Well done and good on you Westminster council.

[hitony]

Can you trump up another supposed interview date and a new claim (in good time), see if they don't cross check, and pay you out?
That would be funny.
Stranger things have happened in bureaucracy than clerical oversights

It does not work like that, and I told them the truth in writing.

 

[hitony]

Tony, you are preaching to the choir. I am now in the habit of only communicating in writing with any government official, I have found that all too often they give you the wrong information, send you on a time wasting and costly wild goose chase and then they will deny what they said, much harder to do when it's in print. You travel expenses are a case in point, I now find that when I meet that line (I seldom bother to even try for a local job) I say, 'Okay, well I can't afford to attend the interview but I can afford a stamp so I'll write to my MP explaining to im why it is I have had to turn down a job opportunity, after all, how I am supposed to pay a fare that is more than my weekly JSA ?' Tends to get them motivated.

To be honest I find most people with the Benefits Agencies to be helpful, you just need to be polite and friendly which quite a few people don't do. Granted I can understand how some people can loose their cool given the frustrations that ensure with dealing with mindless bureaucracy. However on occasion you do come up against people who feel that they're doing you a favour (which you can get anywhere in fairness) so you smile sweetly and ask them for their full name (they may refuse but legally they have to give it). That tends to get most of them off their high horses as they know you are going to go after them. The main requirement is patience allied to a strong sense of distrust. Frankly if we sacked twenty per cent of civil servants to motivate the remainder nobody would notice.,

Also, did you know you can get a small grant to help you get back to work ? There's always a shortfall when you come off benefits especially if you are paid monthly. This covers interim expenses such as fares. Of course very few people get told this but if you ask about it at your local Job Centre they have to act. The sad thing is that whilst I know how to deal with 'The System' many people don't.

Seems like we are singing from the same hymn book then

I did and always do everything in writng to them, in all honesty I am always polite as i know it gets you further in most cases, I have written and e mailed my local MP (Madaline Moon) on many occasions regarding these sort of matters, absolute waste of my time and energy!!

And in EVERY case when I have seeked help for whatever issue, all i get is i dont qualify as either my wife works more than 16 hours a week (albeit she is an crap money) or they produce another reason, I have never had anything more than job seekers allowence, and that got stopped after 13 weeks i think it was.

Anyway i have employment now and really cant be bothered to fight the system, it's mde so difficult for everyone on purpose, it is portrayed as being simple, but it is not, and i was very well educated so its not me thats thick!! lol

 

[bhaexpress]

Can you trump up another supposed interview date and a new claim (in good time), see if they don't cross check, and pay you out?
That would be funny.
Stranger things have happened in bureaucracy than clerical oversights

No, they will contact the employer or agency to confirm the interview so they know when and where. Some Job Centres tell you have to make an appointment to get travel warrants. What you have to do is keep cool and be polite but obstinate with these sort of people, some will try to provoke you but you just have to be patient and stand your ground.

 

[bhaexpress]

Seems like we are singing from the same hymn book then

I did and always do everything in writng to them, in all honesty I am always polite as i know it gets you further in most cases, I have written and e mailed my local MP (Madaline Moon) on many occasions regarding these sort of matters, absolute waste of my time and energy!!

And in EVERY case when I have seeked help for whatever issue, all i get is i dont qualify as either my wife works more than 16 hours a week (albeit she is an crap money) or they produce another reason, I have never had anything more than job seekers allowence, and that got stopped after 13 weeks i think it was.

Anyway i have employment now and really cant be bothered to fight the system, it's mde so difficult for everyone on purpose, it is portrayed as being simple, but it is not, and i was very well educated so its not me thats thick!! lol

Spot on, a lot of people just stop trying as they get frustrated by the long lines of red tape that the jobsworths put out. In fact it's not the fault of the people who work in the Job Centres as rule but more down to the brain dead OIP* civil servants who create these rules without any idea of how it works (or not) in the real world.

*OIP = Only Interested in Pension.

 

[public school boy]

Since it is my job helping young homeless people, are you suggesting im a criminal. Or do I only become a criminal when I go through Westminster.

Or is the truth somewhat nearer to that fact that both you and westminster councillors are brainless retards who dream up and promote ideas that achieve nothing but make you look stupid.

If £500 pound fines are going to be imposed it must be deemed as offence. you sound like a person who has a full understanding of the law, so my be you can enlighten us on whether it will be Classified as a Criminal or Civil offence in this case. Well done feeding the homeless it's most admirable of you.

