Reduction and Simplification of the welfare bill by granting certain rights to Veterans

This information deals with another matter that if implemented would go some way towards helping veterans of all ages but in particular those of the Pre-1975 era, and as a by product go some way towards simplifying and therefore reducing the overall welfare ‘bill’

I am a member of a group of Veterans group from all Three services that are concerned with Veterans pensions, in particular the Pre-1975 era. And as a group we are considering raising a petition as a step towards having the matter discussed at government level.

This document is not meant to supersede or replace any petition / document being produced by any group that is currently in the process of getting support.

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING CERTAIN ‘RIGHTS’ TO VETERANS OF ALL AGE’s AND LENGTH OF SERVICE. (In Brief)
1.
At this time if you left military service after 1975 and served for a minimum of 5 years you were eligible for a military pension, this later changed to 2 years, but was not applied retrospectively there are certain age limits, there are several official documents covering this subject.

2.
If you left military service before 1975 you do not get a military pension unless you served for 22 years (for other ranks)and 18 years for officers. Many of those who were serving before 1975 may have served, for example up to 20 years of a 22 year term
before being made redundant under a defence cuts and so did not qualify for a pension.

3.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women were unable to ‘sign on’ to complete the required time period of 22 years for a variety of reasons,
defence cut backs, specialty no longer required, too senior, etc..It should be noted that all defence cuts etc. were published in the national press and considered to be in the public domain, however a large number of service personnel were unaware of this for a variety of reasons such as being on overseas duty.

4.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are what are now called ‘Cold War Warriors’ having served in Korea, Malay, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden,
Malaysia, Northern Ireland and many other of the conflicts that the United Kingdom was involved in during period from 1946 to late 1970’s.

5.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are ‘walking wounded’ and are supported by organisations such as COMBAT STRESS, SOLDIERS OFF THE STREETS, and SSAFA to mention a few.To many of these ex-servicemen and women the cost of medication (Prescriptions)and housing is a large expense and in some cases puts them on the streets, the idea of granting certain rights similar to Pension credits to Veterans would go some way to easing this. They do NOT SHOW UP IN OFFICIAL figures as they are dealt with by charities

6.
Pension Credits, if you qualify, it is a means tested benefit , it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE
LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT. Granting of similar benefits as A RIGHT to a member of the armed forces ON DISCHARGE would go a long way to reducing the number that become reliant on the state and charities, it would also ease their transition to civilian life.Further granting the automatic right to a monetary sum similar to that given as ‘Pension Credits’as a top to the National minimum for survival’ as laid down by the Government would reduce the numbers claiming various benefits, this could be implemented at Military retirement age or 60 years which ever is earlier. It could be granted when proof of military service is proved.

7.
If you are an LEGAL immigrant to this country and you reach the age of 60 you are automatically are eligible to receive Pension Credits, and if you qualify, ( it is means tested ), it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT.
The government states that you must have a minimum income every week, this is currently running at around £230.00 per week, so if you are
a ex serviceman surviving on a state pension of between £100 to £200 a week you must apply for Pension credits, it is means tested and not always granted.

8.
This seems to be an injustice where a person who served his / her country must apply for what should be theirs by right, it is proposed that a petition be raised to make it a right that all ex-servicemen / women who qualify be given the same rights as those who get Pension credits.

9.
A House of commons briefing document ( No. SN1151 dated 14.05.14 ) Produced for the business and transport section stated that, QUOTE
“Successive governments have argued that discretionary changes to improve the benefits from public service pension schemes should be
implemented from a current date for future service only. Improvements are not applied retrospectively, as to do otherwise would “make any worthwhile improvements unaffordable.” (Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words).
This implies that giving pensions to ex -military personnel who served prior to 1975 would be unaffordable. It should be noted that it was not considered unaffordable when they were asked to put themselves in harms way when serving.

10.
The scheme roughly outline above would almost certainly not be UNAFFORDABLE as most are probably in receipt of some form of benefit and this would replace any benefit if correctly implemented say via the new Universal credit.Additionally it would be seen by most as an earned right and not charity, making it a right and not means tested would go some way to helping those who are currently ‘disabled’ and unable to adjust to Civilian life. It would also go some way to addressing the ‘Duty of Care’ the military has to it’s former employees.
To address the idea of it being unaffordable it should be noted that due age this will be a declining expense. But the purchase of ‘DUCK PONDS’ is an increasing one.

11.
Further this should be seen as a first step to a study into the provision of a pro-rata pension to the same conditions as those serving after 1975.
Any such study should involve Veterans and Veteran’s organisations, as to being an UNAFFORDABLE expense, due the age of most of the veterans concerned it would be a decreasing expense.

Why is this idea important?

This information deals with another matter that if implemented would go some way towards helping veterans of all ages but in particular those of the Pre-1975 era, and as a by product go some way towards simplifying and therefore reducing the overall welfare ‘bill’

I am a member of a group of Veterans group from all Three services that are concerned with Veterans pensions, in particular the Pre-1975 era. And as a group we are considering raising a petition as a step towards having the matter discussed at government level.

This document is not meant to supersede or replace any petition / document being produced by any group that is currently in the process of getting support.

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING CERTAIN ‘RIGHTS’ TO VETERANS OF ALL AGE’s AND LENGTH OF SERVICE. (In Brief)
1.
At this time if you left military service after 1975 and served for a minimum of 5 years you were eligible for a military pension, this later changed to 2 years, but was not applied retrospectively there are certain age limits, there are several official documents covering this subject.

