19 replies to this topic

[3point14]

Victoria, on 04 December 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Okay. Good luck. But if that confident, I'm not sure why you came to ask if you qualified or not.

Not confident in making an application but asking others whether my logic is reasonable given the rules and facts available. I guess it follows on from this thread http://www.ukresiden...oth-unemployed/ where both are unemployed but where they did apply in person.

Can you perhaps clarify why you think my application should be postal as against personal ?

[Susi]

Applications made in person at a PEO are for 100% straightforward cases...otherwise it will be referred to a higher level caseworker and will join the postal queue but still be charged at the premium fee. In the example you've shown the couple had £9,000 in savings. You say your savings are almost depleted but you've not mentioned how much exactly you have left to support yourselves. If you've been living on your savings up until now, the caseworker will want to see how you will manage without claiming additional public funds.

[Victoria]

Because you are on benefits with zero income and this is therefore not straight forward.

[Susi]

I took so long to type my post Victoria beat me to it.

[Victoria]

[3point14]

Susi, on 04 December 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Applications made in person at a PEO are for 100% straightforward cases...otherwise it will be referred to a higher level caseworker and will join the postal queue but still be charged at the premium fee. In the example you've shown the couple had £9,000 in savings. You say your savings are almost depleted but you've not mentioned how much exactly you have left to support yourselves. If you've been living on your savings up until now, the caseworker will want to see how you will manage without claiming additional public funds.

Oh, I'm sorry. We have about £10,000 left in savings before the costs of the application. I didn't class that as very much and near depletion, though I realise not as stark as it could have been interpreted.

Does this change things ?

Would this be sufficient ? I don't know what sums they consider relevant.

[Victoria]

That's a material fact that obviously changes everything. You have totally wasted our time by failing to disclose that immediately.

Apply, you'll be fine.

[3point14]

Victoria, on 04 December 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Because you are on benefits with zero income and this is therefore not straight forward.

But aren't there rules to be followed and criteria to be met ?

Wasn't there also a legal case which, although it did not establish per se that benefit levels were themselves the minimum standard, went some way to establishing benefit levels as a level which could be used as a test to see whether an applicant did have sufficient income.

Also, the new (though we were settled before these rules came into force) rules state an income of £18,600 is required, that income is actually only £15,180 after taxation ( http://www.listentot...n.com/index.php ) whereas my actual income under benefits, which is net, is approximately £17,400. Does this have any bearing ?

[3point14]

Victoria, on 04 December 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

That's a material fact that obviously changes everything. You have totally wasted our time by failing to disclose that immediately.

Apply, you'll be fine.

Sorry, how can you say that is a material fact ? At what point does a little savings become material ?

Is £2000 ok, or £3000 or £5000 ? Surely there must be a level, not a finger in the air.

I'm also sorry you think I wasted your time, that was never my intent at all.

[Victoria]

If you want more help from me, come and see me.