bellandbear
Registered User
- Messages
- 38
InFebruary 2010 I came back off maternity leave and was put on 3 days and claimed JSB for the other days.
In September 2011 I got a letter stating that my JSB was nearly finished and as my employer needed someone up to Christmas I went back to work fulltime and obtained 13 weeks fulltime work.
I went into Social Welfare today and they said that I still had 20 weeks from my old claim left because it was within the last 6 months and that I would be reassessed after the 20 weeks. Does that mean that I wont requalify when my 20 weeks are up because I will be part time applying even though I have 13 weeks contributions.
Also I have 10 weeks fulltime last year and 3 weeks this year. Will that make a difference if they are not all in the one tax year.
Please help really worried. I was really hoping that I would re-qualify and have enough contributions up for the next year.
Thanks
From what you say you will re-qualify as you will have paid 13 "a" contributions from day 156 of your claim but you may be disallowed as you may be deemed to have no substantial loss i.e. when you jsb is exhausted your normal working pattern will be 3 days a week. If that is the case you can apply for jobseekers allowance which is means tested.
I wont get JSA as my husband is working at the moment but like everyone else we are struggling to make ends meet. Just a query if I got a few weeks fulltime work when my JSB is exhausted and then I reapplied would that make any difference.
This is an area where I believe significant fraud takes place. I do not refer to bellandbear. I have heard reports of many individuals (most often working mothers) who wish to remain on part-time work (typically 3 days per week), however they collude with their employer and social welfare (ie the taxpayer) picks up the tab for the remainder of the week. I would hope that the issue of substantial loss is truly applied when assessing applicants.
A true analysis of substantial loss is not achieved by an employer stamping the form that they instigated the cut in the days. Thats exactly where the problem is! The problem is often collusion between employer and employee where the employee (in a lot of cases the mother) would rather be working 3 days a week and if she gets the remainder of the days paid by social welfare offset with the reduction in childcare costs she will pay, the net reduction is quite minimal. From the employers point of view it is a substantial cut to the wages bill for that employee.
I do understand in some cases employers are cutting employees hours in these tough economic times - these are genuine cases obviously.
The system that is currently used to assess genuine loss is not effective and open for abuse.
Perhaps I will do that eastbono, it was actually on my mind because the practice DOES exist in reality. I hope I havent annoyed you too much by pointing this out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?