2.
If you left military service before 1975 you do not get a military pension unless you served for 22 years (for other ranks)and 18 years for officers. Many of those who were serving before 1975 may have served, for example up to 20 years of a 22 year term
before being made redundant under a defence cuts and so did not qualify for a pension.

3.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women were unable to ‘sign on’ to complete the required time period of 22 years for a variety of reasons,
defence cut backs, specialty no longer required, too senior, etc..It should be noted that all defence cuts etc. were published in the national press and considered to be in the public domain, however a large number of service personnel were unaware of this for a variety of reasons such as being on overseas duty.

4.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are what are now called ‘Cold War Warriors’ having served in Korea, Malay, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden,
Malaysia, Northern Ireland and many other of the conflicts that the United Kingdom was involved in during period from 1946 to late 1970’s.

5.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are ‘walking wounded’ and are supported by organisations such as COMBAT STRESS, SOLDIERS OFF THE STREETS, and SSAFA to mention a few.To many of these ex-servicemen and women the cost of medication (Prescriptions)and housing is a large expense and in some cases puts them on the streets, the idea of granting certain rights similar to Pension credits to Veterans would go some way to easing this. They do NOT SHOW UP IN OFFICIAL figures as they are dealt with by charities

6.
Pension Credits, if you qualify, it is a means tested benefit , it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE
LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT. Granting of similar benefits as A RIGHT to a member of the armed forces ON DISCHARGE would go a long way to reducing the number that become reliant on the state and charities, it would also ease their transition to civilian life.Further granting the automatic right to a monetary sum similar to that given as ‘Pension Credits’as a top to the National minimum for survival’ as laid down by the Government would reduce the numbers claiming various benefits, this could be implemented at Military retirement age or 60 years which ever is earlier. It could be granted when proof of military service is proved.

7.
If you are an LEGAL immigrant to this country and you reach the age of 60 you are automatically are eligible to receive Pension Credits, and if you qualify, ( it is means tested ), it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT.
The government states that you must have a minimum income every week, this is currently running at around £230.00 per week, so if you are
a ex serviceman surviving on a state pension of between £100 to £200 a week you must apply for Pension credits, it is means tested and not always granted.

8.
This seems to be an injustice where a person who served his / her country must apply for what should be theirs by right, it is proposed that a petition be raised to make it a right that all ex-servicemen / women who qualify be given the same rights as those who get Pension credits.

9.
A House of commons briefing document ( No. SN1151 dated 14.05.14 ) Produced for the business and transport section stated that, QUOTE
“Successive governments have argued that discretionary changes to improve the benefits from public service pension schemes should be
implemented from a current date for future service only. Improvements are not applied retrospectively, as to do otherwise would “make any worthwhile improvements unaffordable.” (Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words).
This implies that giving pensions to ex -military personnel who served prior to 1975 would be unaffordable. It should be noted that it was not considered unaffordable when they were asked to put themselves in harms way when serving.

10.
The scheme roughly outline above would almost certainly not be UNAFFORDABLE as most are probably in receipt of some form of benefit and this would replace any benefit if correctly implemented say via the new Universal credit.Additionally it would be seen by most as an earned right and not charity, making it a right and not means tested would go some way to helping those who are currently ‘disabled’ and unable to adjust to Civilian life. It would also go some way to addressing the ‘Duty of Care’ the military has to it’s former employees.
To address the idea of it being unaffordable it should be noted that due age this will be a declining expense. But the purchase of ‘DUCK PONDS’ is an increasing one.

11.
Further this should be seen as a first step to a study into the provision of a pro-rata pension to the same conditions as those serving after 1975.
Any such study should involve Veterans and Veteran’s organisations, as to being an UNAFFORDABLE expense, due the age of most of the veterans concerned it would be a decreasing expense.

The Social Welfare State is fundementally broken

We have a social welfare state that is the envy of the world (well some of it anyhow), evidence of this is the sheer number of people that want to come to the UK to take advantage of it.

The fundemental basis of our social welfare state is that it works so long as those contributing significantly outweigh those who take from it.

Recent figures show that between 1 in 6 and 1 in 4 (depending on where you are in the UK) are employed by the state, remember that these take out (for doing a job admittedly) in terms of their salary, and only recontribute a fraction of what they take out.

So there are two issues to address,

1. The number of people claiming from the state (I think the government is already focusing on this)

2. Those employed by the state

To concentrate on the latter, I've no idea what the ratio should be, but its pretty obvious that its unsustainable.

We need to find the right balance between those employed by the state and the delivery of local and central services. To start the process, we need to determine what the ratio should be, probably not as easy as it sounds, but it should be given a priority.

Once established, this needs to be used in concert with 1. to establish the amount we spend on delivery of local and central government services.

Why is this idea important?

We have a social welfare state that is the envy of the world (well some of it anyhow), evidence of this is the sheer number of people that want to come to the UK to take advantage of it.

The fundemental basis of our social welfare state is that it works so long as those contributing significantly outweigh those who take from it.

Recent figures show that between 1 in 6 and 1 in 4 (depending on where you are in the UK) are employed by the state, remember that these take out (for doing a job admittedly) in terms of their salary, and only recontribute a fraction of what they take out.

So there are two issues to address,

1. The number of people claiming from the state (I think the government is already focusing on this)

2. Those employed by the state

To concentrate on the latter, I've no idea what the ratio should be, but its pretty obvious that its unsustainable.

