Hmm it's a nice life on benefits it seems

I hate newspapers, but I do have a personal reason for hating them too.

However, here's a senario relating to the above statement that her children will end up on benefits...

Mother and father work all their lives, they have 4 children and at one point mother has more than 1 job. Eldest child pops a couple of sprogs out and stays on benefits for over 20 years with her husband also on benefits. Second eldest pops a couple of sprogs out, financially better off partner working part time and her being stay at home mum, third on benefits again with sprogs, similar situation to eldest, youngest worked til his partner needed 24 hour care. Very real senario of a family that I know very well.

Another family, parents worked in turns, one full time for many years while children grew up, that parent had an accident and could no longer work, so the other parent worked. Caring for the first parent got divided between the children and the parent in measures of what was appropriate and suitable. That parent eventually got better and both parents worked full time when children were in secondary school. Kids both went on to have jobs, fairly decent jobs, within 2 years both children had accidents that made them unable to work. One almost died because of the accident and the other ended up with an incurable neurological condition that means that they have restricted use of their body. Again, a true senario.
 
Last edited:
Jo said:
Wait the 13 weeks and if you haven't found another job in that time you can get help with your mortgage. .......... You won't lose your house in that 13 weeks provided you were up to date with your mortgage payments before being made redundant.................. Mortgage companies don't want to repossess, that is the last thing they want................ I'm sure if you communicate with them you can come to some sort of arrangement until things are sorted for you one way or another. :)
Click to expand...

How naive :) actually there was significant number of houses repossesed after only 3 failed payments, some mortgages do allow it according to the article in the guardian a few months ago. Sometimes people`s overspendig was to be blamed sometimes other problems, but the repossesions do exist :)
Communicate with mortgage companies :) it must be a joke:cuckoo:, iam under the impression that you are a young idealistic person who dont have the mortgage just yet? am i wrong?
 
lazym said:
How naive :) actually there was significant number of houses repossesed after only 3 failed payments, some mortgages do allow it according to the article in the guardian a few months ago. Sometimes people`s overspendig was to be blamed sometimes other problems, but the repossesions do exist :)
Communicate with mortgage companies :) it must be a joke:cuckoo:, iam under the impression that you are a young idealistic person who dont have the mortgage just yet? am i wrong?
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this - 3 missed payments = court summons.
 
Yes you are wrong. I have been down th route of owning a house. Never again. Mortgage companies wont (usually) start repossession orders until after 3 missed payments = 3 months. 13 weeks is only just over that, and I am sure with a little communication and paying what you can afford it will prevent the repossession.

Edit: in fact even if you pay just £10 a month for those 13 weeks, you will not be a full 3 payments behind, so I don't think they can start repossession orders for another month. Repossession orders take quite a while to manifest to the stage of actually possession as well. In that time I do believe you can catch up with the over due payment, and have the order stopped. I might be wrong on that though, it may well have changed or I'm remembering it wrong :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Jo said:
Yes you are wrong. I have been down th route of owning a house. Never again. Mortgage companies wont (usually) start repossession orders until after 3 missed payments = 3 months. 13 weeks is only just over that, and I am sure with a little communication and paying what you can afford it will prevent the repossession.

Edit: in fact even if you pay just £10 a month for those 13 weeks, you will not be a full 3 payments behind, so I don't think they can start repossession orders for another month. Repossession orders take quite a while to manifest to the stage of actually possession as well. In that time I do believe you can catch up with the over due payment, and have the order stopped. I might be wrong on that though, it may well have changed or I'm remembering it wrong :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think it's also partly the mortgage company and how willing they are to help.
 
True, but since they would actually lose out on money by repossesion, I'm sure most will work with you. Communication is the key though. If you are on the phone to them as soon as you have a problem, then I don't think any of them would refuse to help.
 
They would. They have to give you back any money raised after auction that go over what you owe. If they repossess, they don't earn the interest on the mortgage.
 
Regardless of the woman in question from the OP (I haven't read the story, nor will I), the benefits system IS wrong. Both my partner and I were made redundant within a month of each other last year.

We got zero help from "them" for our mortgage or other bills. We got the basic £60 odd a week Jobseekers allowance and that was it. The 13 week rule for mortgages is a bit of a red herring, last year we were told that it was 13 weeks before they could start to look at our claim, but they couldn't tell us when they'd be able to start paying the interest off (and they only pay so much of that as well, btw)

"They", in my opinion, failed us. It was only sheer luck that my partner is very good at talking to people that we managed to keep the roof over our heads and the wolf from the door.

I found work after about 3 months, which kept us solvent (just). We're both back working again full time now, but we've still got debts from then to pay off.

I take a dim view of the benefits system, it's set up to help those less fortunate, but if you know what you're doing, you can play the system.
 
