S/e grant

Rosabell

If you got ref number should be OK, you can always go back on and check 'status of claim' 

holly1991

I had exactly the same thing come up... submitted claim got claim ref no further buttons to click so went off to make a cuppa , came back and said that for my own security all info had been reset with a start now button, really panicked, decided to log back into gob gateway , nothing on there so thought I better try the start again button , it took me back to the page where it tells you how much your going to get also states you have already made a claim with the ref number given , has calmed me down hope it helps

LokiJoe

Rosabell said:

If you got ref number should be OK, you can always go back on and check 'status of claim' 

Thanks Rosabell, when checking there is no apparent link to see 'status of claim' but if you click start again it just takes you to your claim details so reasonably confident it should be fine, I'll just chase if nothing appears after 6 days. Thanks for responding

LokiJoe

holly1991 said:

I had exactly the same thing come up... submitted claim got claim ref no further buttons to click so went off to make a cuppa , came back and said that for my own security all info had been reset with a start now button, really panicked, decided to log back into gob gateway , nothing on there so thought I better try the start again button , it took me back to the page where it tells you how much your going to get also states you have already made a claim with the ref number given , has calmed me down hope it helps

Thanks Holly, yes got the same thing so hopefully its all in process, thanks for responding

bobbooo

slacky1230 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

slacky1230 said:

done mine also. Don't think its right they are doing it over 36 months even if you went self employed in tax year 2016/17. I went self employed at the end of January 2017 so i was self employed 26 months but they've done the average over 36 months which doing it that way makes me a quite abit down 

It doesn't matter. Even if you only traded for one day in 2016/17, it counts as a full year for the grant calculation. It was done this way to automate the process. If it took into account months you were self employed, it wouldn't be workable at all.

It does matter though really doesn't it. I see where your coming from that its automated but i can't see how they can average it out over 36 months when you haven't been self employed that long. I'm sure alot of people will be in the same boat as me not getting the full amount their due because of the time they choose to better themselves and go self employed. 

This is exactly why they should have used the median yearly profit (order the values in size and take the middle value) instead of the mean average, which is not skewed by very low partial first year profits like the mean is, yet is equally able to be automated and doesn't require looking at the number of months. It's a huge flaw in the scheme that will unfairly disadvantage many people, just for becoming self-employed partway through the tax year.

At its extreme this means that someone who started being self-employed on the last day of the 16/17 tax year would only receive approximately 50% of their true yearly profits (80% of what is effectively two years’ profits averaged over three years, so 80% of 66% ~ 50%), whereas someone else who started their business a day later, on the first day of the 17/18 tax year, with exactly the same yearly profits, would receive the 80% that everyone should be getting. It's absurd. And it's even worse if you started your business at the end of the 17/18 tax year, which could result in recieving just 40% (80% of 50%) of your actual profits if you started on the last day with minimal profits for that tax 'year' (day). This is half the 80% the government promised everyone. Frankly it's scandalous.

Despite what anyone says on here, there is no logical reason whatsoever for choosing the mean over the median - it was simply either due to incompetence or intentionally done to limit the government's payout. This unfair flaw in the scheme should be being challenged. The media, including MSE, highlighting the issue could go some way to help, even forcing the simple change to the median by the government, which would solve the issue.

Edit: I warned about this issue in this thread but was just met with derision and snarky comments, which sadly seems to be the default response from a lot of people on this forum. I hope everyone can see what a huge problem this is now and how it will have a significant impact on many people's livelihoods.

slacky1230

bobbooo said:

slacky1230 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

slacky1230 said:

done mine also. Don't think its right they are doing it over 36 months even if you went self employed in tax year 2016/17. I went self employed at the end of January 2017 so i was self employed 26 months but they've done the average over 36 months which doing it that way makes me a quite abit down 

It doesn't matter. Even if you only traded for one day in 2016/17, it counts as a full year for the grant calculation. It was done this way to automate the process. If it took into account months you were self employed, it wouldn't be workable at all.

It does matter though really doesn't it. I see where your coming from that its automated but i can't see how they can average it out over 36 months when you haven't been self employed that long. I'm sure alot of people will be in the same boat as me not getting the full amount their due because of the time they choose to better themselves and go self employed. 