We need to find the right balance between those employed by the state and the delivery of local and central services. To start the process, we need to determine what the ratio should be, probably not as easy as it sounds, but it should be given a priority.

Once established, this needs to be used in concert with 1. to establish the amount we spend on delivery of local and central government services.

Calculate benefits and tax credits per individual, not per couple

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Why is this idea important?

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Moving in with partner = benefit cut as I am assumed to be financially supported by them

 

Dear Nick Clegg,

This website is a fantastic idea! I would like to share with you a situation regarding Housing Benefit.

Due to a long-term serious health condition I claim incapacity benefit and housing benefit. When I moved in with my partner it was assumed by my council that my partner was financially supporting me. The result was Council Tax benefit was stopped and Housing Benefit reduced very significantly.

I have never been financially supported by my partner and we went to some lengths to explain and prove this with bank statements over the previous two years. We spent many months wrangling with the council, going back and forth which was less than pleasant. My partner works full time but earns less than 20k and we live in the south-east, where rent and cost of living is extremely high. Reducing Housing Benefit so drastically means I struggle to pay rent and have about 20 pounds a month left over to pay for anything else.

I went to speak to my then-MP Des Turner about this but he seemed less than interested, despite being on the select committee for disability.

I am a great deal poorer for pursuing my relationship. Since moving in with my partner the council have seen us as one entity and considers my partner's earnings fully available for my use. This is not the case – as a responsible adult I expect our incomes to remain separate, and I have no access to his income. He pays me no money and we have no joint accounts. The Housing Benefit Assessment officer stated to me 'for Housing Benefit purposes we have to treat you as a couple even though your finances are kept separate'. I am at a loss to understand what living together has to do with financial circumstances.

Equally disturbing is the Housing Benefit form itself – endlessly long and repetitive, and must be filled in repeatedly at two yearly intervals to check the claimant hasn't become a Hardened Criminal Benefit Fraud in the meantime. My non-disabled partner has consistently been pestered to fill out part of the form. In order to validate MY claim, he has to disclose his income and provide payslips, bank statements and proof of identity. He himself has no reason to claim benefit. We are treated as co-claimants, despite the fact that if the claim is successful, my partner receives no money from it. What happens if one's partner refuses to fill it in? The answer is that the benefit is stopped without explanation other than 'we assume you no longer wish to claim benefit'. If one's relationship is less than sterling, if there are domestic abuse issues or estrangement which lead partners to refuse to fill in the form, I have no idea what claimants are to do with such a system.

I feel the current system penalises people who are so unfortunate as to be forced to claim benefit – a demeaning and depressing situation – who then wish to enter into a relationship and shared life with someone. Surely meaningful adult relationships are to be encouraged rather than penalised. (I later married my partner, which should at least make David Cameron happy.)

I have some suggestions: instead of assuming all partners share income, assume they don't. Put a cap on receiving Housing Benefit based on entire household income if you must, for example 30k between two childless people (different if you have children and how many you have). Take note of where in the country people live, because cost of living does differ. Stop asking for proof every five minutes, because once you've proved your identity and your income, this should stand.

A few words on my experience of claiming benefits: I have seen a very bad attitude from many of those working with me to process my claims. It seems everyone involved (including my partner, my doctor and my parents who wrote in support of me) is treated with suspicion, with a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude repeatedly applied to me and my partner. I have had benefits stopped without explanation a number of times and questions asked about it only later. The benefit system seems to foster the idea that everyone on benefits is either currently a criminal, or a criminal waiting to happen. Please act to try to change public perception of the benefits system, instead of encouraging this attitude as Labour did. And please work with those professionally involved with benefit claimants including council workers to help them to understand their hardline attitudes are offensive and unhelpful.

Why is this idea important?

 

Dear Nick Clegg,

This website is a fantastic idea! I would like to share with you a situation regarding Housing Benefit.

Due to a long-term serious health condition I claim incapacity benefit and housing benefit. When I moved in with my partner it was assumed by my council that my partner was financially supporting me. The result was Council Tax benefit was stopped and Housing Benefit reduced very significantly.

I have never been financially supported by my partner and we went to some lengths to explain and prove this with bank statements over the previous two years. We spent many months wrangling with the council, going back and forth which was less than pleasant. My partner works full time but earns less than 20k and we live in the south-east, where rent and cost of living is extremely high. Reducing Housing Benefit so drastically means I struggle to pay rent and have about 20 pounds a month left over to pay for anything else.

I went to speak to my then-MP Des Turner about this but he seemed less than interested, despite being on the select committee for disability.

I am a great deal poorer for pursuing my relationship. Since moving in with my partner the council have seen us as one entity and considers my partner's earnings fully available for my use. This is not the case – as a responsible adult I expect our incomes to remain separate, and I have no access to his income. He pays me no money and we have no joint accounts. The Housing Benefit Assessment officer stated to me 'for Housing Benefit purposes we have to treat you as a couple even though your finances are kept separate'. I am at a loss to understand what living together has to do with financial circumstances.

