We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Want to become a Forum Ambassador? Visit the Community Noticeboard for details on how to apply
Advice needed re JSA
Comments
-
BenefitMaster wrote:OK, I re-read and see that the OP has children. As a result it is reasonable for one of them to not work. The remainder of my post is an accurate interpreatation of the current regulations apart from the level of hardship.
His/her claim would go to Adjudication (Decision Makers) immediately, unless there was a pressing reason to allow the claim in the interim, and so no payments would be made at first in any case. In my case, the local DM's were Fareham, who were not known for their liberal interpreatation of the regulations.
Since JSA was introduced cases of LV and Misc are not suspended on JSAPS and are put into payment pending the DM's decision and only on receipt of an unfavourable decision are sanctions imposed. We use Fareham too! I would agree they are less lenient than Bromley!!!
0 -
GraemeB wrote:Since JSA was introduced cases of LV and Misc are not suspended on JSAPS and are put into payment pending the DM's decision and only on receipt of an unfavourable decision are sanctions imposed. We use Fareham too! I would agree they are less lenient than Bromley!!!
While this is correct, what with the backlog of cases a while ago, I used to find that they were already suspended by Fareham by the time Winchester had put them into payment...
I do know of one case where Fareham DM's got overruled by the local BM at BSK, who put the claim back into payment because he knew the claimant was genuine and would take any job (that would pay his costs) to stay in work.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards