Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I’m quite sure the £20 000 of debt individual had wider issues, but being unable to keep up repayments (which benefit delays exacerbate). I’m not sure why you appear to be implying he’s any less worthy of sympathy/benefit because he’s in debt.
He’s exactly the sort of individual that “the system” be it regulation of lenders or social security ought to protect. Now we’ve a family with no father although I suspect many on this forum have more sympathy for the accountant writing off bad debt.
All of these stories you are spinning are a tiny amount of all claims. You may say “these are only the ones we hear about” but I suspect there’s a huge PR machine that goes into releasing these stories to demonise claimants.
|
The point is that UC was blamed, when it wasn't to blame if anybody actually bothered to read and
comprehend the full article.
Quote:
|
He was left with just £4.61 in his bank account as he waited for the benefit.
|
That just isn't true. We don't know how long he had been waiting for anything, at that stage.
Quote:
|
Phillip quit his job in a factory to look after his three children but fell behind with rent and trying to feed and clothe them.
|
Has access to benefits ever been that instant?
The eviction notice will have been planned before applying for UC. Even if he had instantly been given UC, it would have made little difference.
Quote:
|
Phillip Herron, 34, ended up £20,000 in debt, including payday loans with 1,000 per cent interest, and his children told their grandmother Santa hadn’t come the year before.
|
Xmas had been 3 months beforehand. So severe issues by then.
I'm not claiming that these stories represent the bigger picture. It is the people who are posting these stories that are doing that. They are posting them as a "typical example".