Education Maintenance Allowance - exceptions

Oldernotwiser

SWMBO wrote: »

Didn't think you were. I hope my replies are not too confusing, although its a situation that is far from straightforward.

Student A, doing A levels in Maths, Further Maths & Physics, plus an OU course about volcanoes at Nice'n'Sunny 6th form would get a form sent to their parents & they'd reply that they yes they were continuing their education at nice'n'sunny 6th form & their CB would continue.

Student B, doing A levels in Maths, Further Maths & Physics, plus an OU course about volcanoes at home would get a form sent to their parents & they'd reply that they yes they were continuing their education at home. They'd get a further form asking them to detail what they were studying & the mention of an OU course (being HIGHER, not further, education) would trigger CB being stopped.

That's my understanding of the situation, though we won't get the form ourselves until next academic year.



Yup, me too. I don't see how the level of study affects how much my son needs my financial support. It seems to me to be discriminating against brighter students.

Thanks for explaining, it does seem really strange and I can only assume (as you've done) that it's the HE thing that's triggering the problems. Has anybody ever appealed it?

(Just a devious thought. Could your son start his OU unit in January so that you could fill the form in honestly in September without including it? That would also avoid his having to sit A level exams at the same time as the OU ones.)

SWMBO

I think I'm going to be talking to them to get confirmation of exactly what courses are acceptable. DH just worked out the figures & it would cost us over £5k if we loose DS's child benefit.

Titch89

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

(Just a devious thought. Could your son start his OU unit in January so that you could fill the form in honestly in September without including it? That would also avoid his having to sit A level exams at the same time as the OU ones.)

You're meant to inform them of any changes.

Oldernotwiser

Titch89 wrote: »

You're meant to inform them of any changes.

I really don't think that the CB people particularly want people to ring them up to say that little Johnny's dropped Sociology and is doing Metalwork instead. I'm all for not defrauding benefits but there are limits!

Pont

Update from the LSC.
I've now received a lengthy telephone call from the LSC. They've now agreed that the 31st August is NOT the cut off date for EMA, the date they use is whatever the starting date for the next academic year is!!!! When I asked why they quote the 31st of August in all of their blurb the reply was because it makes life easier for them!
I suggested that a 'postcode lottery' was in operation as in theory a child could qualify for EMA in one authority but could get declined in a neighbouring authority purely due to the individual authority's academic term start dates. They confirmed this was the case.
Also the start date differs from year-to-year. In my DD's case, last year her school started back on the 5th September. When I asked if she would have qualified for EMA if she was in the same circumstances last year, again they confirmed yes.
I also asked if she was accepted into a 6th form college in an authority that has a start date of after her 16th birthday, then transferred to her preferred college (due to unforeseen circumstances!), would she get EMA? Again it seems she would receive the full year of funding as she has been accepted and that runs for the full year!
I suggested that there should be an overlap of these dates eg. the first 10 days of September to cover the very few children affected by this grey area (as in Scotland). The reply was that they don't make policy, they just act on it. When I suggested my letters should be forwarded to the policy makers (education department) I was told that they don't know the policy! Talk about going around in circles!!!!!
I asked how many children were declined each year on the grounds of being a couple of days too young, I was told that they didn't know. However, in the next breath I was told that the LSC telephone each authority concerned to check on start dates when they receive an application from a student who has a birthday during the first week of September! I suggested that they do know how many children are affected and I would like to know exactly this figure. I ventured a guesstimate that it was very few (less than 20), they didn't disagree with this figure.
When I tackled the subject of age discrimination (European Law) I was told that benefits were outside this law. However, when I quoted EMA was an 'incentive' not a benefit (as they kept telling me) the phone line went somewhat quiet!
Any more views, comments, suggestions etc. Thanks in anticipation.

Gemmzie

Age discrimination law for young people is a joke I'm afraid and as it's fairly new legislation - there's no precedents set yet to use as leverage. Sorry.

John38_2

As you've already been told, but chose to ignore, age discrimination does not in any way, shape or form cover your situation.

If I was the advisor on the phone, when you starting saying EMA was an incentive not a benefit, then blabbing on about a law you know nothing about, I'd be laughing my head off, not going silent, but each to their own.

If your really that concerned, please just write to your MP or something.

In the meantime, let your daughter learn that sometimes lifes a bi*ch!

Titch89

John38 wrote: »

As you've already been told, but chose to ignore, age discrimination does not in any way, shape or form cover your situation.

Exactly.

It's not age discrimination either. Generally, students start further education at 16. (or 17 in some cases)

Pont

If I was the advisor on the phone, when you starting saying EMA was an incentive not a benefit, then blabbing on about a law you know nothing about, I'd be laughing my head off, not going silent, but each to their own.

If your really that concerned, please just write to your MP or something.

Thanks for the comment John. However, a few points need to be cleared up. It wasn't an advisor on the phone, it was a 'senior' manager who called me. Additionally, I did mention previously that the LSC said that EMA was an 'incentive not a benefit' - not me. As for 'blabbing on about a law' etc., well although I'm obviously not a lawyer it's not difficult to search out UK education law/European law. I wrote to my MP months ago and he's working with me to resolve this. He's been to my house to discuss the matter and we remain in contact. He believes I've got a case and should pursue it further as he believes these problems have only surfaced since the introduction of EMA.

John, you're making it sound like I shouldn't be posting here ('please just write to your MP or something'). I set up this thread to receive advice from others, all I'm asking is if others have been in similar circumstances and what action they took.

Pont

Titch89 wrote: »

Exactly.

It's not age discrimination either. Generally, students start further education at 16. (or 17 in some cases)

My DD will be 16 when her college term starts on the 8th September.

The EU Directive (2006) - Employment Equality (Age) Regulations - Section 5 Training - states that all students must receive the same treatment regardless of their age. The only exceptions on grounds of age are for example a student may not be physically fit enough (too old) to complete a course, or too young that the course is inappropriate at that age eg. medical training. It seems that if a student can demonstrate their suitability for a course they cannot be legally treated differently on grounds of their age. If we bear in mind that my DD's birthday is just 3 days after the start of term, she's completed her GCSEs, she's been asked to join the High Achiever's Programme at College it seems to me that she's demonstrated her suitability for the course.

There has not yet been a challenge made in the EU in circumstances of being 'too young' but their have been several 'too old' cases. Also, the European Court of Justice has said that 'Member States should take account of the spirit as well as the letter of the law', which I believe leaves the door wide open for a challenge.