Equally disturbing is the Housing Benefit form itself – endlessly long and repetitive, and must be filled in repeatedly at two yearly intervals to check the claimant hasn't become a Hardened Criminal Benefit Fraud in the meantime. My non-disabled partner has consistently been pestered to fill out part of the form. In order to validate MY claim, he has to disclose his income and provide payslips, bank statements and proof of identity. He himself has no reason to claim benefit. We are treated as co-claimants, despite the fact that if the claim is successful, my partner receives no money from it. What happens if one's partner refuses to fill it in? The answer is that the benefit is stopped without explanation other than 'we assume you no longer wish to claim benefit'. If one's relationship is less than sterling, if there are domestic abuse issues or estrangement which lead partners to refuse to fill in the form, I have no idea what claimants are to do with such a system.

I feel the current system penalises people who are so unfortunate as to be forced to claim benefit – a demeaning and depressing situation – who then wish to enter into a relationship and shared life with someone. Surely meaningful adult relationships are to be encouraged rather than penalised. (I later married my partner, which should at least make David Cameron happy.)

I have some suggestions: instead of assuming all partners share income, assume they don't. Put a cap on receiving Housing Benefit based on entire household income if you must, for example 30k between two childless people (different if you have children and how many you have). Take note of where in the country people live, because cost of living does differ. Stop asking for proof every five minutes, because once you've proved your identity and your income, this should stand.

A few words on my experience of claiming benefits: I have seen a very bad attitude from many of those working with me to process my claims. It seems everyone involved (including my partner, my doctor and my parents who wrote in support of me) is treated with suspicion, with a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude repeatedly applied to me and my partner. I have had benefits stopped without explanation a number of times and questions asked about it only later. The benefit system seems to foster the idea that everyone on benefits is either currently a criminal, or a criminal waiting to happen. Please act to try to change public perception of the benefits system, instead of encouraging this attitude as Labour did. And please work with those professionally involved with benefit claimants including council workers to help them to understand their hardline attitudes are offensive and unhelpful.

Stop linking benefits to children

Rather than reduce child poverty this just encourages the unskilled and least able to bring up children, to have many children to garner the benefits that follow.

All the last governments efforts to reduce child poverty has actually increased child poverty.

Why is this idea important?

Rather than reduce child poverty this just encourages the unskilled and least able to bring up children, to have many children to garner the benefits that follow.

All the last governments efforts to reduce child poverty has actually increased child poverty.

Family Values, Children and Government Expenditure

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

Why is this idea important?

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

Limit the length of time allowed on benefits.

Whilst it is accepted that this is an emotive subject it is surely time to limit the length of time that able bodied people can claim for being unemployed without being required to complete some form of work.  This country can no longer keep on paying this benefit at the cost of reducing so many other needs, and please let us remember that this is a benefit and not a right.

We as a nation are becoming more welfare dependant with fewer people contributing to the National purse, in some families we are now into the third generation of the same able bodied families that are receiving benefits and have never worked and this cannot be allowed to continue.

This is going to be unpopular but it is a necessary step that must be addressed and it is therefore suggested that the period that people claim job seekers allowance be limited to a maximum period of time after which the benefit ceases and cannot be reclaimed for a period of say one year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Whilst it is accepted that this is an emotive subject it is surely time to limit the length of time that able bodied people can claim for being unemployed without being required to complete some form of work.  This country can no longer keep on paying this benefit at the cost of reducing so many other needs, and please let us remember that this is a benefit and not a right.

We as a nation are becoming more welfare dependant with fewer people contributing to the National purse, in some families we are now into the third generation of the same able bodied families that are receiving benefits and have never worked and this cannot be allowed to continue.

This is going to be unpopular but it is a necessary step that must be addressed and it is therefore suggested that the period that people claim job seekers allowance be limited to a maximum period of time after which the benefit ceases and cannot be reclaimed for a period of say one year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welfare and European immigration

I wasnt sure which category this should go in but it effects us all:

– Why is it that people from Europe can come into this country and start applying for welfare as soon as they step foot in the country? People should have similar critera to stay in this country as those from outside europe – No access to healthcare / welfare unless they have contributed to the system and not allowed to stay here unless they can prove they can provide for themselves or family over a 5 year period.

This would default the European free travel – and not cause britain to become a disability haven.

(I have first hand experience of people who are not fit to work in their home countries due to cardiac / mental health / physical disabilities who are willing to travel to the UK to claim welfare and be looked after for the rest of their years – now if thats not a drain on the system I dont know what is!)

Why is this idea important?

I wasnt sure which category this should go in but it effects us all:

– Why is it that people from Europe can come into this country and start applying for welfare as soon as they step foot in the country? People should have similar critera to stay in this country as those from outside europe – No access to healthcare / welfare unless they have contributed to the system and not allowed to stay here unless they can prove they can provide for themselves or family over a 5 year period.

This would default the European free travel – and not cause britain to become a disability haven.

(I have first hand experience of people who are not fit to work in their home countries due to cardiac / mental health / physical disabilities who are willing to travel to the UK to claim welfare and be looked after for the rest of their years – now if thats not a drain on the system I dont know what is!)

Repeal the The Coal and Other Mines (Horses) Order 1956

If the UK Government repealed the Coal and other mines (Horses) order 1956 it would mean that Pit Ponies would be protected under the new Animal Welfare Act.

Why is this idea important?

If the UK Government repealed the Coal and other mines (Horses) order 1956 it would mean that Pit Ponies would be protected under the new Animal Welfare Act.

£45 per week maximum housing benefit.

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Child benefit

Child benefit should only be given for the first 2 or 3 children. Any more and the parents need to support their children without any state benefit for the ones that follow. The money thus saved should be used to provide free school meals for all children, irrespective of their financial background or family's resident status in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Child benefit should only be given for the first 2 or 3 children. Any more and the parents need to support their children without any state benefit for the ones that follow. The money thus saved should be used to provide free school meals for all children, irrespective of their financial background or family's resident status in the UK.

