I was recently hired by a septic company in AZ, upon arrival at this job someone that worked in the back office asked me if i would like to be paid under the table or if i would like to be a W-2 Employee, I answered W2 Employee and continuously asked for Tax documents and paperwork for me to sign but they always deferred me and said the office manager would have me sign it when she came back to the office. I was employed with this company for 10 days total and signed no tax paperwork, and i never met the office manager before the owners decided to let me go because they simply “did not need me”. I am a young single mother so this came as a complete suprise to me, i was given one paycheck on March 8th that was $390 dollars and then my last paycheck on March 13th where they let me go for $300. During my time there i had logged 45 hours from March 4th- March 8th. I suspect i have not been paid in full by this company and was let go due to not wanting to be paid illegally under the counter. I am wondering if there is any legal action i should seek at this time, to collect the money i worked for or even something else. They wrote me a check for $855 just to get me to get off their case, is there anything more i can do?

Ministers apologise and return £7,000 in benefits to woman, 93, with dementia
Government ministers have formally apologised and repaid £7,000 to a 93-year-old woman whom they held responsible for running up benefits overpayment debts even though they were told she had dementia and was unable to manage her affairs.
The case, which the minister for disability, Mims Davies, admitted was “disturbing”, was brought to light by the Guardian as part of its investigation into carer's allowance overpayments.
The agreement to write off the debt of the 93-year-old, whom the Guardian has chosen not to name, comes as ministers have promised to try new ways of sharing information with carers to try to prevent them building up months and years of overpayments.
Read the full article on theguardian.com
​
​
​
DWP confirmed that it is developing an ‘enhanced notification strategy’ to alert carer’s allowance claimants to possible overpayments
Notifications designed to encourage claimants to report changes in income and so reduce the risk of being overpaid.
As part of its policy paper, Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further, that was published earlier this week, the Department says (at paragraph 78) -

'In carer’s allowance we are progressing an enhanced notification strategy as part of our existing commitment to improve customer engagement, building on our existing communications with customers. As part of this notification strategy we are considering all forms of targeted contact to find the most effective and efficient solution, such as exploring the use of targeted text messages or emails to alert claimants and encourage them to contact the Department when the DWP is made aware of a potential overpayment.'

The Department added -

'The new strategy will help claimants understand when they may have received an earnings-related overpayment or are at risk of doing so, and will encourage claimants to contact the DWP to meet their obligation to inform the Department of changes in their income and other relevant circumstances. This will reduce the risk of those customers being overpaid.'

Note: having expressed concern that the DWP had 'done nothing' to stop carers building up huge overpayments of benefit despite knowing what people are earning, Work and Pensions Committee Chair Stephen Timms called on the National Audit Office to investigate problems with the carer's allowance system and, in particular, its failure to prevent or rectify overpayments.
Stephen Timms has also written to Secretary for State for Work and Pensions Mel Stride highlighting concerns about the DWP's lack of progress with overpayments since the previous committee's report in 2019. Mr Timms' letter repeats the committee's recommendation that the DWP increase the rate of carer's allowance and goes on to call for the DWP to review both the amount and the cliff-edge nature of the earnings limit and for the removal of the 21-hour study rule.
For more information, see Policy paper: Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further from gov.uk
​
​
​
Carers UK has welcomed the DWP's plans, noting this is the 'minimum' they've been calling for to tackle carers' overpayments. However, Director of Policy and Public Affairs Emily Holzhausen also highlights that implementing the strategy is 'urgent', asks that the whole issue be moved out of being branded benefits fraud, and that carer's allowance be reviewed as it should be 'modernised to reflect the realities of caring'.
​
​
​
DWP-commissioned research highlights how the carer’s allowance earnings threshold influences decisions about how many hours carers work
Report also makes clear that the Department was made aware three years ago that there was room to improve claimant understanding and possibly reduce mistakes leading to overpayments by improving its communications.
The research, Experiences of claiming and receiving carer’s allowance, explores how and why people claim carer's allowance; their caring roles; experiences of combining paid work and care; and how well claimants understand the rules associated with the benefit. While carried out in 2020/2021, the research has been published today against a backdrop of calls for the wholescale reform of carer's allowance as a result of evidence that claimants who have earned above the carer's allowance earnings limit have been left with large overpayments and, in some cases, prosecuted for fraud.
While the research found that many claimants in employment felt there was a practical limit to the hours they could work, with many saying it was only feasible to be working part-time due to their caring responsibilities, it also found that -