 

[Josky]

Isn't this piece of legislation simply a broad brush solution to a very specific problem that Westminster council had, namely that it wanted to prevent Westminster Cathedral's daily food hand-outs to the homeless? I think, and correct me if I'm hideously wrong, that the council didn't like the idea of hundreds of homeless congregating in one area in such a visible part of London, near Victoria and that was the issue.

It sounds like another example of using a hammer to crack a walnut - the council maybe could have worked with the cathedral to find an alternative, but instead legislated against it. I remember the specific news story - I'll try and find it.

 

[Questions]

By the way, Westminster council will charge you for not having a Fishing licence!

No they won`t, but the Environment Agency might.

 

[Castello]

I really don't want to come across as being insensitive towards anyone who is homeless, in fact over the years I have probably done more than my fair share in helping unfortunate people, years ago when i lived in Brighton, i was only about 22, I actually took a homeless tramp back to my flat in Brunswick Road and got my then wife to cook him a meal and let him have a bath and gave him some clothes...anyway I digress.......it is my understanding that no one needs to be homeless if they don't want to be, which prompted me to have a quick browse a minute ago and i found this..... http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/Councilandhousingassociationhomes/Findingsomewhere/DG_4001401

I have not read it right through in great detail, and I am sure nothing is a simple as it it appears, but surely having a roof over your head is better than living rough? albeit is a halfway house situation, I am sure some prefer living on the streets for whatever reasons..............

The homelessness Act 2002 which overides and updates all previous homeless persons acts states that a person is homeless if they do not have permanent accommodatiion to live in. It goes on to say that a local authority has a duty to assess the application of anyone that is homeless and give a decision on whether they have a duty to help within a set number of says. (from memory i think 30 days, I stand to be corrected on that.)

The assessmemnt must decide if someone is homeless, that they are not intentionally homeless, ( ie that they didnt cause the homelessness through non payment of rent, giving up suitable accommodation etc), that they fall into a priority need category. (Mainly under 18. over 65, pregnant, dependent children, chronic medical need that is life threatening if homeless, major social need, homeless because of fire or flood. homeless becaise of fleeing violence). The final thing they must be assessed and satisfy is local connection. They muct have a local connection with the authority applied to.

If an applicant fails any of these apart from the last one their application will be closed as not being able to be helped, if they pass all but the last one the local authority can rule there is a duty to house but pass the application to an authority that the applicant does have a local connection with. In reality they rerely do this and just close the application instead.

This means that most homeless people do not get accepte. Certainly single men between 18 and 65 are likely to not qualify. Obviously there are exceptions.

What unsually happens, and the authority I work in Lewisham are particularly adept at this, is some grim faced member of staff, just says no we cant help you heres a list of hostels go away. If the person stands their ground, and insists upon an assessment knowing their rights. but in many cases the person doesnt know their rights and walks away. Certainly Ive taken enough young people who have been turned away back, that they see my face and just give in.

So in answer, no not everyione has a right to be housed and even those that do have to be tough enough to stand up to the stone faced heartlessness,

As tony says having a legal right doesnt mean youll get what you want from an over complicated uncaring system.

 

[Castello]

Spot on, a lot of people just stop trying as they get frustrated by the long lines of red tape that the jobsworths put out. In fact it's not the fault of the people who work in the Job Centres as rule but more down to the brain dead OIP* civil servants who create these rules without any idea of how it works (or not) in the real world.

*OIP = Only Interested in Pension.

to be honest, I probably have a lot more sympathy for what you say than it may sound. After all I have spent 20 years of my life working with, defending and fighting the people you talk about. Having said that I would make 2 points. One there are people like this in every walk of life, in every occupation and with every employer. I do accept that they do a lot of harm where they work, and god knows I have watched some Ive worked with silently praying the person theyre speakaing to lands one on them. However I really dont see how they can be vetted out of a system thats encourages them.

And that is my second point. until you have worked for local or central government, it really is hard to understand how the system drains your will to help people. You deal with the general public and the most vulnerable elements of the public. As much as these people may need help, they dont always make you want to help them. You deal with souless managers who have budgets and targets to meet, none of which are based on the reality of peoples lives, and are therefore instructed to ignore laws in favour of policies. Thirdly you see a media portrayal of public servants that make them out to be uncaring lazy greedy tea sipping bureaucrats. Burn out is inevitable.

Despite this in my experince the vast majority of public servants do care about the public. I know they could show this better, and some do. But after a day oif having sewage dumped on your counter and being sworn at, sometimes it is hard to smile charmingly.

Having reread your post I think were saying the same thing.