Total Reform Of The Welfare State

The way forward with thee welfare state is with both the carrot and stick approach. Having been a child brought up on welfare myself, my mother chose to go to university at 38 years old in order to get a career and although it was a struggle is now comfortably middle class.

This is also what I aspire to be. However today the financial gains you can achieve on welfare coupled with working on the side as window cleaners, part time drug dealers (I live in blackpool my socialist comrades, I see this everyday)and various other non traceable employments, it is absolutely pointless them going out to work on minimum wage as they are mostly uneducated and have trouble getting a better paid job (as they spent most of their time smoking and procreating behind the bike sheds – school’s for losers you see).

Im not trying to tar all council estates here but coming from one myself the major problem is the Parents. Without decent parents these young children do not have any aspirations or desire to succeed. Being ‘ard is far more important. I was in both camps and my best mate who was the roughest of the lot in the school was one of the fortunate few who had that desire to get out of the council estates. The cycle will forever continue.

To summarise and thank you for still reading this, financial recompense for being unemployed needs to be removed. Vouchers for food and free off peak bus passes issued. Free second hand prams issued instead of the obsurd £400 grant which is duly spent on a nice flat screen tv and or some nice class A drugs. Housing benefit for teenagers who are pregnant needs to be scrapped. The Teenagers should be forced to live with parents until 21.

We need renewable energy, hows about anyone unemployed has to work for their money 38 hours a week building/fitting renewable energy sources. Our national grid would be rebuilt cheaply and give these people valuable skills in a world which is working towards building an economy based on green technologies.

So are we targeting the poorest and the weakest? Dont forget these kids were the hardest in the school who’d mug me for my dinner money and mobile, they are not the weak members of society people seem to think and please, unless you have lived on a council estate and gone to the local comprehensive please do not give me your hippy do gooder my daddys a millionaire therfore I have the moral high gound approach.

The sooner we are all working and spending that money we work for, the sooner more jobs are created and we are all lifted out of poverty. The tax burden on the rest of us is dragging us all down and not lifting the gutter class up at all, its cementing their position there and those of their future children

Yours Sincerly,

Former Gutter class typre person turned good.

Why is this idea important?

The way forward with thee welfare state is with both the carrot and stick approach. Having been a child brought up on welfare myself, my mother chose to go to university at 38 years old in order to get a career and although it was a struggle is now comfortably middle class.

This is also what I aspire to be. However today the financial gains you can achieve on welfare coupled with working on the side as window cleaners, part time drug dealers (I live in blackpool my socialist comrades, I see this everyday)and various other non traceable employments, it is absolutely pointless them going out to work on minimum wage as they are mostly uneducated and have trouble getting a better paid job (as they spent most of their time smoking and procreating behind the bike sheds – school’s for losers you see).

Im not trying to tar all council estates here but coming from one myself the major problem is the Parents. Without decent parents these young children do not have any aspirations or desire to succeed. Being ‘ard is far more important. I was in both camps and my best mate who was the roughest of the lot in the school was one of the fortunate few who had that desire to get out of the council estates. The cycle will forever continue.

To summarise and thank you for still reading this, financial recompense for being unemployed needs to be removed. Vouchers for food and free off peak bus passes issued. Free second hand prams issued instead of the obsurd £400 grant which is duly spent on a nice flat screen tv and or some nice class A drugs. Housing benefit for teenagers who are pregnant needs to be scrapped. The Teenagers should be forced to live with parents until 21.

We need renewable energy, hows about anyone unemployed has to work for their money 38 hours a week building/fitting renewable energy sources. Our national grid would be rebuilt cheaply and give these people valuable skills in a world which is working towards building an economy based on green technologies.

So are we targeting the poorest and the weakest? Dont forget these kids were the hardest in the school who’d mug me for my dinner money and mobile, they are not the weak members of society people seem to think and please, unless you have lived on a council estate and gone to the local comprehensive please do not give me your hippy do gooder my daddys a millionaire therfore I have the moral high gound approach.

The sooner we are all working and spending that money we work for, the sooner more jobs are created and we are all lifted out of poverty. The tax burden on the rest of us is dragging us all down and not lifting the gutter class up at all, its cementing their position there and those of their future children

Yours Sincerly,

Former Gutter class typre person turned good.

The Government amend application processes for completing & registering Lasting Power of Attorney (both Property and Financial Affairs & Health and Welfare) AND that registering these should be free

To radically overhaul and simplify the application process for completion of both types of Power of Attorney. Members of the public should be involved in each stage of the redesign so that forms are easy to understand, even where complex pieces of information are being given. To also look at additional ways that these can be completed, examples include allowing online completion of the documents with ‘pop up’ clear help boxes at each section. On-line operator support in completion to explain certain terms. The ability to save forms online and return to them several times. Where these forms repeatedly require the same information, once entered, the information should populate/complete all the relevant sections throughout the entire form.

The registering of the documents should also be free, not least because of the financial savings common use of these Power of Attorneys would bring to the NHS and Social Services in managing and supporting the care needs of people who become incapacitated.

Why is this idea important?

