Sky TV when claiming benefit?

Cassie, every sympathy here. My ex went off with (slightly) younger model 32 years ago and although I had a decent job and was able to hang on to the house until I retired, I wasn't able to spend as lavishly as we could have done if still together - perish the thought. And I had two teenagers still at home and draining my resources. My pension is maximized by his payment of the married man's contribution when we were together and fortunately I had paid my full NI contributions all my working life. Have you any idea if this could be the case with your either of exes? It might be worth a visit to the CAB, if you haven't already been down that route. If nothing else, they could help you to organise your budget and find out if there is anything you could claim that you haven't already discovered.

Cassie I certainly have had some very tough times.

Cassie, I assure there are some here who have had the experiences you speak of , I have. If you can get housing benefit then apply for it, why make life harder than it already is.

I take it that most on here have never fallen on hard times?
I am so frustrated with everyone's perception with people on benefits. Maybe some compassion would help?

I can see nothing but understanding in any of the posts on here and can see nothing that says anyone is looking on others as scum or being incredibly judgmental

I am very sorry to hear that you are having such hard times CassieJ and hope that some help will be forthcoming. Are you not entitled to a claim on your first husband's pension if you were married to him for 25 years and presumably either worked then or kept the home going? That does seem very unfair.

Actually, I thought I had posted something previously but perhaps it didn't post about not being able to just cancel a Sky subscription anyway - I think they charge an early exit fee or deny you cancelled and continue to take the money anyway. We had a problem cancelling it and they never let go, keep phoning and pestering with mail for years afterwards.

People don't necessarily post details of their lives or their history and whether or not they have struggled, were on benefits and the thread does not appear to be condemning people at all.

Some have, CassieJ.
My husband had an accident when he was 49, twenty years ago last week, and never worked again. He was on incapacity and DLA from then until he reached 65 when he died of cancer. I was his carer.
So not everyone, just most, and yes, it's frustrating.
Not supposed to have a car when you are on benefits. Not supposed to want to get out of the house when you are disabled.
It's not just on here either. There are some who understand.

I take it that most on here have never fallen on hard times? It is very easy to say how people on benefits should live their life, God forbid that have a small luxury in their life --- obviously being on benefits means that they are low life, don't look for work and drink or smoke their benefits away.

I have always worked, so paid income tax. Benefits are there to help people in need.

I was married for 25 years to my first husband, he decided life was greener on the other side. We had a very affluent life, luxury holidays, large house, very large income. I was left with nothing!!
I managed to get by with not claiming benefits then. I married again and had a child when I was in my 40's. This marriage also ended. Again, I have come away with nothing. I had no choice but to go onto benefits. Let me tell you it isn't easy when you are plus 50 to suddenly be asking for hand outs.
I work as many hours as I can. I have a child who has to have constant hospital and doctors appointments, so this limits jobs that I can do.
I receive child/ working tax credit. This is decreasing due to my son now being 16. I am on minimum wage, I can't find anymore money. I don't claim housing, though I could. But like many of you on here, they look at you as though you are scum and are incredibly judgmental. There is no respect from these people. You want housing benefit, then you must be a low life and get treated as such.

Let me tell you at almost 60 I never expected my life to be like this. I have no pension, so can never retire. I am struggling to pay my rent and now waiting to see whether we can actually afford to live here much longer. Where we will go after this I have no idea. I don't earn enough to rent anywhere else, they want large deposits, and income.

I joined grans net as I was expecting a support group as I am also a grandparent. But it seems that people on here have never had a struggle in their life and have no understanding of how easy it is to lose everything. I certainly wasn't expecting my life to turn out the way it has. There but for the Grace of God and all that.

This is rare for me to post something like this, but I am so frustrated with everyone's perception with people on benefits. Maybe some compassion would help?

Of course not,we are supposed to be a compassionate society and I am sorry to say we have too many "I'm alright Jacks" so I am not going to pay for you.
I have found many with inherited money develop this attitude.

The Sky thing is on the income and expenditure documents you have to prepare for your creditors when you can no longer service your debts. That's totally different to someone claiming benefits.

I wasn't expecting to become too ill to keep my well paid job and have to rely on benefits. Being ill is bad enough. Should I now be penalised by not having a phone? I don't have Sky but am I OK to have the internet? After all the only necessities to life are food, water, warmth and shelter. Should I be limited to just those four things?

*Phoenix^ benefits are fixed at a set amount ,( except pension credit) so why it is relevant whether one has Sky Tv ? Do you imagine that the DWP would give you more to pay for it ? Believe me benefits are set at subsistence levels regardless of what you read in certain `newspapers`.

