24 month rule - This is different!

[Old Greg]

Admin / Mods, can we move this to General please?

[LondonManc]

PR1 - YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Someone is with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats what I've been trying to determine. I agree with recent posts about this especially malvolios sticky but, as you say, this completely contradicts.

Not my example here BTW but Im in a similar situation of:-

3 months A
8 months B
18 months A

Using Anders examples I should have stopped claiming after 6 months of 2nd stint.
Personally, I think its crap and an 8 month break on a 3 monther is enough to reset.

What if I'd done 1 day contract at A instead of 3 months. Nonsensical to determine this may disallow 18 months of expenses further down the line....

Absolute cobblers.

As has been discussed on here many times, while you've probably been busy defending claiming JSA or justifying £150 headphones while on JSA, you have to stop claiming as soon as you know you'll be somewhere for 24 months. Get 4 lots of six months and you're fine. As soon as they offer the fifth that you intend to take, you have to stop claiming.

[pr1]

Absolute cobblers.

As has been discussed on here many times, while you've probably been busy defending claiming JSA or justifying £150 headphones while on JSA, you have to stop claiming as soon as you know you'll be somewhere for 24 months. Get 4 lots of six months and you're fine. As soon as they offer the fifth that you intend to take, you have to stop claiming.

no one is disputing that - read the example, it's expected to be 23 months but the 6month stint is disallowed...

[psychocandy]

Admin / Mods, can we move this to General please?

OG - This is a perfectly valid discussion of a different interpretation of the 24 month rule if you'd care to read it.

[psychocandy]

Absolute cobblers.

As has been discussed on here many times, while you've probably been busy defending claiming JSA or justifying £150 headphones while on JSA, you have to stop claiming as soon as you know you'll be somewhere for 24 months. Get 4 lots of six months and you're fine. As soon as they offer the fifth that you intend to take, you have to stop claiming.

You haven't read the quoted example have you? Thats plainly obvious.

Can I suggest you do that rather than concentrating of comedic quips? Then you might see there is a discrepancy here....

[psychocandy]

no one is disputing that - read the example, it's expected to be 23 months but the 6month stint is disallowed...

Yes if some of you bother to read the example you will see that its a different approach.

Too many people on this forum who think they know it all and would rather just show off. For once, read the post....

[dx4100]

Its because its the same client and the same contract at that client....

The 24 month rule starts when the first contract starts....

17 + 3 + 6 = 26 months ago

17 allowed as its under 24 month
3 allowed has it is a new site
6 not allowed as he is now expecting to do more than 24 months from the start of the original contract at the site so he is going to breach 24 months.

It makes sense

Am I not on the right track here ^

[psychocandy]

Its because its the same client....

The 24 month rule starts when the first contract starts....

17 + 3 + 6 = 26 months ago

17 allowed as its under 24 month
3 allowed has it is a new site
6 not allowed as he is now expecting to do more than 24 months from the start of the original contract at the site so he is going to breach 24 months.

It makes sense

Client not location is the relevant bit but all the same. I dont think any distinction is made for same client just same location though.

But you are agreeing to the example here. Others would say no because you're still less than 24 months at location A.

Also, as I said, what about:-

Location A - 1 day
Location B - 23 months
Location A - 12 months

By this argument, the one day almost two years ago would prevent any claim at location A 2nd time around. I'm sorry that is just nuts and totally silly. There MUST be some reasonable reset.

[psychocandy]

Am I not on the right track here ^

I thought not but this confuses me now. Take a look at malvolios sticky "24 month rule in a nutshell" and make your own mind up.

[dx4100]

I thought not but this confuses me now. Take a look at malvolios sticky "24 month rule in a nutshell" and make your own mind up.

The rule starts when the contract starts....

So he starts off doing 17 months... The timer is ticking
He does 3 months for same client at different site as part of this contract... Timer is still ticking on site A...
Back to original site for 6 months and BANG he is now over...

Normally you would go to a different client and a new contract and you would be fine to come back and work. But because its the same client and contract its not allowed.