To radically overhaul and simplify the application process for completion of both types of Power of Attorney. Members of the public should be involved in each stage of the redesign so that forms are easy to understand, even where complex pieces of information are being given. To also look at additional ways that these can be completed, examples include allowing online completion of the documents with ‘pop up’ clear help boxes at each section. On-line operator support in completion to explain certain terms. The ability to save forms online and return to them several times. Where these forms repeatedly require the same information, once entered, the information should populate/complete all the relevant sections throughout the entire form.

The registering of the documents should also be free, not least because of the financial savings common use of these Power of Attorneys would bring to the NHS and Social Services in managing and supporting the care needs of people who become incapacitated.

DISABILITY BENEFITS: DLA

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Why is this idea important?

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

RIGHTS DEPENDENT UPON FULFILLING RESPONSIBILITIES

Far too often people claim 'their rights' but ignor the 'rights' of others.

All the 'rights' under the current 'human rights act' are good and should be the right of all provided they do not stop others enjoying these same rights.

Anyone who denighs others their 'human rights' loses all but the most basic of theirs. So a person committing a crime cannot claim their 'rights' have been infringed by loss of liberty or any injury while trying to evade justice.

Similarly, those claiming asylum should be welcomed so long as they don't commit crime here. If they commit crime (expecially violent crime) they should be immediately deported upon conviction with no right of return no matter what they might face back home.

Those who commit property crime should make good the losses of their victims. From loss of assets upon conviction and if assets insufficient, the bill stays with them.

For those convicted of crime, a custodial sentence to be only given if it is deemed they will reoffend. All such custodial sentences to be automatically indeterminant. Release dependent upon when they are deemed to be unlikely to reoffend. Those who refuse to identify and testify against co criminals are unreformed and cannot be released.

The right to demonstrate should be included as a human right, however this must be balanced with the rights of others to continue their lawful activities. So all demonstrations must be where they do not cause such an obstruction like in a park, not where they can cause maximum losses to others – like 'The City' or blocking a runway at an airport etc. Those that do should pay for the losses sustained by those not involved that were affected by the 'obstructing demonstration'.

Similarly, all demonstrations must not be about denighing others their right to demonstrate. So if one group have organised a demonstation at a location / date / time, no other demonstration can take place at the same place / date / time, or they will be denighing the first group their right to demonstrate. The second group can demonstrate at a differtent location / date / time.

Why is this idea important?

Far too often people claim 'their rights' but ignor the 'rights' of others.

All the 'rights' under the current 'human rights act' are good and should be the right of all provided they do not stop others enjoying these same rights.

Anyone who denighs others their 'human rights' loses all but the most basic of theirs. So a person committing a crime cannot claim their 'rights' have been infringed by loss of liberty or any injury while trying to evade justice.

Similarly, those claiming asylum should be welcomed so long as they don't commit crime here. If they commit crime (expecially violent crime) they should be immediately deported upon conviction with no right of return no matter what they might face back home.

Those who commit property crime should make good the losses of their victims. From loss of assets upon conviction and if assets insufficient, the bill stays with them.

For those convicted of crime, a custodial sentence to be only given if it is deemed they will reoffend. All such custodial sentences to be automatically indeterminant. Release dependent upon when they are deemed to be unlikely to reoffend. Those who refuse to identify and testify against co criminals are unreformed and cannot be released.

The right to demonstrate should be included as a human right, however this must be balanced with the rights of others to continue their lawful activities. So all demonstrations must be where they do not cause such an obstruction like in a park, not where they can cause maximum losses to others – like 'The City' or blocking a runway at an airport etc. Those that do should pay for the losses sustained by those not involved that were affected by the 'obstructing demonstration'.

Similarly, all demonstrations must not be about denighing others their right to demonstrate. So if one group have organised a demonstation at a location / date / time, no other demonstration can take place at the same place / date / time, or they will be denighing the first group their right to demonstrate. The second group can demonstrate at a differtent location / date / time.

fair exchange welfare

The welfare system encourages women to have more children in order to get more allowances, and larger houses

I propose that in exchange for welfare these people have temporary birth control implants , to prevent them having more children and thus becomeing a greater burden on the state, for the duration of their welfare payments.

Why is this idea important?

The welfare system encourages women to have more children in order to get more allowances, and larger houses

I propose that in exchange for welfare these people have temporary birth control implants , to prevent them having more children and thus becomeing a greater burden on the state, for the duration of their welfare payments.

Ban Middle Class Benefits!

I see no reason why families with a combined income of more than 30K should be taking anything out of the 'benefits' pot. If we removed them from the system, we would not only save billions of pounds, we could concentrate on giving more support  to those families and individuals who really need help.

Why is this idea important?

I see no reason why families with a combined income of more than 30K should be taking anything out of the 'benefits' pot. If we removed them from the system, we would not only save billions of pounds, we could concentrate on giving more support  to those families and individuals who really need help.

Workfare

Unemployment can be very depressing especially when there is a large decline in job vacancies. It must be time that unemployment benefit should only be given to those who work for their communites otherwise you don't receive anything.

Why is this idea important?

Unemployment can be very depressing especially when there is a large decline in job vacancies. It must be time that unemployment benefit should only be given to those who work for their communites otherwise you don't receive anything.

