Anyone successfully claimed Class 1 NIC credits only, without JSA / UC

Spoonie_Turtle

NedS said:

poppy12345 said:

I don't think anyone is legally entitled to JSA. If you're claiming JSA for NI credits only then yes you have to be prepared to attend the appointments and look for work.

The question then becomes what happens if you fail to satisfy that requirement. I'm not aware of any sanctions being imposed on legacy benefits currently, and if they were to impose a sanction, there is no monetary element to stop - but would the sanction extend to also stopping NI credits? I cannot imagine so as for the year to qualify I believe the person must have a minimum 50 weeks of credit out of the 52 week year, so a 1 month sanction would effectively sanction the whole year from an NI credits standpoint (if there are no earnings) which would not appear to be fair to the claimant.

This question was raised some time ago on here and IIRC the guidance said no sanctions affecting credits.  It was an obscure document though and I can't for the life of me remember the thread to try to search for it. 

Edit:  I could absolutely not swear by it, just mentioning in case anyone else can find it.  I've found a thread through Google site search but the document linked therein didn't explicitly mention sanctions related to credits.  It did however say 'non-claimants' DON'T have to sign a claimant commitment.  Here it is anyway
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6278360/jsa-sanctions-and-national-insurance-credits/p1

Edit 2: turns out I may have been wrong.  I've found the next page of that document which details requirements for credits
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/457056/response/1101898/attach/4/Claim NI Credits.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

The relevant part is this:
"58. Permanent credits cannot be awarded if they:  have a sanction/disallowance on their claim which prevents them from receiving JSA for any day of the contribution week"

So the question is, if someone hasn't signed up to a claimant commitment and can't be required to go on courses, what could they sanction/disallow someone for - missing an appointment, not being available for work, not searching for what the work coach feels is enough?  What, realistically, would they disallow someone for?

I guess the OP's friend could apply for the credits to see what's required, then close his claim if he feels it's too onerous to continue.  He wouldn't lose anything other than the time to apply and effort/cost of attending his first appointment.  And a fair amount to potentially gain.

huckster

For credits only jobseekers claims, Job Centres are required to see people as often as they can fit into their diaries. In theory it should be fortnightly, however, the appointments can have longer gaps in between, as priority is given to UC/JSA/ESA claimants.

The claims are handled manually by a service centre after receiving credits only application. They send the information through to Job Centre who then have to book a first appointment. In this first appointment a jobseekers agreement is signed by the claimant and work coach.  It is agreed how often the claimant must attend the Job Centre for job search appointments. Failure to attend the appointments, can lead to the claim being stopped, if a new appointment is not booked within 1 month.  At the appointments, if no evidence of any Job search is provided, then the job seekers agreement has been broken and referral to a Decision Maker about stopping the claim would be made.

calcotti

NedS said:?., so a 1 month sanction would effectively sanction the whole year from an NI credits standpoint (if there are no earnings) which would not appear to be fair to the claimant.

It wouldn’t. Having a partial year of credits the claimant would still be able to complete the year by paying voluntary contributions and the payment would reflect the fact that the year is already partially filled. 

I have a vague recollection of some case law on treatment of NI credits and ‘sanctions’ but I can’t recall the details. You are right that the ‘sanctions’ regime deals with financial penalties not NI credits. However NI credits are awarded, in this case, for being a jobseeker and logically this has to rely on more than a self declaration that someone is looking for work. If not a jobseeker then not eligible for NI credits (on that basis).

HillStreetBlues

Found this PDF on-line would this help the OP? Any views welcome
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/457056/response/1101898/attach/4/Claim%20NI%20Credits.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1&usg=AOvVaw19DpYBIRZOcwpqHjozspAN

Non-claimants

124 There is no requirement for a non-claimant to enter into a Claimant Commitment but you should explain the benefits of having one in place


If the person refuses to enter into a  Claimant Commitment how could they be sanctioned?

calcotti

I think talking about sanctions is irrelevant. As per my previous post sanctions are about financial penalties. There is no sanctions regime for claiming NI credits. The issue is how the status of ‘jobseeker’ is monitored in order to qualify for the credits. The requirement is contained in paragraph 122 of the FOI reply you linked to.

HillStreetBlues

I think I could have word my post better and not mentioned sanctions.

With 122 the rules are "broadly the same"   and only give two "musts" that they are available for work, and they are actively seeking it.

With JSA you also have to do both of these,  but you also have to sign an claimant commitment that you agree to search for work for  a set number of  hours.etc.

As there is no claimant agreement how can they "force" a person to search for X amount of time and follow other rules.

As the OP said the person is searching for work, can anyone at JCP rightfully says that that person isn't looking long or hard enough?

What I'm trying to say (no doubt badly)  that it's only  "broadly the same"  not exactly the same
So some differences are allowed, so what are the differences?

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong just feel it's an interesting question

calcotti

The issue is how does the government check that someone is ‘actively seeking work’ in order to ensure that credits are awarded correctly.

HillStreetBlues

calcotti said:

The issue is how does the government check that someone is ‘actively seeking work’ in order to ensure that credits are awarded correctly.

They would have to take that person's word that they are doing it.

I though (could be wrong) a part of the 'Claimant Commitment' of JSA is not only agreeing to look for work but the recording of that activity.
As I thought in the old days a person could just state they were looking for work and it would have to be accepted and there was no burden of proof.  That was one of the reasons for the  Claimant Commitment'   was  introduced the burden of proof.

So no Claimant Commitment' so no burden of proof.


I'm not saying this is correct, but the person the OP is talking about could try this unless it's a certain no no.

 

calcotti

HillStreetBlues said:

calcotti said:

The issue is how does the government check that someone is ‘actively seeking work’ in order to ensure that credits are awarded correctly.

They would have to take that person's word that they are doing it.

I can't see that that follows from what has been said.

HillStreetBlues

calcotti said:

HillStreetBlues said:

calcotti said:

The issue is how does the government check that someone is ‘actively seeking work’ in order to ensure that credits are awarded correctly.

They would have to take that person's word that they are doing it.

I can't see that that follows from what has been said.

Sorry, (maybe a slow moment) but not following.