Do people actually beileve these 'real life' stories? Half of them are made up. A friend of mine worked for the Mail and was forever trying to get people to play parts in their 'Female' real life stories.
 
Marcel said:
I wonder how many people who think this woman is vile, would happily order a lens from Hong Kong with a 'No VAT / Duty' guarantee.
Click to expand...

I've pointed that a few times myself here - folks moan about potholes in the road, the state of the NHS etc but will happily support retailers who file fraudulent Customs documents.
 
lazym said:
How naive :) actually there was significant number of houses repossesed after only 3 failed payments, some mortgages do allow it according to the article in the guardian a few months ago. Sometimes people`s overspendig was to be blamed sometimes other problems, but the repossesions do exist :)
Communicate with mortgage companies :) it must be a joke:cuckoo:, iam under the impression that you are a young idealistic person who dont have the mortgage just yet? am i wrong?
Click to expand...

Statistics mean nothing when they don't go into enough details

Break that down to the following three reasons and the split would be different
- Nonpayment for reasons unknown - AWOL
- Nonpayment due to financial problems - Overspending
- Nonpayment due to redundancy

You can communicate with mortgage companies the same as you can communicate with any other large organisation - you have to make sure you get speaking to the right people in that organisation. That will always be the hardest part - once you are in conversation with the people that can help there is a lot that they can do.
 
I agree with marcel, yv and anyone else with the similar viewpoint.
I detest articles that have the sole purpose of manipulating the public's view of people on benefits as if they are all hideous scroungers.
they have a chosen a single mother as they are a current hot topic. I don't know what is more depressing actually, the article being published or people falling for it

A
 
Marcel said:
I wonder how many people who think this woman is vile, would happily order a lens from Hong Kong with a 'No VAT / Duty' guarantee.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people would stop doing this if they felt that the tax they ARE paying was being used effectively and they were seeing real benefit from it?
Let's face it, if there's one thing UK governments excell at, it's wasting tax payers money. Why should we give them any more to waste than we absolutely have to?
 
Gary said:
News International are such hypocrites.
If people didnt get benefits then there would only be 1/4 of the amount of sky subscribers
Click to expand...

I don't often agree with you Gary but
:lol::lol::lol: & :thumbs:
 
Jim.R said:
I wonder how many people would stop doing this if they felt that the tax they ARE paying was being used effectively and they were seeing real benefit from it?
Let's face it, if there's one thing UK governments excell at, it's wasting tax payers money. Why should we give them any more to waste than we absolutely have to?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but they why's and wherefores are moot (in respect of the point I was making anyway).

The point is that people are quick to judge, and what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. etc etc :)

I will admit I've done the same too. I bought my flash and a lens from OneStop in Hong Kong, so I'm not without sin myself I suppose.
However, where does teh acceptable line from one situtation (like HK sellers) end and the other (like this woman) begin?
 
Stiglet said:
..errrr..heres an idea..help with the mortgage so I dont have to go on the game.:naughty:
Click to expand...

Well if it comes to it Stigs, will you be offereing any TP discount? :D
 
I don't think this particular woman is scamming the benefits system too much, but how about comparing that with the woman in Westminster getting the council to pay £1600 a week rent

Now that is taking the biscuit :bang::bang::bang:
 
That woman annoys me.

My mums single, i was 15 when he (father) left and my brother 12. My mum didn't just claim benefits. She went from being at home mum to having 2 jobs, training for more qualifications at collage and still looking after us. If she can do that then why can't other people.

That woman seems proud that she hasn't worked for 13 years and pulled out of collage after 2 months (ok she was ill) but why hasn't she tried going back?
Her kids are old enough now to start helping around the house so maybe she should go back to collage and get some qualifications.
 
Perhaps scamming is the wrong word. But, if we are to believe the story, and it's the only thing we have to go on, then she set out to live her life on benefits. Won't work, didn't want to work, wants a bigger house. All paid for by the taxpayer.

You say entitled to...... Perhaps it shows how wrong the benefits system actually is. It Is supposed to be to help people back to work, those that can't work, not those that don't want to work.
 
barneyrubble said:
Perhaps scamming is the wrong word. But, if we are to believe the story, and it's the only thing we have to go on, then she set out to live her life on benefits. Won't work, didn't want to work, wants a bigger house. All paid for by the taxpayer.

You say entitled to...... Perhaps it shows how wrong the benefits system actually is. It Is supposed to be to help people back to work, those that can't work, not those that don't want to work.
Click to expand...