Fairness for True Claiments of DLA

Repeal this horrid forcing of the disabled to attend mandatory "medical assessments" to continue receiving DLA benefit which has already been approved by doctors.I myself disabled, and in work, receive DLA to compensate for the extra living expenses that my condiiton inflicts on me, I don't need another doctor, a stranger, a stranger paid to reduce cost, to tell me I'm disabled – I already know that ! So do my family, so do my doctors, who approved the benefit for me in the first place. So many of us disabled receiving DLA are in the same situation, and many vunerable, fearing this assessment, will be unable to cope

They may do harm to themselves, this may kill, cure nothing, help no one.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this horrid forcing of the disabled to attend mandatory "medical assessments" to continue receiving DLA benefit which has already been approved by doctors.I myself disabled, and in work, receive DLA to compensate for the extra living expenses that my condiiton inflicts on me, I don't need another doctor, a stranger, a stranger paid to reduce cost, to tell me I'm disabled – I already know that ! So do my family, so do my doctors, who approved the benefit for me in the first place. So many of us disabled receiving DLA are in the same situation, and many vunerable, fearing this assessment, will be unable to cope

They may do harm to themselves, this may kill, cure nothing, help no one.

People on benefits earning their money (menial work for the govt)

I think people who are recieving benefits should at least be used by the government/local town. Get them to sweep the streets, clean government offices, paint the roads.

These are work that anyone can do but the government currently has to pay for someone to do it. If we get people who recieve benefits to do these menial jobs in exchange of them recieving benefits, government saves money and at the same time benefit scroungers will be put off by being forced to do menial jobs.

Why is this idea important?

I think people who are recieving benefits should at least be used by the government/local town. Get them to sweep the streets, clean government offices, paint the roads.

These are work that anyone can do but the government currently has to pay for someone to do it. If we get people who recieve benefits to do these menial jobs in exchange of them recieving benefits, government saves money and at the same time benefit scroungers will be put off by being forced to do menial jobs.

Access to Financial Advice – FSA Retail Distribution Review

Withdraw or suspend the FSAs Retail Distribution Review

At a time when the government wants everybody to have less reliance on the state new regulations are proceeding from the previous regime which will deny thousands of lower and averagely paid people access to sound independent financial advice. The regulations are being proposed as a way to increase professionalism among the practioners. However this is just a sop to the extreme consumerist lobby because of a few bad apples historically. The biggest cowboys have been booted out of the industry already. No existing practioner has any argument with wanting to be regarded as a true professional, and those currently practicing, can usually point to many years of adapting to higher standards imposed by the regulator of the day.

The new rules affect mainly independent financial advisers (IFAs) and also direct/tied sales outlets (eg Banks)

The unintended consequences of the rules are many but the most important are as follows:

It is estimated in various media that up to a quarter or even a third of existing advisers, will leave the industry when the rules take effect at the end of 2012. These are mainly advisers in their 50s and 60s who may have an unimpeachable record of giving advice, but are being told that in order to continue to practice they will have to take yet another set of exams of semi-degree standard to 'prove' their professionalism. What incentive is there for them to undertake yet another round of red-tape, box-ticking compliance when they are usually the most experienced people in the industry.

What other profession treats its proven, and most experienced practioners in such a way?

Secondly is the dirty word "commission".

Commission is flawed (but could be mended?) but it has worked for a century. Historically this has always been the way that intermediaries got paid. (Albeit that some in the consumerist lobby think IFAs shoud work for free) The proposal is to ban commission and replace it with customer agreed fees. The problem here is how many people are willing or able to pay fees?

The argument is that commission causes bias and the only reason a product is sold is so the adviser can earn commission. An adviser should be able to expect a reasonable reward for their time and expertise, having trained and been examined to enable them to do the job in the first place. As long as a valid financial need is being dealt with commission serves a useful purpose by enabling customers to get advice without having to get their chequebooks out. Since 1996 commission has been openly disclosed in documentation so that customers can see exactly what the commission amounted to and what effect it had on their investment.

In 2005 the FSA commissioned Charles River Associates to report on commision and intermediary remuneration, which it did via a number of 'mystery shopping' exercises and interviews. It concluded that there was "no evidence of bias being prevalent across the market" and "no evidence of bias to oversell".   Strangely, however the FSA decided that it would ignore its own commisioned report.

Any IFA will tell you that when a customer is offered the choice between the adviser being paid by commission or a fee, overwhelmingly the customer chooses commission. Commission is only a dirty word among those who don't understand it.

IFA businesses are the biggest aid to reducing reliance on state welfare because they advise people how to provide for themselves by saving for the long term and by protecting against loss of life, loss of job, ill health. Without them, people will be reliant on the state for such benefits, because few are motivated to do these things for themselves without advice.

The FSA seem to favour banks over IFAs. However we have seen what happens with the banks when corporate greed is more important than customer care. The Financial Ombudsman's own statistics show that more than 90% of all complaints it gets are in relation to banks, only a very small proportion in relation to IFAs.

The government have said that they will provide access to free financial advice but have yet to detail how that will work. Will the 'advisers' be fully qualified? How will they get paid? Who pays? What will be the scope of their advice?

Wouldn't it be better to encourage financial advice through experienced advisers rather than re-invent the wheel or restrict it to a financial elite?

There are other ways of ensuring protection for the consumer. Removing the perfect solution from the industry is not one of them

Allow experienced advisers to continue and allow commission to continue. The simple result without doubt will be that less people will be financially dependent on the state.

Why is this idea important?

