Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
Got that Friday feeling
Oh yeah, and how can I forget the client who, when asked why she required a new fridge as part of her application for a CCG, told me that ‘It doesn’t work properly and my bacon keeps getting randy.’
An interesting dilemma;
I have a client who wants to go from the WRAG to the SG under Reg 35. To do this we would have to establish that the W R Activity is likely to cause him or someone else substantial harm.
The problem is that his action plan has only one requirement, that he contact me with a view to an appeal so we would have to establish that contacting me would cause a substantial risk to his health or wellbeing or a substantial risk to mine.
I know I can be a bit boring when I get on my soapbox but how on earth do I argue that his being in contact with me would harm him!!
I know I can be a bit boring when I get on my soapbox but how on earth do I argue that his being in contact with me would harm him!!
Break his legs. It’s for his own good.
I know I can be a bit boring when I get on my soapbox but how on earth do I argue that his being in contact with me would harm him!!
Break his legs. It’s for his own good.
This opens up a whole new way of dealing with appeals, if someone wants to be in the SG you just belt them with baseball bat, (not forgetting to break an arm as well so they can’t use a wheelchair) and ask for a supersession. Its brilliant, I can’t think why no one has tried it before
An interesting dilemma;
I have a client who wants to go from the WRAG to the SG under Reg 35. To do this we would have to establish that the W R Activity is likely to cause him or someone else substantial harm.
The problem is that his action plan has only one requirement, that he contact me with a view to an appeal so we would have to establish that contacting me would cause a substantial risk to his health or wellbeing or a substantial risk to mine.
I know I can be a bit boring when I get on my soapbox but how on earth do I argue that his being in contact with me would harm him!!
I would argue this is not work related activity at all. The definition of work related activity is “activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so.” (s. 13(7) of the Welfare Reform Act 2007). The requirement does not fulfil that definition in any way, it is the expression of an opinion from the adviser (who presumably has training in how to source or devise appropriate work related activity) that there is no work related activity that he could reasonably be expected to do.
Would be an interesting appeal!
While Co-ordinator of a advice project I was once called to attend at the local DHSS Office to attempt to remove a client brandishing a handgranade (turned out to be a ciggie lighter) demanding a single payment to buy a tent.
And on another occassion to remove a client from the reception area - who having seen the powered and manual wheelchair in the shop window thought we provided ‘specialist’ services and had stripped off. His explination for this when asked to leave was that it was our fault as he was drunk not depressed?
Once had a client who admitted to me that he was cheating on his wife. We then went back to discussing his benefit problem, which turned out to be a problem with “infidelity Benefit”. Talk about Freudian slip.
Reminiscing now (ah the good old days); a friend of mine told me this from the old days of Supplementary Benefit. He was on a drop in session when a nervous, smartly dressed woman came in with her husband. Husband’s demeanour, dress and language suggested he was a member of the professional criminal class. My friend thought the wife was trying to persuade hubby to go straight and claim benefits as they asked for a benefit check. My friend got the calculator, did the figures and announced with a flourish, “Well Mr A, you would be entitled to precisely £22.40 Supplementary Benefit per week!” At which husband leans towards my friend’s ear and in a quiet but menacing voice says “You xxxx”.
Talk about shooting (probably literally in this case) the messenger.
Who you gonna call?
Clientbusters!!
(sorry- rush of blood to the head…)