This is exactly why they should have used the median yearly profit (order the values in size and take the middle value) instead of the mean, which is equally able to be automated and doesn't require looking at the number of months. It's a huge flaw in the scheme that will unfairly disadvantage many people, just for becoming self-employed partway through the tax year.

At its extreme this means that someone who started being self-employed on the last day of the 16/17 tax year would only receive approximately 50% of their true yearly profits (80% of what is effectively two years’ profits averaged over three years, so 80% of 66% ~ 50%), whereas someone else who started their business a day later, on the first day of the 17/18 tax year, with exactly the same yearly profits, would receive the 80% that everyone should be getting. It's absurd. And it's even worse if you started your business at the end of the 17/18 tax year, which could result in recieving just 40% (80% of 50%) of your actual profits if you started on the last day with minimal profits for that tax 'year' (day). This is half the 80% the government promised everyone. Frankly it's scandalous.

Despite what anyone says on here, there is no logical reason whatsoever for choosing the mean over the median - it was simply either due to incompetence or intentionally done to limit the government's payout. This unfair flaw in the scheme should be being challenged. The media, including MSE, highlighting the issue could go some way to help, even forcing the simple change to the median by the government, which would solve the issue.

bobbooo said:

slacky1230 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

slacky1230 said:

done mine also. Don't think its right they are doing it over 36 months even if you went self employed in tax year 2016/17. I went self employed at the end of January 2017 so i was self employed 26 months but they've done the average over 36 months which doing it that way makes me a quite abit down 

It doesn't matter. Even if you only traded for one day in 2016/17, it counts as a full year for the grant calculation. It was done this way to automate the process. If it took into account months you were self employed, it wouldn't be workable at all.

It does matter though really doesn't it. I see where your coming from that its automated but i can't see how they can average it out over 36 months when you haven't been self employed that long. I'm sure alot of people will be in the same boat as me not getting the full amount their due because of the time they choose to better themselves and go self employed. 

This is exactly why they should have used the median yearly profit (order the values in size and take the middle value) instead of the mean, which is equally able to be automated and doesn't require looking at the number of months. It's a huge flaw in the scheme that will unfairly disadvantage many people, just for becoming self-employed partway through the tax year.

At its extreme this means that someone who started being self-employed on the last day of the 16/17 tax year would only receive approximately 50% of their true yearly profits (80% of what is effectively two years’ profits averaged over three years, so 80% of 66% ~ 50%), whereas someone else who started their business a day later, on the first day of the 17/18 tax year, with exactly the same yearly profits, would receive the 80% that everyone should be getting. It's absurd. And it's even worse if you started your business at the end of the 17/18 tax year, which could result in recieving just 40% (80% of 50%) of your actual profits if you started on the last day with minimal profits for that tax 'year' (day). This is half the 80% the government promised everyone. Frankly it's scandalous.

Despite what anyone says on here, there is no logical reason whatsoever for choosing the mean over the median - it was simply either due to incompetence or intentionally done to limit the government's payout. This unfair flaw in the scheme should be being challenged. The media, including MSE, highlighting the issue could go some way to help, even forcing the simple change to the median by the government, which would solve the issue.

I've lodged a claim stating that i think its unfair whether they'll take any notice is a different story

bobbooo

slacky1230 said:

bobbooo said:

slacky1230 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

slacky1230 said:

done mine also. Don't think its right they are doing it over 36 months even if you went self employed in tax year 2016/17. I went self employed at the end of January 2017 so i was self employed 26 months but they've done the average over 36 months which doing it that way makes me a quite abit down 

It doesn't matter. Even if you only traded for one day in 2016/17, it counts as a full year for the grant calculation. It was done this way to automate the process. If it took into account months you were self employed, it wouldn't be workable at all.

It does matter though really doesn't it. I see where your coming from that its automated but i can't see how they can average it out over 36 months when you haven't been self employed that long. I'm sure alot of people will be in the same boat as me not getting the full amount their due because of the time they choose to better themselves and go self employed. 

This is exactly why they should have used the median yearly profit (order the values in size and take the middle value) instead of the mean, which is equally able to be automated and doesn't require looking at the number of months. It's a huge flaw in the scheme that will unfairly disadvantage many people, just for becoming self-employed partway through the tax year.