If you lose your job unexpectantly, you still have to honour outgoing a set up. To renew it at the end of the term would be irresponsible. I have never had these packages as choose to spend any extra money I have on the garden or a holiday, but I have always had to work. Phoenix, the man with 7 children not working since aged 19. I take it his wife works to keep that family of nine, that they don't rely on the tax payer paying his bills. I and many others, have small families as we couldn't afford large ones and are responsible.

Just been reading the i. There is an article about Iain Duncan Smith who now says that the benefits crackdown has been too harsh.

"Then to the Work Capability Assessments (WCA), designed to establish how much work can be done by those on incapacity benefits. “It was quite obvious to us that the system was far too narrow, was acting in a far too harsh manner and was making assumptions about people,” he said. And despite these reviews, the system remains flawed: “The whole process of having a benefit that says you are either too sick to work or you can work, actually works against the nature of how people think of themselves. And, thus, how you incentivise people to make the right decision.”

By the time he quit, he had started to prefer a complete overhaul. “I came to the conclusion that it was time to review the whole way we do this and remove the cliff edge,” he said.

“The cliff edge tempts people to make wrong declarations. And it means that whatever assessment you’re making becomes very critical, and that puts extra stress into the nature of what we do. So I came to the conclusion some time back that it was time to review the whole way we did this, and actually get rid of the cliff edge.

He said it’s now time to “revisit the whole idea of work and sickness benefit”.The question is what the Conservatives would do about this and whether they’re organised enough to care: an issue that I’ll look at in my Daily Telegraph column tomorrow."

Do you really believe this, or do you just think he's frightened that he will lose his seat at the next election?

This and the fact that Osborne has been given another job as honorary professor of economics at Manchester University makes me think I'm living in a parallel universe.

I am still not sure of the purpose of this thread. Are we for or against people claiming benefits having so called luxuries? Do we think they should go cap in hand for every penny or do we feel that they deserve some things that make them feel better about themselves and their, sometimes, totally underserved situation?.

Im sure some people on benefits didnt always think they would need to be on benefits
Its not fair to say they shouldnt have sky or phones
Are they expected to have everything taken away from them
Some people have benefits taken away with no noyice whatsoever,and have no money at all ESA for example, people who really need it for getting about
This Government is disgusting

There was someone on Question Time tonight who'd been out of work for several months and said he may lose his house; I'm afraid I wasn't listening properly by then....

Actually, it was 21 years ago when I started typing that.
I know exactly where I was 21 years ago.

When my husband fell off a ladder and fractured his spine, 21 years ago today, you had to wait three months before getting benefits. Sickness benefit was from your employer for three months. Then disability living allowance was six months before kicking in.
Insurance didn't start for a year after the accident.
It was hard.

I thought like Welshwife that it was three months.

Sorry, my last post was meant to be for phoenix. Yes, big difference in the two forms. When you do an income and expenditure for debt purposes, allowable expenses are more generous than for Social Security. There's lots of reasons for this and some have been given, but a major reason is that it's part of working out your disposable income available to repay the debt. You might be repaying for many years, so calculations have to be realistic to be achievable. That's not to say you can claim for the top of the range Sky package, you do have to be ready to justify each item if required. It's a terrible situation to find yourself in, but the more sensible and realistic you are, the greater the likelihood of a creditor agreeing to reduced repayments.

I know I've gone a bit off topic here, but it might help someone to know there's a wealth of information and support about this sensitive subject here -

MSE Debt Forum

dj it's been 39 weeks for many years now and the reasoning was always given as you should take out insurance against needing it. Somebody else making money from a bad situation. At the time, we as the people processing claims never thought it would be accepted. I'm convinced it's the reason for not paying benefits from the start of a claim for Universal Credit, one of the biggest reasons for the increase in food banks.

39 weeks now before you get any help with your mortgage. Just been mentioned on QT by a man who will probably lose his house.

The workhouse in York is student flats now, trisher.
The workhouse in my village has been turned into very nice flats as well. Obviously not enough people crammed into them at the moment!
Someone will come along and sort that out. Compulsory purchase deal.

I really do think their will be some who think bringing back some form of poorhouse/workhouse is a good idea. After all people must be punished for their poverty mustn't they.

Put 'em in the workhouse that will sort them out!

You now need a phone with a wifi connection really as most job applications are on line and you need to be able to do this and prove how many applications you have made.
I think that after about three months you get your mortgage interest paid Jen - or it was like that when my friend was made redundant - I don't know what you are supposed to do for the first three months.

GGMK2 we're familiar too with the list of income and outgoings you mentioned.

Funnily enough, years ago there used to be a list of things the means tested Supplementary Benefit (before Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit!) was supposed to cover and a daily newspaper was the only real nod to a 'non-essential'. The list was scrapped about 20 years ago. Changed days indeed.