Only problem is, if an article in The Sun is the only thing we have to go on, it probably ain't worth going. ;)
 
But those figures actually add up don't they :D:D:D

Not defending the sun at all, but unless you have something that disproves those figures :thinking::thinking:
 
I read the story and my first reaction was annoyance, why is she living off of my tax money..... but wait a minute...... I'm co-director of my own company. I take minimum wage plus directors bonus's rather than pay the amount of tax that I would be liable for if I were to take it all as a wage (tax/NI ... it all goes to the same office now!) I have some stunning benefits in kind. I also work self employed with the photography, my wife is a teacher. Our joint income is £100k plus.

We get family allowance for our two kids.

Thats what is screwed up, not the lady in the article. The benefits system should be there to help people that need it, not giving me money for breeding.

We all have basic human necessities. Shelter, food, clean water and food. That is what the system should be catering for. I feel sorry for the people who find themselves out of work and with a mortgage. They wanted to better their lives and invest in a property, yet when they fall out of work there is little help for them from the system. If your in rented accommodation then the system will help you.
If your temporarily out of wrk then the system is a minefield, it isn't easily understood by those who are not used to it. yet the lady in the article has made a career out of it and gets everything that is due to her.

I don't need the child benefit, it gets paid straight into a savings account which my boys will get when they reach 18. yt there are people out there who are being denied the most basic of human needs because the system is incompetent.

That's what I'm really annoyed about, that the system is there to benefit the players. That lady is a player and she's playing the game well. Good on her. But the system needs to be overhauled to benefit those who pay into it and then find themselves in a time of need, not the players.

Id sort it. I'd give everyone a goodly amount if they find themselves out of work. Start it at, say, £500 per week for a married couple with two kids. Your life, your responsibility, you administer your own benefits. For every 3 months that your out of work I'll reduce your benefit by £25.00 per week. How long do you think that lady would still be congratulating herself for then?
 
I would love that life, doing nothing and getting paid to do it sounds good to me.

Myself I work at my own IT business, earning a reasonable amount but also spending a lot keeping things going. But I have earnt every penny I have spent and appreciate everything I have. But unfortunately I don't earn enough to be able to afford to buy or rent a house on my own. I don't have a pet, I don't have sky TV. I love kids but I believe I am unable to support them fully so they are not in the plans for the next few years I don't believe that someone else should pay for me to have kids.

Now it says she gets £252 per week, now add on her rent of a 3 bedroom house what £400 per month? so she is getting nearly £18k per year. If I'm sick I get a prescription it costs me nearly £8 a pop, glasses cost a good few hundred quid a year.

When I was born Mum stayed at home, Dad went to work when I was at school Mum got a job that allowed her to take me to school and pick me up and be there to look after me out of school hours. We survived on Dad's wage and the money Mum got. We did without a lot of things but I had the benefit of Mum at home.

Her responsibility of providing the world with 3 kids to ensure life goes on, what a load of balls. It is very wrong that the system allows people to stay at home just as she is, it annoys me that they also have many luxuries like 3 laptops, 2 xboxes, flat screen tv's, sky and BT vision and that she sees being a mum as a way of earing money, she hasn't earned the money, there are so many other mum's who go out to work to earn money and still look after their kids and the house and everything else.

And she wants a bigger house so her kids can have a bedroom each, how will that work? she will need to buy another TV for the extra room and another xbox and gaming chair. my childhood bedroom didn't have the space for a chair on the floor, it was a 2 bed terrace that was converted in to a 3 so my sister and I had separate rooms. It annoys me so much another example how stupid the system is, a mate of mine doesn't work, his missus works 16 hours a week, they have a kid and are living in a very nice new build flat on benefits. He asked me about the wii as I have bought and paid for one myself when they were released, within 2 days he had a wii how the hell does an un employed person with a kid go out and spend £150 at the drop of a hat, never mind his iphone and internet connection and laptop.

Those who work get screwed over those who don't get everything the workers work hard for.

I think I may just decide to sack the IT stuff off and become un employed, ahh but thats the problem over the years I have been saving to buy a house, as soon as the benefits agency find out about that I have to live off my savings and get nothing until that has all gone.
 
fabs said:
Which figures? the ones given by The Sun?
Click to expand...

Probably those figures given by the woman herself to the Sun newspaper for her few minutes of fame .... :|
 
I think that it's a shame that there's such a huge focus on single mothers getting benefits at the moment, rather than the ESA Scandal. People who aren't well enough to work are being pretty much told "tough luck, go and work" or "so we'll send you on some training courses, doesn't matter that you're not well..." and their GPs and consultants medical advice isn't taken into consideration, just some jumped up doctor who often doesn't speak the lingo and has a billion ticky boxes....
 
MagicMynx said:
I think that it's a shame that there's such a huge focus on single mothers getting benefits at the moment, rather than the ESA Scandal. People who aren't well enough to work are being pretty much told "tough luck, go and work" or "so we'll send you on some training courses, doesn't matter that you're not well..." and their GPs and consultants medical advice isn't taken into consideration, just some jumped up doctor who often doesn't speak the lingo and has a billion ticky boxes....
Click to expand...