Withdraw or suspend the FSAs Retail Distribution Review

At a time when the government wants everybody to have less reliance on the state new regulations are proceeding from the previous regime which will deny thousands of lower and averagely paid people access to sound independent financial advice. The regulations are being proposed as a way to increase professionalism among the practioners. However this is just a sop to the extreme consumerist lobby because of a few bad apples historically. The biggest cowboys have been booted out of the industry already. No existing practioner has any argument with wanting to be regarded as a true professional, and those currently practicing, can usually point to many years of adapting to higher standards imposed by the regulator of the day.

The new rules affect mainly independent financial advisers (IFAs) and also direct/tied sales outlets (eg Banks)

The unintended consequences of the rules are many but the most important are as follows:

It is estimated in various media that up to a quarter or even a third of existing advisers, will leave the industry when the rules take effect at the end of 2012. These are mainly advisers in their 50s and 60s who may have an unimpeachable record of giving advice, but are being told that in order to continue to practice they will have to take yet another set of exams of semi-degree standard to 'prove' their professionalism. What incentive is there for them to undertake yet another round of red-tape, box-ticking compliance when they are usually the most experienced people in the industry.

What other profession treats its proven, and most experienced practioners in such a way?

Secondly is the dirty word "commission".

Commission is flawed (but could be mended?) but it has worked for a century. Historically this has always been the way that intermediaries got paid. (Albeit that some in the consumerist lobby think IFAs shoud work for free) The proposal is to ban commission and replace it with customer agreed fees. The problem here is how many people are willing or able to pay fees?

The argument is that commission causes bias and the only reason a product is sold is so the adviser can earn commission. An adviser should be able to expect a reasonable reward for their time and expertise, having trained and been examined to enable them to do the job in the first place. As long as a valid financial need is being dealt with commission serves a useful purpose by enabling customers to get advice without having to get their chequebooks out. Since 1996 commission has been openly disclosed in documentation so that customers can see exactly what the commission amounted to and what effect it had on their investment.

In 2005 the FSA commissioned Charles River Associates to report on commision and intermediary remuneration, which it did via a number of 'mystery shopping' exercises and interviews. It concluded that there was "no evidence of bias being prevalent across the market" and "no evidence of bias to oversell".   Strangely, however the FSA decided that it would ignore its own commisioned report.

Any IFA will tell you that when a customer is offered the choice between the adviser being paid by commission or a fee, overwhelmingly the customer chooses commission. Commission is only a dirty word among those who don't understand it.

IFA businesses are the biggest aid to reducing reliance on state welfare because they advise people how to provide for themselves by saving for the long term and by protecting against loss of life, loss of job, ill health. Without them, people will be reliant on the state for such benefits, because few are motivated to do these things for themselves without advice.

The FSA seem to favour banks over IFAs. However we have seen what happens with the banks when corporate greed is more important than customer care. The Financial Ombudsman's own statistics show that more than 90% of all complaints it gets are in relation to banks, only a very small proportion in relation to IFAs.

The government have said that they will provide access to free financial advice but have yet to detail how that will work. Will the 'advisers' be fully qualified? How will they get paid? Who pays? What will be the scope of their advice?

Wouldn't it be better to encourage financial advice through experienced advisers rather than re-invent the wheel or restrict it to a financial elite?

There are other ways of ensuring protection for the consumer. Removing the perfect solution from the industry is not one of them

Allow experienced advisers to continue and allow commission to continue. The simple result without doubt will be that less people will be financially dependent on the state.

Change Bankruptcy and Home Repossession Law

 

 

I would like to see a big change in bankruptcy law. At the moment someone can be made bankrupt and have to face a lifetime of not being able to buy their own house or possibly not able to ever get credit ever again. However the law is one sided and penalises consumers where there has been neglect from financial organisations. Where it is proven financial organisation has neglected the consumer – e.g. Where a bank has made heavy bank charges which has put a consumer into a black hole forcing them into bankruptcy and having their home and possessions repossessed – it should be much easier to sue the organisation that has caused the problem. Where financial organisations are proven to have neglected consumers and as a result the consumer has literally lost everything, they should be forced to admit they made mistakes and didn't help in the correct way. If a consumer is facing bankruptcy even though the financial organisation is at fault, then the bankruptcy should take this into account and the financial organisation should be forced to wipe off all debts and pay out compensation for the stress and worry they have caused. The financial organisation should also be forced to sign to say they have made mistakes and let the consumer walk out of bankruptcy immediately. They should also be forced to wipe any 'black' records off credit reference files and they should be forced to lend to that person again in order for them to get back on their feet.

Why is this idea important?

 

 

I would like to see a big change in bankruptcy law. At the moment someone can be made bankrupt and have to face a lifetime of not being able to buy their own house or possibly not able to ever get credit ever again. However the law is one sided and penalises consumers where there has been neglect from financial organisations. Where it is proven financial organisation has neglected the consumer – e.g. Where a bank has made heavy bank charges which has put a consumer into a black hole forcing them into bankruptcy and having their home and possessions repossessed – it should be much easier to sue the organisation that has caused the problem. Where financial organisations are proven to have neglected consumers and as a result the consumer has literally lost everything, they should be forced to admit they made mistakes and didn't help in the correct way. If a consumer is facing bankruptcy even though the financial organisation is at fault, then the bankruptcy should take this into account and the financial organisation should be forced to wipe off all debts and pay out compensation for the stress and worry they have caused. The financial organisation should also be forced to sign to say they have made mistakes and let the consumer walk out of bankruptcy immediately. They should also be forced to wipe any 'black' records off credit reference files and they should be forced to lend to that person again in order for them to get back on their feet.