ask for details of situations because you don't know who each other are.

That's the reason I read these forums is because it gives me an insight into how other people save and spend their money which I find interesting. You can find out details due to the anomoninity that are not usually shared with other people. As long as no names or addresses etc are asked then no harm is done.

I don't disagree with you but your point doesn't take into account the, how can I put it?, mindset of the poster.

There is, without doubt, a section of society that considers all people on benefits as 'scroungers' (or other such names) and this even extends to those on disability benefits. This view is fuelled by the some sections of the media and, of course, by genuine instances where people are abusing the system.

Consequently there are people who become very 'defensive' when talking about what benefits they receive and in this particular case the OP felt that people were being rather dismissive/judgemental of their desire to 'improve their lot'. They probably felt that if they were employed and asked the same question then the responses would have been different.

I can understand that.

FBaby

There is, without doubt, a section of society that considers all people on benefits as 'scroungers' (or other such names) and this even extends to those on disability benefits. This view is fuelled by the some sections of the media and, of course, by genuine instances where people are abusing the system.

Or by just reading posts like this one where someone on disability benefit has £300 disposable income at least as they say they could afford the monthly repayments, and also by find it interesting that it is considered acceptable that banks take into account DLA towards their assessment of affordability, but when DLA is taken into account as income for the purpose of repayment of tax credits or to bankruptcy applicants, benefit recipients complained that it shouldn't be taken into account because DLA goes fully towards their disability needs.

I don't have an issue with the OP acknowledging that despite being on disability benefits, they can afford to repay a large debt, but have an issue with those who post about how people on disability benefits are so hard done by.

Podge52

FBaby wrote: »

Or by just reading posts like this one where someone on disability benefit has £300 disposable income at least as they say they could afford the monthly repayments, and also by find it interesting that it is considered acceptable that banks take into account DLA towards their assessment of affordability, but when DLA is taken into account as income for the purpose of repayment of tax credits or to bankruptcy applicants, benefit recipients complained that it shouldn't be taken into account because DLA goes fully towards their disability needs.

I don't have an issue with the OP acknowledging that despite being on disability benefits, they can afford to repay a large debt, but have an issue with those who post about how people on disability benefits are so hard done by.

Different disabilities have different costs. It would be far too costly to award different amounts based on different disabilities.

Just because the op can afford to repay a loan doesn't mean to say all those with a disability could.

I wish you could get away from the idea that if you can I can and if one can then anyone can.