benefits and 6 week holiday abroad

Mojisola

rockingbilly wrote: »

So on that basis there is no need to tell anyone if the holiday is for 4 weeks if the intention could be that they will return for a day but change their mind whilst out there and make it 6 weeks and then have 28 days from when they return to tell the DWP?

That would be difficult to prove if the original tickets show your intention was to stay away for six weeks.

Trumped_Up

My goodness, what a protracted thread.

On balance, agree with OP that they should go and have done with it.

gingerale

teddysmum wrote: »

Better keep an eye on him .:p




Thank you for this:rotfl:

gingerale

Guest101 wrote: »

huh? Do you think i'll somehow track you down?


Either way - my point was many businesses would consider someone surplus to requirements if they could operate without them for 1/8 of the year.

clearly I am not surplus to requirements if i am still there 16 years on. Maybe its because throughout that period i have gone to work when i am supposed to, done what i am supposed to and finished when I am supposed to!!

I could always give up work and live of benefits then I could take holidays when i wanted but I don't!!!

If you don't have any useful advice then move on

gingerale

Mojisola wrote: »

That would be difficult to prove if the original tickets show your intention was to stay away for six weeks.

This could work if we bought flexible tickets and changed the date. I never thought of that one

NYM

gingerale wrote: »

This could work if we bought flexible tickets and changed the date. I never thought of that one

Are you now thinking of not informing the Benefits agency ?

Bogalot

NYM wrote: »

Are you now thinking of not informing the Benefits agency ?

Given that OP knew the rules on overseas travel before they first posted, I assumed that to be the intention all along.

Or it's a wind up thread in order to get a reaction

rockingbilly

NYM wrote: »

Are you now thinking of not informing the Benefits agency ?

I'm suggesting that there is a way of not needing to advise them until they come back, if at all.

NYM

rockingbilly wrote: »

I'm suggesting that there is a way of not needing to advise them until they come back, if at all.

But your way isn't the right way.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about this.

It's the OP that would be the one investigated if found out. It is possibly benefit fraud by deliberately not telling the benefit office about a change of circumstances because s/he knew that it would affect their entitlement to the benefit.

svain

Sometimes the "right" way is the wrong way. I think this situation is a good example