“After reading the various comments left by the public I felt Steve should respond, but firstly a few words from ¿the wife¿. Steve was not at home when the post arrived on our wedding day so I opened the mail. I read the letter of dismissal and after discussion with my son agreed he didn't need to read the bad news on what was supposed to be a special day for us both. Personally I think the company concerned could have been a little more thoughtful but that's water under the bridge now. Unfortunately my consideration has cost Steve two weeks of benefits. As the our post did not arrive until after 11.30 (no that's not a criticism) and the wedding was at 4pm on a Friday , what was he supposed to do ? We left for our honeymoon on the Saturday morning, the benefit office doesn't open on Saturdays so what should we have done ? The honeymoon was booked and paid for , were we supposed to forgo our two weeks away ? Unfortunately the system does not allow for individuals who cannot tick all the boxes. With regards to the comments the being a Falkland Veteran has no bearing on this matter I agree and so does Steve. He does not use his time in the war to gain sympathy. I have have only been told a few of details of what must have been an horrendous time for him and many others in that part of the world. And finally, just for the record, since I've known Steve he has always been very stoic about his disability and on his bad days he tries not to complain, yes, a man that doesn't moan, is it any wonder then I married him ! So now I've had my say , over to ¿Hubbie¿

The Wife

In Response:

Unlike some of the comments I have read, I have to say that at my local Job Centre I have always been treated professionally and respectfully by the 'front line' staff. Where I have always been left somewhat bewildered is by the Call Centre staff, not because they are rude or discourteous but because they don't seem to communicate with each other and that leads to frustration at not getting the information needed. I'm not having a go at the DWP, they have a job to do (no matter how distasteful) what I am questioning is the system and the fact that the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing.

As for riding the coat tails of being a veteran, sorry, but that is just not true. Originally in my letter I had not even mentioned that fact, but when the paper questioned me it was mentioned and I asked them to dumb down that part as it wasn't the issue. I did not want to upset my ex-colleagues as I am one of those who believes that when you sign up being hurt or worse comes with the job. But it seems they wanted an attention grabber.... For that I apologise, but it was not my intention.

To those of you that have given me messages of support and encouragement thank you, they are much appreciated. But in the long run has this done any good? Will the system be made clearer? Will the system see people who claim benefits as individuals? I'm afraid to say that personally, I don't think so.

Finally, I received news at 15:40 that I am to be paid tomorrow so hopefully that is an end to it.”

“Ah, I do so love these non-stories. You didn't comply with the rules; end of.

I love the way that people scream and froth at the mouth about the need for welfare payments to be tightened up, and then when a story like this appears people seem to want exactly the opposite!

Contrary to what you may believe, the vast majority of welfare claimants are not "scroungers" and if you cut benefits or tighten up the rules it will be people like Mr Bilton who will feel it the hardest.

Its like the story in the Daily Mail the other day about the young soldier who had his disability benefit stopped because he could walk 300 yards on his prosthetic legs. The Daily Mail readers were in uproar despite it being exactly the kind of action that they had been demanding for years, i.e. getting people off disability benefit!”

“In repsonse to PCS DWP, I have been unemployed now for 14 months and found the large majority of satff in 2 job centres to be rude, unhelpful, patronising and lacking in exactly what is what! I shall give 2 examples. First, after filling out my application form for JSA the "processing centre" completely ignored muy new Bank details and instead used my old bank details from when I was unemployed over 5 years ago. It was the up to me to sort out this mess, despite the fact that a "supervisor" advised me I needed a letter from my oild bank confirming the account was closed! I did this, only to be told at the Job Centre that I needed the exact same info filled out on a specific form! So off I went again and complied to a mess that I didn't cause! No apologies , nothing!
Point 2 was when I was handed over to one of the outside provders to help me get a job, and it was explained to me that I can either claim 25 p per mile expenses to interview with the DWP or just 20 p per mile at the provider! Having to attend interview in London this made £11 dofference and the people in the Job Centre told me " I am adamant that you have to collect claims from the provider now!" even though I pointed out it was a colleague of hers in the same office that had advised me otherwise. Eventually, after telling her how confusing this was and one of them must be wrong she went and cjecked and guess what? I was right and she was wrong! Remember she was adamant! I simply finished by saying "I know more about this than you do and you're supposed to be here to help! How many other people have you incorrectly advised?"
I'm sorry, but in my experience as previosuly stated, the average Job Centre person I have come into contact with could not give a monkeys backside about helpping, but only belittling and if PCS DWP thinks otherwise than maybe they should get out of their office once in a while and go and meet some of the people that are in the unfortunate position of having to live on £62.50 per week and listen to them and their experiences!!!”