• the earnings threshold appeared to influence decisions about how many hours some people worked. Even though claimants often denied that the threshold influenced their choices, they acknowledged being mindful to stay below the threshold. One claimant felt he had to refuse shifts at work that would take him over the threshold;
• in another example, the earnings limit led a claimant to reduce her hours as her wages increased, and eventually she was working so few hours that her employer felt it was not worth employing her due to her limited availability; and
• some claimants in paid work felt they might work more hours if not for the earnings threshold, and even suggested tapering the carer’s allowance earnings rule to encourage claimants to work more.

Published on the same day that the Work and Pensions Select Committee said that there has been insufficient progress in addressing the problems with carer's allowance that it highlighted five years ago, the research makes clear that the Department has been aware of the issues for some time. For example, it highlights confusion relating to the complexity of the earnings calculation, including how deductions such as childcare expenses and pension contributions are taken account of, and whether wages can be averaged if you earn more in a particular week.
In addition, with the Chair of the Select Committee Stephen Timms having said recently that the DWP has done nothing to stop carers building up huge overpayments despite knowing what people are earning, and the Committee having called on the National Audit Office to investigate the problems with the system, the research found that -

• poor communication on the part of the DWP meant that not all of those that had been overpaid benefit were clear on the reason for the overpayment;
• some said that while they were initially notified or questioned about an overpayment there was then no follow-up from the Department; and
• when the overpayment was initially raised, several claimants felt that they were spoken to or treated by DWP as though they had intentionally committed fraud when the overpayment had been a misunderstanding.

As a result, the research says -

'... there is room to improve claimant understanding and possibly reduce mistakes leading to overpayments by improving communications around eligibility criteria. Since claimants did not engage with the detail of their benefit regularly, possibly only considering it once a year when they received their annual letter, more frequent communications may improve clarity of knowledge around carer’s allowance.'

Other key findings include that -

• most claimants cared for close relatives, with two in five caring for a child (39 per cent), a quarter caring for a spouse or partner (25 per cent), and one in five (22 per cent) caring for a parent;
• caring was a long-term and high-intensity commitment, with half of claimants (52 per cent) spending 65 or more hours caring per week and more than half (54 per cent) caring for between 5 and 20 years;
• only 16 per cent of carer's allowance claimants were currently in paid work, tending to work part- time in lower paid jobs that they were able to fit around their caring responsibilities, with most (81 per cent) working 20 hours or less a week;
• of those not currently in paid work, seven in ten (69 per cent) said this was due to their responsibilities as a carer, with other barriers including a lack of flexible working options, claimants’ own health and confidence issues; and
• there was a lag between starting caring and claiming carer's allowance, with seven in ten claimants (70 per cent) caring for 5+ years, but only 3 in 10 (34 per cent) having claimed carer's allowance for that length of time.

For more information, see Experiences of claiming and receiving carer’s allowance from gov.uk
​
​
​
Almost 135,000 people currently have an outstanding carer's allowance debt, with more than £250 million owed in total, according to figures supplied by DWP Minister Paul Maynard
DWP Minister also confirms that women represent 68 per cent of those with an outstanding debt.
Responding to a written question in Parliament from Work and Pensions Committee Chair Stephen Timms, Mr Maynard said -

'As of 14 May 2024, the volume of people who have an outstanding carers allowance debt is 134,800 with a total value of £251 million. This figure represents the total stock and as such the total monetary amount may have been accrued over multiple years. Those who have an outstanding carers allowance debt may no longer be in receipt of the benefit.'

