Redundant AND pregnant: advice on insurance please!

magpie-c13

Hi everybody,

I'm in a real pickle just now thanks to an unfortunate series of circumstances, and hoped some money savers might have an idea of where I stand.

I've been made redundant from my job, I stopped work at 23 weeks pregnant and took out a claim for contribution based Jobseeker's Allowance at 25 weeks (last week). I start signing on next week, but will have to move on to Maternity Allowance before the baby is born - the earliest I can apply for this is now, I would start receiving the allowance a maximum of 11 weeks before the baby is born and I must claim within 3 months of the date I can claim from to qualify. Once I'm getting it, I can get it for up to 39 weeks.

Maternity Allowance is way more money than JSA, so far so good, or so I thought. The catch came when I realised the possible implications this could have for my unemployment insurance claim, which would cover my mortgage, loan and credit card. To claim, I must be receiving 'the appropriate benefit' (wording from the policy) and have a member of DWP staff fill in a form to confirm I'm actively looking for work. Now, I WILL be actively looking for work while I'm on MA (although it's not legal for me to work for at least two weeks after the birth), but will the insurance company accept this? MA is not an unemployment benefit so to speak, there is no requirement to be looking for work.

I can't apply for my insurance until the end of June as I received pay in lieu of notice until then, but would love some advice from money savers on this before I contact the insurance company - I have little trust or faith in them! I've done an estimate of my income from benefits after the baby comes in August, and it looks like I'll have a shortfall of over £150 per month if I can't get the insurance payments - even with them, it'll be a struggle

Thanks in advance for any advice!

foreversomeday

All I know is that technically, being on MA is the equivalent of being on Maternity Leave from a normal job. If you were still working for your old employer, after the forst 6 weeks you would be on Statutory Maternity Pay which is the same amount as MA.

I would phone up the insurers and ask what their policy is re: maternity leave, as you ought to have the same rights.

DaisyFlower

You may struggle to get them to pay out whilst on MA, as they will not class you as looking for work and being on maternity (whether employed or unemployed) would not be covered under most policies.

Perhaps you can claim MA for the minimum time possible and return to JSA after. The babys father should be paying maintenance which should help cover bills etc.

surreysaver

Basically, what is written above is corrrect - MA counts as being employed. It is paid to women who are not entitled to SMP due to them being self-employed, or not employed long enough with one employer, but have paid enough National Insurance to otherwise be entitled to it. Maybe your insurance should cut-in after the MA has finished?

Jvic28

Just out of curiosity, how much is Maternity Allowance in relation to JSA and is it the same for everyone.

Thanks

x

magpie-c13

Jvic28 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, how much is Maternity Allowance in relation to JSA and is it the same for everyone.

Thanks

x

JSA varies, but the highest rate (not counting any extras, e.g. for dependant children etc) is £59.15 per week. Maternity Allowance is a flat rate of £117.18 per week, unless your average weekly earnings were / are less than that, in which case you get 90% of that average amount.

Thanks for your replies everyone, I fear you'll be right and they'll say I'm not entitled - they clearly state that 'normal maternity' is not a qualifying state for unemployment or disability payments under the scheme. However, I'm going to argue strongly against it if they won't pay out; my pregnancy is totally incidental to the reason why I'm not working, I've got a P45 to show I was made redundant and it seems to me that refusal to pay out is discriminatory - a man could never find himself in this position, so women are automatically put at a disadvantage. It may well be that I have to just take the minimum possible MA and switch back to JSA though, insurance companies are notoriously unfair so no doubt if they can wriggle out of it they will.:mad:

I'll check it out over the next week or so with both the insurance company and the Equality and Human Rights Commission and update you all on the outcome.

DaisyFlower

I dont think refusal to pay out is discriminatory in the slightest, the policy was in place to cover you against redundancy not maternity. There will be hundreds of policies that exclude maternity.

Whilst I sympathise that you have been made redundant, when you planned this baby you knew you would be on maternity pay at some point and the policy wouldnt have helped then and you would still have had to pay your bills. So unless you were on an enhanced package you are no worse off now than before.

