what should I do?

Mojisola

FBaby wrote: »

My post wasn't in response to OP's but to Mojisola's who suggested OP claimed CA despite her saying clearly that she couldn't possibly do more than what she currently does.

I thought that she would be able to stop the 8 hours ironing and could then spend more time with their son.

As has been said lots of times before, you don't have to be 'doing' something to a person for it to be counted as 'care'.
https://www.carersuk.org/help-and-advice/financial-support/help-with-benefits/carers-allowance
The 35 hours can include:
time spent physically helping the person,
time you spend ‘keeping an eye’ on the person you look after, eg preventing them coming to harm by walking out of the house,
time spent doing practical tasks for them, eg cooking,
time taken doing practical tasks, even if you don’t do them in the presence of the person you are looking after, may also count (for instance, if you look after someone who visits you regularly for the care they need, time spent preparing for the visit or cleaning up afterwards should count).

Alice_Holt

FBaby wrote: »

I DID provide advice. Someone mentioned CA when CA is not applicable to OP's circumstances. Where did I critisise let alone belittled OP?

There was no need for your response.

Lets go back to your post......."OP says she can only provide 8 hours, so wouldn't be eligible for CA anyway (or at least not honestly)."

I rather thought your snide aside of (at least honestly) betrayed your real intentions.
The clear implcation of adding this unpleasant comment is to suggest that the OP may not be honest.

I'm sorry to say your are not the only mean-spirited and unpleasant poster on this forum, who appears to derive pleasure from belittling and baiting other posters.

What a pity you have nothing better to do with your time and energy than to put down other people. Perhaps you could explain why you feel the need to upset others? Where you bullied as a child? Do you have low self-esteem?

There was every need for the response. You can't expect to post gratuitous insulting insinuations without other forum users commenting.

meer53

Alice_Holt wrote: »

Lets go back to your post......."OP says she can only provide 8 hours, so wouldn't be eligible for CA anyway (or at least not honestly)."

I rather thought your snide aside of (at least honestly) betrayed your real intentions.
The clear implcation of adding this unpleasant comment is to suggest that the OP may not be honest.

I'm sorry to say your are not the only mean-spirited and unpleasant poster on this forum, who appears to derive pleasure from belittling and baiting other posters.

What a pity you have nothing better to do with your time and energy than to put down other people. Perhaps you could explain why you feel the need to upset others? Where you bullied as a child? Do you have low self-esteem?

There was every need for the response. You can't expect to post gratuitous insulting insinuations without other forum users commenting.

Some people read things one way, some read it another. As for belittling people, thats exactly what you're doing.

missbiggles1

Alice_Holt wrote: »

Lets go back to your post......."OP says she can only provide 8 hours, so wouldn't be eligible for CA anyway (or at least not honestly)."

I rather thought your snide aside of (at least honestly) betrayed your real intentions.
The clear implcation of adding this unpleasant comment is to suggest that the OP may not be honest.

I'm sorry to say your are not the only mean-spirited and unpleasant poster on this forum, who appears to derive pleasure from belittling and baiting other posters.

What a pity you have nothing better to do with your time and energy than to put down other people. Perhaps you could explain why you feel the need to upset others? Where you bullied as a child? Do you have low self-esteem?

There was every need for the response. You can't expect to post gratuitous insulting insinuations without other forum users commenting.

And your contribution has been what, exactly?

Alice_Walker

missbiggles1 wrote: »

And your contribution has been what, exactly?

Fulfilling her Benefits and Work referral quota by the looks of it

mirry

I provide 20+hrs a week care. My mother in law now also provides some.

I wrote 8+ , Because wtc told me I need to do 16 hrs work
8 ironing & 8 other work.
But there's no way I can do an extra 8 hours work. So that's that.

Bananas123

you could iron 50% slower ?

> did you look at post #22 ?, sometimes (genuinely speaking not messing >) if care becomes habitual etc, you may not be aware you are caring ?, like when you repeat a task so many times it becomes "intuitive".

but if you are not near the thresholds, don't do so, it's obviously fraud etc...

i hate ironing (thus don't bother)

FBaby

I rather thought your snide aside of (at least honestly) betrayed your real intentions. The clear implcation of adding this unpleasant comment is to suggest that the OP may not be honest.

How do you know about my real intentions? It's incredible how people claiming benefits, especially for MH always go on about how people are constantly jumping to conclusions about their intentions and reasons for claiming benefits, then there are posters like you who come and do exactly that to others.

If you want my real intentions, here there are:
I think CA is a very valuable benefit. It should be targeted at people who work and earn money but suddenly have to care for a close relative/friend and still need an income. CA should be higher for such people.

Unfortunately, CA is more commonly now claimed by people who see as an easy way to avoid claiming other more scutinised benefits or working. People see it as an extension of PIP, so that the moment PIP is claimed, CA can be too. The DPW has evidenced that it is the benefits the most fraudulently claimed in proportion (and I'm not going to post the link again because I have done enough time).

Do I have an issue with OP? Not at all. They are looking how they can claim working tax credits, unfortunately, you can't care for a relative and claim this as work in the way it is defined by TC.

I do have an issue with people right away suggesting that CA can be claimed when the person has already said they are struggling with 16 hours or work, half of it being already providing care.

This forum is full of of posts about how rules can be 'bent' for the end purpose of claiming benefits. 'you can iron slower' really? Rules are there for a reason, some people are eligible, some are not, end of.

Darksparkle

Bananas123 wrote: »

you could iron 50% slower ?

I'm sure tax credits would love that when they come to review the business records to determine if it is viable.

HMRC - you previously done the ironing in 8hrs, this has now increased to 16hrs but you have no extra ironing or clients. Why?

Them - well you said I needed to work 16hrs so I just iron things slower now.

Detroit

nannytone wrote: »

and it never ceases to amaze me that you come on a board for BENEFITS ADVICE and do nothing but criticise and belittle people that are trying to find out if they are entitled to anything or not.

really don't know what you get out of it

Have I missed something? Fbaby makes a correct and valid point. I didn't see any suggestions that anyone was 'scrounging' in the posts?

Surely the board is here to help people with claims from all aspects, and this would include alerting people to rules where non compliance could lead to fraud allegations, with all the stress and financial loss that would bring?

We would not help the OP by leading them to believe that 8+ hours of caring entitled them to CA when it clearly doesn't. As miss biggles points out there is a big gap between 8 and 35.