Mr Maynard added that -

'Women make up the majority of carer’s allowance claims, and this is reflected in the proportion of those with an outstanding carer’s allowance debt. As of 14 May 2024, there were 42,800 (32 per cent) males, 91,900 (68 per cent) females and 100 (less than 1 per cent) not identified, with an outstanding carer's allowance debt.'

The Minister also confirmed that, as of November 2023, there were more than 991,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance, consisting of around 271,000 (27 per cent) males and 720,000 (73 per cent) females.
Mr Maynard's written answer is available from parliament.uk
​
​
​
​
Total value of benefit overpayments in 2023/2024 increased to almost £10 billion, representing 3.7 per cent of benefit expenditure for the year
New DWP figures also show that official error underpayments remained at around £1 billion, and that people could have claimed more than £3 billion more 'if they had provided accurate information about their circumstances'.
In Fraud and error in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates, the DWP calculates how much money it overpaid or underpaid as a percentage of total benefit expenditure for the year (£266.2bn) - for benefits including universal credit, housing benefit, personal independence payment, employment and support allowance and pension credit - and how many claims were paid an incorrect amount.
Note: the statistics no longer include estimates of claimant error underpayments as these are now published separately, as confirmed in recent DWP guidance.
In relation to incorrect payment rates across all benefits for the financial year ending (FYE) 2024, the figures show that the total rate of benefit expenditure overpaid was 3.7 per cent (£9.7bn), compared with 3.6 per cent (£8.3bn) in 2022/2023. In addition, the total rate of benefit expenditure underpaid was 0.4 per cent (£1.1bn), compared with 0.5 per cent (£1.2bn) in FYE 2023.
Looking in more detail at the figures for individual benefits, the statistics include data showing that -

• for universal credit, expenditure increased to £51.9bn in 2024 with an overpayment rate of 12.4 per cent (£6.5bn) and underpayment rate of 0.3 per cent (£180m), compared to expenditure of £43.4 bn, overpayments at 12.7 per cent (£5.5bn) and underpayments at 0.6 per cent (£240m) in FYE 2023;
• for personal independence payment (PIP), the overpayment rate was at the lowest recorded level of 0.4 per cent (£90m), compared with 1.1 per cent (£200m) in FYE 2023. However, the underpayment rate went up to 0.4 per cent (£80m), from 0.3 per cent (£60m) the previous year;
• for pension credit, the overpayment rate was 9.7 per cent (£520m) in FYE 2024, compared with 6.8 per cent (£330m) in the previous year, with underpayments remaining unchanged at 0.3 per cent (£50m) for both years; and
• for housing benefit, almost £1bn (£980m) was overpaid in FYE 2024 (6.3 per cent of expenditure), compared with £860m (5.7 per cent) in 2023. Underpayments remained stable at 0.4 per cent of spending (£50m in FYE 2024 and £60m in FYE 2023).

In addition to the fraud and error statistics, the DWP has also issued Unfulfilled eligibility in the benefit system: Financial Year Ending (FYE) 2024, in line with its decision to remove claimant underpayments from its main fraud and error estimates. The new statistics set out the percentage of benefit expenditure that could have been paid to people with unfulfilled eligibility 'if they had provided the correct information', and show key findings that include -

• the unfulfilled eligibility rate for 2024 is 1.2 per cent of expenditure (£3.1bn), compared with 1.0 per cent (£2.3bn) in the previous year; and
• universal credit, PIP and disability living allowance (DLA) account for around three-quarters of the total value of unfulfilled eligibility (at £730m, £870m and £750m respectively in FYE 2024).

