Government Benefits Megathread

ChelseaRentBoy

Dempo1 wrote: »

They can now albeit green list. Looks like data protection commissioner raising serious doubts that SW actions at airports was legal, story rumbles on

It wasn't legal. They obtained the information under false pretenses.

Boggles

If the story brought up in the "Dáil" about the lady who had her payment cut for being booked on a ferry but she didn't actually travel on it is true.

That is beyond a level of dangerous over reach.

Answers need to be forthcoming.

All though it's holiday time for politicians isn't it?

Nothing to see here.

ChelseaRentBoy

Snow_White1987 wrote: »

So, can anyone clarify for me, if you leave the country for even a week, and are on the PUP, they will stop your payment??

It sounds ridiculous.

I wouldn’t be giving anyone at the airport my PPSN if I were to travel anyhow - by law, you are not obliged to give it to any official.

Of course, now that it’s out in the open, those that might travel certainly won’t be sharing any details in the airport now! My guess is the 104 who were affected had no idea that a ‘check’ was being conducted.

The SW department are just making this up as they go along! It seems ludicrous as if you are on DA, for example, they can’t just stop your payment because you travel - so why are they now doing this with PUP and JSA?

I’m confused!

You don't have to produce anything. Just refuse to answer and walk on. My friend was stopped by these chancers at Rosslare port last week on his motorbike as he was waiting to board a ferry to Spain and he told them to jog on. Others unfortunately have been bullied into producing documents under the guise of immigration check.

The government are now back tracking faster than a playmate drops her knickers for a billionaire.

ChelseaRentBoy

Boggles wrote: »

If the story brought up in the "Dáil" about the lady who had her payment cut for being booked on a ferry but she didn't actually travel on it is true.

That is beyond a level of dangerous over reach.

Answers need to be forthcoming.

All though it's holiday time for politicians isn't it?

Nothing to see here.

If true and the ferry company handed over details to the department of social welfare it opens a huge can of worms.

Boggles

ChelseaRentBoy wrote: »

If true and the ferry company handed over details to the department of social welfare it opens a huge can of worms.

I imagine the ferry handed over the details but not directly to the Department of Social Welfare but they ended up with them.

There is the major problem if that story was indeed true.

Dempo1

ChelseaRentBoy wrote: »

It wasn't legal. They obtained the information under false pretenses.

Agreed and they are using legislation pased in 2012 as justification, of course that legislation clearly states "must have reasonable grounds, suspicions etc"

But in addition to this, the issue where people had child benefit stopped and the person booked on a ferry but never took the trip, who's sharing that info.

I'm suspecting some law suit's coming their way. To be fair it was FLAC who flagged there might be some serious issues here, I suspect Gardai will have some explaining to do

Dempo1

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine the ferry handed over the details but not directly to the Department of Social Welfare but they ended up with them.

There is the major problem if that story was indeed true.

O, I've no doubt info shared with Gardai seconded to SW and then passed on. Outrageous

Dempo1

What is utterly fascinating is how long is took for DEASP to review 2400 PUP payments stopped as a result of airport/port checks and they came back with 84 under the Holiday issue, it was just a few hours. There's various threads dealing with serious delays in payments, appeals and most alarming, back payments owed, some as far back as March, Quite extraordinary resources can be put in place when it suits, I don't believe 84 cases by the way, beggers belief really.

MrKingsley

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

they suspended the 2 week holiday for jobseekers recipients.

When did they suspend it?

Dempo1

MrKingsley wrote: »

When did they suspend it?

This was part of the sneaky ministerial order about 3 weeks ago which as been the cause of all the hullabaloo, the order has been rescinded now and back to entitlement of 2 weeks holidays either at home or the green listed countries, I believe Greenland lovely at this time of year. You must however inform the department before taking holidays, both for JSA /JSB and PUP

MrKingsley

Dempo1 wrote: »

This was part of the sneaky ministerial order about 3 weeks ago which as been the cause of all the hullabaloo, the order has been rescinded now and back to entitlement of 2 weeks holidays either at home or the green listed countries, I believe Greenland lovely at this time of year. You must however inform the department before taking holidays, both for JSA /JSB and PUP

So up until 3 weeks ago anyone on the JSA/JSB could go anywhere they wanted providing they informed the department. The only change is now they have to go to a green listed country?

doc22

Dempo1 wrote: »

This was part of the sneaky ministerial order about 3 weeks ago which as been the cause of all the hullabaloo, the order has been rescinded now and back to entitlement of 2 weeks holidays either at home or the green listed countries, I believe Greenland lovely at this time of year. You must however inform the department before taking holidays, both for JSA /JSB and PUP

PUP comes under SWA Emergency payments and you certainly couldn't go on hols while on it even before 3 weeks ago.

doc22

See your man traveling to Scotland in the Indo, wants the PUP and isn't bothered looking for work just wants his holiday money. Joke

Dempo1

doc22 wrote: »

PUP comes under SWA Emergency payments and you certainly couldn't go on hols while on it even before 3 weeks ago.

Not so, and this is what's caused all the fuss, there was ZERO legislation involving PUP and Travel, this is why the minister sneakily made a ministerial order, prior to it there is legislation re JSA etc and 2 weeks holidays, she essentially wanted to stop all travel and throw PUP into the mix and failed spectacularly, hence yesterdays U Turn.