At its extreme this means that someone who started being self-employed on the last day of the 16/17 tax year would only receive approximately 50% of their true yearly profits (80% of what is effectively two years’ profits averaged over three years, so 80% of 66% ~ 50%), whereas someone else who started their business a day later, on the first day of the 17/18 tax year, with exactly the same yearly profits, would receive the 80% that everyone should be getting. It's absurd. And it's even worse if you started your business at the end of the 17/18 tax year, which could result in recieving just 40% (80% of 50%) of your actual profits if you started on the last day with minimal profits for that tax 'year' (day). This is half the 80% the government promised everyone. Frankly it's scandalous.

Despite what anyone says on here, there is no logical reason whatsoever for choosing the mean over the median - it was simply either due to incompetence or intentionally done to limit the government's payout. This unfair flaw in the scheme should be being challenged. The media, including MSE, highlighting the issue could go some way to help, even forcing the simple change to the median by the government, which would solve the issue.

bobbooo said:

slacky1230 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

slacky1230 said:

done mine also. Don't think its right they are doing it over 36 months even if you went self employed in tax year 2016/17. I went self employed at the end of January 2017 so i was self employed 26 months but they've done the average over 36 months which doing it that way makes me a quite abit down 

It doesn't matter. Even if you only traded for one day in 2016/17, it counts as a full year for the grant calculation. It was done this way to automate the process. If it took into account months you were self employed, it wouldn't be workable at all.

It does matter though really doesn't it. I see where your coming from that its automated but i can't see how they can average it out over 36 months when you haven't been self employed that long. I'm sure alot of people will be in the same boat as me not getting the full amount their due because of the time they choose to better themselves and go self employed. 

This is exactly why they should have used the median yearly profit (order the values in size and take the middle value) instead of the mean, which is equally able to be automated and doesn't require looking at the number of months. It's a huge flaw in the scheme that will unfairly disadvantage many people, just for becoming self-employed partway through the tax year.

At its extreme this means that someone who started being self-employed on the last day of the 16/17 tax year would only receive approximately 50% of their true yearly profits (80% of what is effectively two years’ profits averaged over three years, so 80% of 66% ~ 50%), whereas someone else who started their business a day later, on the first day of the 17/18 tax year, with exactly the same yearly profits, would receive the 80% that everyone should be getting. It's absurd. And it's even worse if you started your business at the end of the 17/18 tax year, which could result in recieving just 40% (80% of 50%) of your actual profits if you started on the last day with minimal profits for that tax 'year' (day). This is half the 80% the government promised everyone. Frankly it's scandalous.

Despite what anyone says on here, there is no logical reason whatsoever for choosing the mean over the median - it was simply either due to incompetence or intentionally done to limit the government's payout. This unfair flaw in the scheme should be being challenged. The media, including MSE, highlighting the issue could go some way to help, even forcing the simple change to the median by the government, which would solve the issue.

I've lodged a claim stating that i think its unfair whether they'll take any notice is a different story

Great, please keep us updated on any response you receive.

kimi1977

Submitted my claim at midday,  one thing I might have made a mistake with is the "address associated with bank account" is this the address of the bank, or my home address for bank mail? I put my home address.

stuffed_crust

Can someone clarify please the effect this has on claiming the Self Employment Grant and the effect this has on reporting it on Tax Credits. On one hand the Gov website states the below: (drawing attention to the final point). 

You will need to report the grant:

• on your Self Assessment tax return
• as self-employed income for Universal Credit claims
• as self-employed income and that you’re working 16 hours a week, as changes to your tax credits claims

Then there is advice on Gov website that says: 

The government has confirmed that people who can’t work their normal hours because of coronavirus (COVID-19) will still receive their usual tax credits payments.

Those working reduced hours due to coronavirus or those being furloughed by their employer will not have their tax credits payments affected if they are still employed or self-employed.

These customers do not need to contact HMRC about this change. We will treat customers as working their normal hours until the Job Retention Scheme and Self Employment Income Support Scheme close, even if they are not using either scheme.

We’ll use the information we hold about the number of hours they normally work.

So my point is if someone is part of a couple and one is working 30 hours and the other isn’t working then would they need to report that they are now working 16 hours a week or not? Both bits of information above are on the Gov websites but are contradicting?

georgiasdragons

kimi1977 said:

Submitted my claim at midday,  one thing I might have made a mistake with is the "address associated with bank account" is this the address of the bank, or my home address for bank mail? I put my home address.

I put home address too hope thats right haha