Fact is, none of the figures supplied by the Social Security Dept are reliable.
I know a guy who registered as unemployed in November 2010 but managed to find full time employment in Jan 2011. He contacted the department and let them know he was working full time, and yet, to this day, he still receives monthly letters threatening that his benefits will be terminated if he doesn,t attend the Job-seekers department once a week. He hasn,t received benefits since January, has worked full-time and his SS contributions have been paid.
Fritz,
You don't actually confirm whether or not this chap was
receiving Income Support whilst he was unemployed (a third of those registered as jobless don't receive any benefits at all). However, if he
was receiving Income Support and he's a tenant, I hope he knows that he might continue to be entitled to Income Support, albeit at a lower rate, depending on how much he's earning now. If the Department has continued paying him Income Support at the full rate in the mistaken belief that he's still unemployed when he isn't (regardless that he says he informed them), be aware that they won't hesitate to claim back any overpayment that might have accrued.
However, another interesting fact that the Department likes to keep
a secret from its claimants is that a jobless person who subsequently finds paid employment is now entitled to continue receiving his full level of Income Support for the
first four weeks of his new employment, supposedly as an 'incentive' to return to work (although the unemployed will confirm that gimmicks like this don't have any effect because those who want to work will put in the same amount of effort regardless of such an 'incentive'). Once four weeks has expired, the Department should then reduce the person's Income Support in line with their new income level, but only with effect from the date that the first four weeks of employment has expired.
I am concerned that because many claimants have never been told about this four-week rule, staff at the Department may in some cases still be downgrading their benefits from the
first day of employment (wrongly) but the claimants never realise that they have been shafted out of four weeks of benefit so they don't complain about it. I hope that these assessment mistakes aren't happening, but it makes me deeply suspicious when a Department deliberately fails to supply its claimants with essential information like this. Another thing the Department fails to inform claimants about is their right to appeal to the Social Security Tribunal. They only inform claimants that they can appeal their assessment to a Determining Officer, who is just another paid member of staff at Social Security. Even after a claimant has lost an appeal that has been decided by a Determining Officer, the Department still fails to inform the claimant of their further right to appeal it to an independent tribunal. This devious policy stops many from appealing bad decisions which might eventually be overturned by an independent tribunal. It stinks and I'd love an expert opinion on whether its likely to be human rights compliant or not.
Changing the subject now:
Major Pierson, I hope you're aware that the original Major who died during the Battle of Jersey in 1781 spelt his name like this:
PEIRSON ... hence the odd spelling of Peirson Place and Peirson Road. I suppose this news arrives too late because you've already launched your blogspot with the alternative spelling!