Its not a case of the insurer being unfair.

count_rostov

I guess this is incidental, but why were you made redundant? Was it anything to do with your pregnancy? I would have thought most employers would be sacred to make a pregnant employee redundant!

Kaz2904

Just a point about returning to work or looking for work:
I don't know what kind of job you're in but I had to return to work as a care assistant (nights) when my DD was 3 weeks and 2 days old. I had a job as an agency care assistant and was a student nurse too but fell through all the gaps.
Anyway- that was nearly 7 years ago and it's changed since then.

The trouble I found when I first went back to work was that my body was in no way ready to be doing the kind of work I was meant to be doing. My bones hadn't got back to where they should be and the muscles just wouldn't hold my back or legs as I needed them to when I was being a worker rather than a Mummy who could try to take it easy.
I had thought it was going to be quite easy because DH was at home but it was soooooooo hard. It was awful leaving DD with her Dad and it hurt so much for my body to be working when I really shouldn't have been.
I have to say the worst bit about DH coming to answer the door to me in the morning (because I forgot my keys) after my first night at work (in my fluffly yellow dressing gown) was that he got locked out.
The door slammed shut behind him so I said don't worry, I'll run round to friends house and get her spare key.......... Oh bum she's gone away for the weekend!
Then I saw some chaps down the road at the home removals depot so I asked them to come with a ladder and break in. They were able to force the window as DD started crying and came through. When they opened our flat door (upstairs so they'd not seen DH) they said Oh hello DH alright mate? Nice dressing gown! and off they went.
DH then said that he printed the buisness cards for the removal firm so they all knew him.
Well, I said, You'll never do it again will you?!

AND..... he never did!

magpie-c13

DaisyFlower wrote: »

I dont think refusal to pay out is discriminatory in the slightest, the policy was in place to cover you against redundancy not maternity. There will be hundreds of policies that exclude maternity.

Whilst I sympathise that you have been made redundant, when you planned this baby you knew you would be on maternity pay at some point and the policy wouldnt have helped then and you would still have had to pay your bills. So unless you were on an enhanced package you are no worse off now than before.

Its not a case of the insurer being unfair.

To be honest, I find the automatic assumption that women who get pregnant should 'like it or lump it' quite offensive; it's a pretty bad situation that I had to sit down and work out whether I could afford to have a baby in the first place, how many of us would never have been born if our mothers had decided they couldn't afford us?

Yes, I did know I would be on Maternity Pay - however I'm not daft enough to think that I could have managed on Statutory Maternity Pay and of course I took that into account when I was planning my pregnancy (although remember that birth control is never 100% effective and not all pregnancies are planned).

I resent the implication that I would ask insurers to pay out if I were on a level of income that could have reasonably been forseen. I'm not trying to fleece anyone. I repeat, my pregnancy is NOT the reason why I have to claim the insurance - it's simply causing a technical problem due to the interactions of the benefits system and the insurance system.

Under my contract, my Maternity Pay was to be £1,700 per month. That's a lot of cash (more than £1,200 more than I'll be getting now) but as the only wage earner in my household and sole mortgage holder, that wage level doesn't go far at all so I can't afford to save for rainy days, hence the fact I took the insurance out in the first place.

I appreciate Count Rostov's point about making pregnant women redundant, I worked in employment rights in my last job and we supported a lot of women who had illegally been made 'redundant' due to their pregnancy. However, the entire company went bust in this case so I can be sure there were no illicit intentions!

And as to Kaz's point, I am definitely worried about being fit to return to work, but without the insurance it's going to be a choice between wrecking my body and not having a chance to bond with my baby or both of us becoming homeless. This is why I'm so upset about this, if it were just a matter of principle I'd let it slide.

Strapped

Remember, with a baby, you don't have to be looking for full-time work to be classed as "looking for work" - you can be looking for work which fits around your caring responsibilities. I hope you manage to get things resolved to your satisfaction.