“PCS

Thank you for informing us who we should be blaming, but had Mr Bilton not been completely honest and claimed that he did not open the letter until he returned from his honeymoon would the outcome have been any different?
In my own case I was not informed that claims could be backdated or that appeals could be made, however that¿s water under the bridge now, but I¿ll know in future to challenge everything I¿m told ¿ though hopefully I won¿t need the DWP¿s services.”

“We understand why this gentlemen feels hard done to, but it could appear that the LM and a number of posters on here are using this story to 'have a go' at the workers (our members) who administer the system of Jobseeker's Allowance. We think you need to redirect your anger at the regulations that Parliament agreed, regulations that were enacted in 1996 under the previous Conservative government.
If someone has 'good cause' to make a claim later than they could have, it can be backdated. But the key is 'good cause' and all this gentleman tells us is that he failed to read the letter telling him he'd been dismissed. I understand the circumstances in which he failed to do this, but the letter was available for him to read (and in the event his wife read it but decided not to tell him about it) and he made his own choice not to do so. People, including us, will have sympathy with why he made this decision, but the law deals only with cold, hard facts. Claimants have the right to appeal against a decision not to backdate and we have to assume that this gentleman will have been advised to do so.
The fact that he now says he's not entitled to JSA at all has to mean that there are other circumstances not covered by his letter. We don't suppose that he wanted all his business subject to LM readers scrutiny, but equally it is unfair to assume that the 'bad old Jobcentre workers' have done him purposely down. There must be legal reasons arising from the regulations and if people disagree with them, they should lobby their MP's about changing them and not blame PCS members for having to carry them out. All we would say is that again there are appeal rights against adverse decisions.
This is a legitimate human interest story and we hope this gentleman can find a solution, but once again we say to posters direct your displeasure at what you read towards the lawmakers and not the administrators.”

“My advice would be to put in a claim as an Eastern European.

It seems they are poles apart when it comes to working the system......”

“What has serving in the Falklands war got to do with this persons benefits.
Ok I sympathize with him because of his redundancy and other issues but he left the forces 22 years or more ago so the headline, Falklands Veteran is just a headline grabber.
I just don't see that having served in the Falklands has any relevance to the situation he is in.
I served in the army for 23 years and was in the Falklands but they are of no consequence to the situation.
After I had been out of the army for a few years and was out of work I was told that because I had an army pension i was not entilted to anything so I just went out and found jobs here and there but didn't go of to the press for a headline.”

“The Benefits office are very quick to withhold benefits if you do not present yourself the day after being laid off, the last time I was laid off I had already arranged a job interview for the following Monday this involved a 120mile trip and took all day so I only got to their office on the Tuesday morning ¿ that cost me my first weeks allowance. A wonderful incentive for using my initiative by trying to get another job that was!”

“I cannot profess to understand the intricacies of benefit entitlement. I am fortunate enough not to have had to claim thus far.

What does infuriate me with this case is that Steve Bilton is a veteran of a LEGAL war fought by our service personnel nearly 30 years ago in defence of British people (the Falklanders) and British territory (the islands).

I feel sure that veterans of more recent conflicts which are ILLEGAL would not have to go through all these hoops. And why should they, they are no less entitled, being service personnel and ex-service personnel who have been injured in the service of their country.

But , it seems that the Falklands war is a forgotten conflict and veterens of that campaign forgotten veterans. They are at least as entitled to an fair deal as more recent veterans, for the reasons above.

Come on, give Steve what he is entitled to NOW.”

“The vast majority of the unemployed are also like this gentleman - they want to work, they want to contribute, they dont want benefits unless it is absolutely essential. Yes, there are scroungers and freeloaders too, but they are a small minority.
However, its the scroungers that get the publicity. For every story, especially popular in the tabloid press, about a family of 10 who claim thousands in benefits, there are hundreds like Mr Bilton struggling to get the little they are entitled to.

Its those that love to fume about the tabloid stories and get worked up about 'scroungers' that help to cause the situation. Perhaps they should try getting worked up about unemployment and all those that cant find work and desperately dont want to be on benefits?
Unfortunately, the unemployed have long been demonised: government policies that make unemployment an acceptable cost against increased taxation on the more affluent would be a whole lot less palatable if people thought of 3 million Mr Biltons, rather than 3 million 'fat chavs'.”