Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Benfits for a divorced mother of 2
28 Answers
My daughter is about to be sacked. Does anyone know what benefits she is entitled to?
She's a divorced mother of two with a mortgage and has never been out of work before so doesn't know what to expect.
She's a divorced mother of two with a mortgage and has never been out of work before so doesn't know what to expect.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by johnk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Two small points on Corby's post:
1. He says "Any period between the employment ending and the date of claim for JSA will also be deducted from the sanction." I think it is supposed to be between the misconduct occurring & the date of claim, so if she didn't claim until 13 weeks after the argument there wouldn't be a sanction; if she claimed 5 weeks after the argument the sanction would be 8 weeks; &
2. Corby says if misconduct is proved there will be a sanction. I'm not at all sure the Job Centre will investigate it & come to a considered opinion. I think they will just take the employer's decision as the "proof". And of course by the time the Tribunal overturns that, the sanction period will have ended.
It doesn't mean she'll have nothing at all to live on. She may be entitled to a hardship payment & should certainly claim that. Also she would certainly be entitled to Tax Credits & Council Tax Benefit & (if she is renting) Housing Benefit.
1. He says "Any period between the employment ending and the date of claim for JSA will also be deducted from the sanction." I think it is supposed to be between the misconduct occurring & the date of claim, so if she didn't claim until 13 weeks after the argument there wouldn't be a sanction; if she claimed 5 weeks after the argument the sanction would be 8 weeks; &
2. Corby says if misconduct is proved there will be a sanction. I'm not at all sure the Job Centre will investigate it & come to a considered opinion. I think they will just take the employer's decision as the "proof". And of course by the time the Tribunal overturns that, the sanction period will have ended.
It doesn't mean she'll have nothing at all to live on. She may be entitled to a hardship payment & should certainly claim that. Also she would certainly be entitled to Tax Credits & Council Tax Benefit & (if she is renting) Housing Benefit.
Themas, no offence bt I know a wee bit more abut this than you do.
When a claimant says they have been dismissed, the Jobcentre send a form to the former employer asking for more information about the incident leading to dismissal and once the reply is received, a referral to a Labour Market Decision Maker (LMDM) is made.
The LMDM may contact the employer for further information and the claimant MUST then be given the chance to comment on what all the employer has said. The LMDM then makes a decision based only upon the evidence and it is up to the employer to show there was misconduct, it is not for the claimant to show there was no misconduct.
You see then, the Jobcentre does not make the sanction decision.
With regard to the deduction for the period between the employment ending and the date of claim, that is correct. A sanction is to stop payment of JSA from National Insurance funds. If someone delays making a claim and the claim is not backdated, in effect they have imposed a period of not receiving benefit so it would be unfair to punish them twice for that period.
If it worked the way you think it does, the person could still be employed and receiving pay while the employer made investigations and then go on to receive full JSA. Where is the logic in that?
JSA carries on in payment until the Decision Maker decides there was misconduct and the sanction takes effect from the day after the JSA has been paid up to.
I must point out the fact that even if an Employment Tribunal agrees there has been an unfair dismissal, that does not prevent a Decision Maker saying there was misconduct. This is because they look at different things, there may have been misconduct but the employer may not have followed the correct dismissal procedures for example.
Tax Credits, Housing Benefit and Coucil Tax Benefits are means tested so unless a claimant is receiving Income Based JSA there is no automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit.
Hardship Payments (not to be confused wi Social Fund payments) may be made and that decision IS made by the Jobcentre.
When a claimant says they have been dismissed, the Jobcentre send a form to the former employer asking for more information about the incident leading to dismissal and once the reply is received, a referral to a Labour Market Decision Maker (LMDM) is made.
The LMDM may contact the employer for further information and the claimant MUST then be given the chance to comment on what all the employer has said. The LMDM then makes a decision based only upon the evidence and it is up to the employer to show there was misconduct, it is not for the claimant to show there was no misconduct.
You see then, the Jobcentre does not make the sanction decision.
With regard to the deduction for the period between the employment ending and the date of claim, that is correct. A sanction is to stop payment of JSA from National Insurance funds. If someone delays making a claim and the claim is not backdated, in effect they have imposed a period of not receiving benefit so it would be unfair to punish them twice for that period.
If it worked the way you think it does, the person could still be employed and receiving pay while the employer made investigations and then go on to receive full JSA. Where is the logic in that?
JSA carries on in payment until the Decision Maker decides there was misconduct and the sanction takes effect from the day after the JSA has been paid up to.
I must point out the fact that even if an Employment Tribunal agrees there has been an unfair dismissal, that does not prevent a Decision Maker saying there was misconduct. This is because they look at different things, there may have been misconduct but the employer may not have followed the correct dismissal procedures for example.
Tax Credits, Housing Benefit and Coucil Tax Benefits are means tested so unless a claimant is receiving Income Based JSA there is no automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit.
Hardship Payments (not to be confused wi Social Fund payments) may be made and that decision IS made by the Jobcentre.
Your daughter is a union rep so the union solicitors will be the people to help her here, they are experts in this type of situation . I would very much imagine that the union solicitors are on this case already it is 'right up their street !' so as to speak. For a dismissal for gross misconduct to work there are very precise and strict procedures that have to be followed to the letter of the law. I do not think the company have put the case correctly , if so the union solicitors will rip them to shreds in court.
Eddie, this is the ACAS Code http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/s/o/Acas-Guide-on-discipline-and-grievances_at_work_(April_11)-accessible-version-may-2012.pdf have a look at pages 17 and 18.
She had her hearing last Friday and the news is she has kept her job on a final written warning. At the hearing the union rep refused to discuss the first item as it happened a year ago and this was taken off the agenda. During the discussion she brought up many ins of rasment and one of a physical attack from a member of the public none of which were dealt with by the company and her argument was why the difference between her case and those she had suffered.
The chair (a woman) was very interested in this and cleared the room except for the two of them and had an hour 1 to 1 about this.
The decision was then deferred and the result arrived by phone yesterday.
Thanks everyone for your help,
I doubt if this is the end as they'll be on her case even more now and it will only be a matter of time before they cook something up!!
The chair (a woman) was very interested in this and cleared the room except for the two of them and had an hour 1 to 1 about this.
The decision was then deferred and the result arrived by phone yesterday.
Thanks everyone for your help,
I doubt if this is the end as they'll be on her case even more now and it will only be a matter of time before they cook something up!!
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Film, Media & TV21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.