The medical assesment centre in Glasgow run on behalf of the DWP is known as "Lourdes" due to so many people have gone in suffering from debilitating illnesses only for them to leave a few minutes later pronounced fit and well by the DWP's doctors :lol:
 
Splog said:
Probably those figures given by the woman herself to the Sun newspaper for her few minutes of fame .... :|
Click to expand...

:D:D:D

As she apapreatly said - she's not embarrased :D:D

Won't work - not can't work. Big difference that seems to have been missed by some.:D:D
 
wack61 said:
If you're paying for your kids you're one of the good guys, it's the ones that squirt, b****r off and leave the rest of us to pay the bill i'm talking about.
Click to expand...


It's not just that the system is wrong, I am ment to pay CSA payments for my son even though he spends the same amount of time with me as his mother. :cuckoo:

+ she gets all the child benefit which is ment to supply him with what he needs.

Thankfully she saw sense and didn't want me to pay her to see my son as much as she does and agrees the system is crap and unjust to fathers especially as mentioned here where the mother goes away and makes it hard/near on impossible for the willing fathers to see their children.

Back to the story though, its shocking, I work all month trying to get enough money to keep a house over my head! with little to no money left for any extras (trips to cinema/zoo's etc)
When my GF was made redundent she couldn't claim job seekers as she lived with me and I worked full time, but if she went back to her folks in Birmingham she could claim.
 
It is during the day surely, 13, 10 and 7 will all be at school. Most people work, then have to look after their kids when they finish work.

And it's not just £252 is it. Add in the Rent for the 3 Bed house (lets guess at £500/month), plus council tax, and you're a lot closer to £400 a week, tax free. Puts a slightly different slant on it perhaps?

£400 a week after tax puts you on a level with the average "Working" income in the UK :bonk::bonk::bonk::bonk:
 
I don't understand at what point benefits stopped being for emergencies and for people incapable of work and started being a lifestyle choice. Benefit should be cut to an absolute minimum for people who have been out of work for an unreasonable period. It should also be largely paid in vouchers so that the money doesn't get wasted. There is no real solution to stopping lazy scroungers but we could at least do something to curb the tide. (And having kids is not a job. You can't look after children if you can't look after yourself!)

I'm properly disgusted that the government are more than happy to fund the shell suit brigades drinking through benefits but wont fund hard working kids at university so they can get a good education and ultimately give the country something back.
 
barneyrubble said:
It is during the day surely, 13, 10 and 7 will all be at school. Most people work, then have to look after their kids when they finish work.

And it's not just £252 is it. Add in the Rent for the 3 Bed house (lets guess at £500/month), plus council tax, and you're a lot closer to £400 a week, tax free. Puts a slightly different slant on it perhaps?

£400 a week after tax puts you on a level with the average "Working" income in the UK :bonk::bonk::bonk::bonk:
Click to expand...

That's not really the point I was arguing against. I'm not defending the government's decision to allow her these benefits. As people have said previously, she's just getting what she's entitled to, so you can't really blame her.

All I was saying is that looking after three kids isn't doing nothing.

You could offer me a grand a week and three kids, and I would still rather go to work and have no kids for £252 instead.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The medical assesment centre in Glasgow run on behalf of the DWP is known as "Lourdes" due to so many people have gone in suffering from debilitating illnesses only for them to leave a few minutes later pronounced fit and well by the DWP's doctors :lol:
Click to expand...

Sounds about right :lol:
Aparently they're only declaring 2% of people currently on IB, unfit to work, under ESA. Forced people who are terminal with various illnesses and have months left to live, on their training courses....
 
GrittyShaker said:
Blimey. Looking after three kids is "doing nothing", is it? :D

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather go to work all week for my £252 than I would look after three kids for it.
Click to expand...

It was her choice to have 3 kids, she should provide for them. We all choose to buy pretty expensive cameras and peices of glass should we expect not to pay for them, we pay for them because of the pleasure we get from using them.

Her kids are at school during the day so why isn't she out working between 9am and 3pm? there are a lot of jobs you can do with those working hours and employers can't deny time off to look after kids if one is ill or off school. She is just lazy plain and simple.
 
Little John said:
Her kids are at school during the day so why isn't she out working between 9am and 3pm? there are a lot of jobs you can do with those working hours and employers can't deny time off to look after kids if one is ill or off school. She is just lazy plain and simple.
Click to expand...

If it's true that by working she'll be on less money you can't blame her for not working, that's the problem, if she's able to maintain a lifestyle that most people in low paid work would aspire to and would be worse off by working it's the system that's at fault.

Benefits should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top