The DWP highlighted that -

'PIP has the second highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [4 per cent] of all benefits and fairly high expenditure [£21.6bn], so due to this combination, PIP accounts for around one-quarter of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. DLA has the highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [11.1 per cent] but relatively low expenditure [£6.8m], so even though its rate is higher than PIP, it accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. Universal credit has a lower unfulfilled eligibility rate than DLA and PIP [1.4 per cent] but its high expenditure means that it also accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024.'

For more information, see Fraud and error in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates and Unfulfilled eligibility in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates from gov.uk
​
​
​
Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride has set out the DWP's plans to scale up its 'fight against fraudsters'
New measures include using machine learning to detect and prevent fraudulent claims, as well as introducing a new Bill to enable benefit fraud to be treated like tax fraud.
Issuing a written statement in the House of Commons on 13th May, Mr Stride said -

'In the continued fight against fraud, today the Government will publish a new paper setting out the progress we have made in tackling fraud and error in the welfare system - Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further. The paper sets out the progress we have made in delivering the commitments in the Government's 2022 command paper Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System and it demonstrates where we are going further to protect taxpayers’ money from fraudsters.'

Highlighting that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable the Department to work with third parties such as banks to identify claims that signal potential fraud and error, Mr Stride says that the new measures being introduced include -

• bringing forward a new Fraud Bill in the next parliament to treat benefit fraud like tax fraud, by providing for the ability to make arrests and conduct searches and seizures by warrant;
• exploring a new civil penalty to punish fraudsters, potentially broadening the scope of cases that can receive a penalty when the courts are not prosecuting, and increasing the value of the civil penalty;
• tripling the size of the Targeted Case Review programme to reach almost 6,000 staff with the aim of saving £6.6 billion by 2027/2028; and
• making changes to universal credit including new partly automated checks on self-employed income, new online prompts for claimants to re-declare their circumstances (such as if they have moved in with a partner), and increasing checks on capital when people claim the benefit to ensure they are eligible.

Note: the Department confirms that final decisions on accepting or stopping a claim will, however, continue to be made by a member of DWP staff.
For more information, see DWP updates Fraud Plan from gov.uk
In response to the above article the Disability News Service reported that the government's fraud policy paper ignores coroner’s concerns over review of disabled woman’s universal credit claim. Read the DNS article on disabilitynewsservice.com
​
​
​
Less than half of legacy benefit claimants who were sent a migration notice between July 2022 and March 2024 have made a claim for universal credit, according to new figures from the DWP
However, new DWP statistics also show that 60 per cent of households that claimed universal credit have been awarded transitional protection.
In Completing the move to Universal Credit: statistics related to the move of households claiming Tax Credits and DWP benefits to Universal Credit: data to end of March 2024, the DWP sets out figures for the period since July 2022, noting that -

'In the period covered by this bulletin, the vast majority of migration notices have been sent to tax credit households whose likelihood of claiming universal credit and receiving transitional protection may be different from DWP legacy benefit claimants, the majority of whom had not yet been sent a migration notice in the period covered in this bulletin.'

The statistics include that -

• a total of 824,050 individuals (in 540,070 households) were sent migration notices up to March 2024 - up by around 300,000 and 200,000 respectively compared to the totals for December 2023;
• a total of 400,940 individuals (49 per cent of those sent migration notices), living in 275,980 households, have made a claim for universal credit;
• of households that have claimed universal credit, 166,860 (60 per cent) have been awarded transitional protection;
• a total of 238,990 individuals who were sent migration notices are still going through the managed migration process; and
• a total of 184,120 individuals who were sent migration notices have had their legacy benefit claims closed.