Just for the record, I agree, on only essential travel

Dempo1

doc22 wrote: »

See your man traveling to Scotland in the Indo, wants the PUP and isn't bothered looking for work just wants his holiday money. Joke

Your man Travelling to scotland is a musician actually, I suspect there's not too many venues availing of his and 100s of artists at the moment, a little bit of objectivity would be nice, although I suspect your one of those SW recepient bashers, incidentally his payment has been reinstated.

ATC110

Received a written reply today, postmarked Waterford, to my request for a review of the weekly rate.

The outcome of the review is I will remain on the lower rate.

It explicitly states "under PUP rating rules, self-employed incomes can only be examined in respect of the 2018 year and the income figures used by the Department for PUP (and all other schemes) is always the figure after capital allowances and deductible business expenses".

There is no return address on the letter and it's signed the "PUP Rerate Team".

There is also no invitation to submit 2019 tax return details.

Has anyone had a similar letter or have they been invited to submit 2019 details?

doc22

Dempo1 wrote: »

Your man Travelling to scotland is a musician actually, I suspect there's not too many venues availing of his and 100s of artists at the moment, a little bit of objectivity would be nice, although I suspect your one of those SW recepient bashers, incidentally his payment has been reinstated.

A "SW recepient bashers" god no I was in receipt of in it long enough through the last recession. But the attitude of your man sitting at home with his parents thinks he deserves 350 a week and has no intention of looking for work. If there was no check he'd be happily sitting in Scotland now with the GF(got a shock when the 350 didn't show in his account, the only reason he's back). Sure he could be working away in Scotland till next April on the PUP with no checks.

At what point do you think he should look for another job? next April?

Dempo1

doc22 wrote: »

A "SW recepient bashers" god no I was in receipt of in it long enough through the last recession. But the attitude of your man sitting at home with his parents thinks he deserves 350 a week and has no intention of looking for work. If there was no check he'd be happily sitting in Scotland now with the GF. Sure he could be working away in Scotland till next April on the PUP with no checks.

At what point do you think he should look for another job? next April?

Apologies not referring to any in particular but there's been some ****e on various threads, I take on board what you've said, he mentioned a partner in Scotland, anyway I guess my point was this entire debacle handled disgracefully and I'm sure there are some acting the maggot but I believe the majority on PUP, on it through no fault of theirs, who worked hard and had this landed on them last march.

ronano

If you start a job and develop covid during the probationary period, what happens?

Can you be let go from your job? Can you claim social welfare payment while isolating?

Dempo1

ronano wrote: »

If you start a job and develop covid during the probationary period, what happens?

Can you be let go from your job? Can you claim social welfare payment while isolating?

That' maybe an employment law issue, in normal probationary circumstances sickness in not an impediment to be let go, obviously if it was a work place accident etc, different matter.

Re isolation, that's a must which will require a test and depending on result a specific cert from your GP, with this you may be able to claim PUP under the medical isolation choice.

If you've been let go, illness not confirmed, then standard JSA may apply. I'd get cracking if there's any doubts about covid. I can't be sure if PUP could be claimed as I believe it's specific to loosing your job due to Covid, for example, business closes, self employed, temp lay off etc and not sure if the original rule being in employment late Feb, early March still applies

ShimSlady

I have worked as a contractor for an Airline for the past 8 years.

I am being informed that my position is under review and I am likely to be let go unless they can redeploy me with another client.

None of this is surprising given the current situation but they have informed me that the reason is not Covid related but business related (which is a bit of a stretch given the airline industries current predicament)

Does this mean I am unable to claim the Pandemic Unemployment benefit if I am let go?

recyclebin

Will you get a redundancy payment?

ShimSlady

recyclebin wrote: »

Will you get a redundancy payment?

I believe I will be given a payment for the years worked so yes

ShimSlady

recyclebin wrote: »

Will you get a redundancy payment?

I understand I will be given a payment for the years worked so yes

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Define what you mean by contractor first. Are you employed by the airline on a fixed term contact (unlikely after 8 years) an agency or something else?

ShimSlady

Dogg Munde wrote: »

Define what you mean by contractor first. Are you employed by the airline on a fixed term contact (unlikely after 8 years) an agency or something else?

It's a third party contractor. I am not employed directly by the airline.

drunkmonkey

recyclebin wrote: »

Will you get a redundancy payment?

ShimSlady wrote: »

I believe I will be given a payment for the years worked so yes

There's a ban on claiming redundancy at the moment, I'm not sure if there obliged to pay it. It's something worth negotiating yourself with them and getting in writing.

MrMusician18

Has it not always been the case that only furloughed workers got the PUP i.e. temporary lay offs?

Permanent lay offs always moved straight to unemployment benefit to my knowledge.

Beasty

Threads merged

ShimSlady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Has it not always been the case that only furloughed workers got the PUP i.e. temporary lay offs?

Permanent lay offs always moved straight to unemployment benefit to my knowledge.

I was unaware that was the case.

So in theory I would be entitled to about 6 months redundancy from the employer but no PUP.