Whats the saving limit for people on benefits?

Brain rot. It’s not this simple.
Delusional justification for selfishness, yes it is. if you really think every worthwhile social care programme or request is fulfilled every year, then you don't live in the real world.

Money sitting in his account is money that could have actively done some good, he was never denied anything he's not been hard done by.

the state of the attitude of some people in this country, I'd expect it from some Tory, trust fund, BUPA baby. Not from people that would actually suffer if the social safety net was gone.
 
Tricky one. He deserves a holiday as much as the next person but 11k a month and 50k saved? Eesh. Optcs aren't great.



The DM comment is 99% a cesspit of horrible individuals. Racist, sexist, ablest. If there is an 'ist/ism' possible, you'll find it in the DM comments.
Again because people don't read and just get emotional I don't care if his assessed needs mean he needs 30k a month the 11k is a red herring, I expect that 30k to be spent on those assessed needs. Every time it's not, it's taking away from someone that could have used that money right now.
 
Last edited:
Money sitting in his account is money that could have actively done some good, he was never denied anything he's not been hard done by.
Again because people don't read and just get emotional I don't care if his assessed needs mean he needs 30k a month the 11k is a red herring, I expect that 30k to be spent on those assessed needs. Every time it's not, it's taking away from someone that could have used that money right now.


So if he had used the money for these cinema trips etc it would be ok?

Whether it's spent or not, its still the same amount of money thats "taken away from someone that could have used that money right now." :confused:
 
Last edited:
Again because people don't read and just get emotional I don't care if his assessed needs mean he needs 30k a month the 11k is a red herring, I expect that 30k to be spent on those assessed needs. Every time it's not, it's taking away from someone that could have used that money right now.
Can you explain how the money has been taken away from someone?

Whatever he gets, others who qualify will get the same help too.

You make it sound like there’s a disabled person sitting at home starving because the council can’t afford care for them due to this guy.

What he gets impinges upon no-one else
 
Again because people don't read and just get emotional I don't care if his assessed needs mean he needs 30k a month the 11k is a red herring, I expect that 30k to be spent on those assessed needs. Every time it's not, it's taking away from someone that could have used that money right now.
These pots don’t work that way, someone isn’t missing out simply because he didn’t spend the money.

You’re so blinded by your anger right now it’s hilarious and you’re projecting that we who object to your opinions are selfish rofl.

Keep seething.
 
Can you explain how the money has been taken away from someone?

Whatever he gets, others who qualify will get the same help too.

You make it sound like there’s a disabled person sitting at home starving because the council can’t afford care for them due to this guy.

What he gets impinges upon no-one else
He’s just created some false narrative in his head to justify his rant.

We are apparently somehow selfish for suggesting anything opposite to what he’s saying lmao.

Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
So if he had used the money for these cinema trips etc it would be ok?

Whether it's spent or not, its still the same amount of money thats "taken away from someone that could have used that money right now." :confused:
Yes, that would be fine, he certainly wouldn't have done anything wrong, it would then be on the council and the government as to how a limited budget should be divided up fairly. It's not for him to take money not use it and sit on it, it makes a mockery of the system.

An honest person would have said he didn't want the trips any more and would prefer a sunny holiday instead, if he'd been refused then maybe he would have a case to complain, but that didn't happen.
 
So if he had used the money for these cinema trips etc it would be ok?

Yes, that is the point and why the council clawed the money back. The trips was part of the care and social plan he and the council agreed to and was funded accordingly and when he didn’t spend it, then it became surplus which the council could claim back as per the agreement.
 
These pots don’t work that way, someone isn’t missing out simply because he didn’t spend the money.

You’re so blinded by your anger right now it’s hilarious and you’re projecting that we who object to your opinions are selfish rofl.

Keep seething.
nobody's angry but you, and I have to wonder why it makes you so mad, instead of ranting a raving and making thing personal then explain how these "pots" work, explain how councils really have unlimited budgets and nobody misses out.
 
Yes, that would be fine, he certainly wouldn't have done anything wrong, it would then be on the council and the government as to how a limited budget should be divided up fairly. It's not for him to take money not use it and sit on it, it makes a mockery of the system.

An honest person would have said he didn't want the trips any more and would prefer a sunny holiday instead, if he'd been refused then maybe he would have a case to complain, but that didn't happen.

I think the main issue here is that the council waited "many years" (the article doesn't say the actual number) to tell him this while checking his accounts quarterly.

If in the first 3 mo the they had done thier job and said; "oh so your saving the spending from these outings to fund one big ousting, I'm afraid that's not alowed. You can apply for a seperate grant for this but we have to take back the last 3 months you've saved sorry" there never would have been an issue.

It's a bit of a rug pull to have watched this happen over years and years and not say anything to him.
 
Last edited:
I think the main issue here is that the council waited "many years" (the article doesn't say the actual number) to tell him this while checking his accounts quarterly.

If in the first 3 mo the they had done thier job and said; "oh so your saving the spending from these outings to fund one big ousting, I'm afraid that's not alowed. You can apply for a seperate grant for this but we have to take back the last 3 months you've saved sorry" there never would have been an issue.

It's a bit of a rug pull to have watched this happen over years and years and not say anything to him.

I think that's the worst part of it; he thought he was doing the right thing by telling them and confirming it wasn't being "misused" and then they take the hump and take the money back.
It should have been done at the very start if that's the rules.
 
I think the main issue here is that the council waited "many years" (the article doesn't say the actual number) to tell him this while checking his accounts quarterly.

If in the first 3 mo the they had done thier job and said; "oh so your saving the spending from these outings to fund one big ousting, I'm afraid that's not alowed. You can apply for a seperate grant for this but we have to take back the last 3 months you've saved sorry" there never would have been an issue.

It's a bit of a rug pull to have watched this happen over years and years and not say anything to him.
We all know the reality is nothing is really getting checked, not monthly. Like I say, to a certain extent it is a trust exercise. Imagine the press the council would get if they actually did employ enough people to check up on everyone.

It's still not an excuse really, you can't keep claiming your dead nan's pension with the excuse, they should have checked she was dead.

It would have only been flagged when he put in the strange request for holiday PAs, but he magically had the money for himself and even then they were working with him by the sounds of it for a while until it twigged.
 
Back
Top Bottom