Move to Universal Credit statistics, July 2022 to March 2024 is available from gov.uk
Note: the DWP has also published Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 11 April 2024­ which show that there were 6.7 million people on universal credit in April 2024 (300,000 more than the 6.4 million in January 2024) and that half of households on universal credit that received a payment in February 2024 included children.
​
​
Department for Communities also confirms that claimants in receipt of other legacy benefits will be issued with migration notices 'in the coming months'
The Department for Communities (DfC) has confirmed that the 'Move to UC' rollout in Northern Ireland has expanded this week to include people receiving tax credits along with housing benefit.
Announcing the expansion of the process, Deputy Secretary of Work and Health at the DfC Paddy Rooney said -

'We continue to take a measured and carefully managed approach to migrating legacy benefit recipients to universal credit. We have already successfully completed issuing migration notices to tax credit only recipients and we will continue to take every step possible to ensure that everyone receives the help and support they need during this next phase of Move to UC.'

The Department also confirmed that once it has issued migration notices to all those receiving tax credits with housing benefit, the following groups will be contacted in this order -

• people claiming income support;
• people claiming housing benefit only, and those claiming child tax credit with income-related employment and support allowance (ESA); and
• people claiming income-based jobseeker's allowance.

In relation to the bringing forward of managed migration for ESA and ESA/housing benefit claimants in Great Britain, announced by the Prime Minister on 19 April 2024, the DfC says that it is working to assess the impact of this on the region. It also confirms that it will align with the DWP's aim to complete the migration of legacy benefit claimants to universal credit by March 2025.
For more information, see Tax credit with housing benefit recipients next to 'Move to UC' and Rollout of Universal Credit for Tax Credit and Legacy Benefit customers - screening from ni.gov.uk
​
​
​
57,000 adverse universal credit sanction decisions were made in January 2024, according to new DWP statistics
DWP statistics also highlight that around 95 per cent of decisions are as a result of failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview.
In Benefit sanctions statistics to February 2024, the DWP reports on both the rate and duration of sanctions for universal credit claimants who are in conditionality regimes where they be applied.
Key findings include that -

• in February 2024, 30.1 per cent of claimants were in conditionality regimes that were subject to sanctions and, of these, 6.52 per cent were sanctioned - down 0.64 percentage points from the previous quarter;
• over the last year, 94.9 per cent of adverse sanction decisions were for failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview; and
• in February 2024, there were 20,000 completed sanctions in the 4 weeks to 13 weeks sanction duration band, 4,800 in the over 13 weeks to 26 weeks duration band, and 4,000 of over 26 weeks duration.

In addition, while the total number of claimants in conditionality regimes where sanctions can be applied has remained largely stable since May 2022 (currently at 1.95 million), the total number of adverse sanction decisions stood at 57,000 in January 2024, the highest since March 2022.
The DWP notes that -

'Comparisons with universal credit prior to February 2024 ... should not be made. This is because the data sources, methodology and rules of the benefits differ from those used for universal credit currently.'

However, it adds that, following the reinstated duration measures and rate methodology improvements, the data is now determined stable and fit for purpose and, as of May 2024, it is published under the 'Official Statistics' label as opposed to 'in development'.
For more information, see Benefit sanctions statistics to February 2024 from gov.uk
​
​
​
DWP has admitted missing multiple opportunities to record the 'vulnerability' of a disabled woman whose death was later linked by a coroner to failings at the heart of its UC system
The Disability News Service reported on the case of Nazerine (known as Naz) Anderson, from Melton Mowbray, who died of an overdose in June last year, after receiving a UC review notice.
According to a prevention of future deaths (PFD) report sent to the department by coroner Fiona Butler, the DWP missed six opportunities to record Anderson’s “vulnerability” on its IT system while it was reviewing her universal credit claim, and had failed to act on the mental distress she showed in phone calls about her claim. It also repeatedly failed to act on requests to direct its telephone calls and letters to her daughter.
The DWP admits multiple universal credit failures before disabled woman’s death article is available on disabilitynewsservice.com
​
​
​
Number of emergency food parcels distributed across the UK by the Trussell Trust has increased by 90 per cent over the past five years
Food charity reports that it distributed more than three million parcels last year, with more than a million of them going to children.
In Emergency food parcel distribution in the UK: April 2023 - March 2024, the Trust says that it distributed 3,121,404 food parcels, the most parcels that it has ever distributed in a financial year, representing a four per cent increase on last year's record-breaking numbers for 2022/2023 and a 94 per cent increase since 2018/2019.
The charity also highlights that the number of parcels provided to children has continued to rise, exceeding 1.1 million in 2023/2024, and that food bank support is provided disproportionately to children, compared to the proportion of children in the UK population. In addition, it notes that pension age households are increasingly likely to need to use a food bank, with food bank support for these households having more than quadrupled between 2018/2019 and 2023/2024 (an increase of 345 per cent), compared to an 81 per cent rise amongst households without someone of pension age.
Also sharing statistics on the reason for referral for an emergency food parcel - which include health, benefit issues, work hour changes, insecure housing, changes in personal circumstances, immigration status and domestic abuse, as well as income and debt levels - the Trussell Trust says -

'Across all households the most common reason for referral was due to issues with income and debt levels. The vital role of the social security system in driving these trends is clear from the fact that the majority (78 per cent) of people referred to food banks were reported to solely have income from the social security system, with a further 8 per cent having earned income as well as income from social security.'

Trussell Trust Chief Executive Emma Revie said -

'It’s 2024 and we’re facing historically high levels of food bank need. As a society, we cannot allow this to continue. We must not let food banks become the new norm ... A supportive social security system is the bedrock on which we end hunger for good. Building on this, we need much more effective employment and financial support for parents, carers and disabled people, and action to ensure everyone can have the security we all need to access opportunities and have hope for the future, through more secure and flexible jobs and investment in social housing. Food banks are not the answer. They will be there to support people as long as they are needed, but our political leaders must take bold action to build a future where everyone has enough money to afford the life’s essentials. The time to act is now.'

For more information, see End of Year Stats from trusselltrust.org
​
​
​
Employment Minister Jo Churchill has provided a House of Lords Select Committee with an undertaking that the administrative earnings threshold (AET) in universal credit will not be increased again without a 'sound evidence base'
However, Minister's evidence to Lords Committee fails to address its dissatisfaction with DWP's explanation for not publishing robust evidence to support previous increases in the threshold.
Further to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's report on new regulations that implemented a further increase in the AET from 13 May 2024 - that criticised the ‘inexplicable’ lack of data evaluating previous increases in the threshold in September 2022 and January 2023 - the Committee held a one-off evidence session yesterday to question the Minister and DWP officials.
Introducing the session, Committee Chair Lord Hunt acknowledged that the DWP had agreed to share its informal findings supporting its AET policy. However Lord Hunt added that -

'... similar, no doubt to the material that the Social Security Advisory Committee saw but correctly declined, if information is not available to the House and the public, then we feel unable to consider it either.'

The Committee then questioned the Minister about the Department's failure to publish evidence providing an assessment of the impact of increasing the AET either before or after implementing the change.
In response, Ms Churchill highlighted that the Department did publish a randomised controlled trial evaluation in 2018 providing the highest level of evidence on the impacts of increased in-work conditionality that Ministers have had sight of. When challenged that this evidence is somewhat outdated and 'a bit threadbare' - as it has been relied on for three increases in the AET - Ms Churchill indicated that Ministers also had early sight of unpublished research (a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) study) that compares the experiences of claimants who are just below and just above the AET.
When pressed on the expected publication dates for this and further evidence, Mr Churchill said -

'I have asked for [the RDD study] to be available as soon as it can be, and the date I was given was spring 2024 ... I would like it out the door as soon as possible, so you have more data ... RDD is the next piece, the next building block and then, the longitudinal study will come through in 2025.'

Concluding the session with a final question, Lord Hunt, speaking on behalf of the whole Committee, said -

'... we're looking for an undertaking from you, not to further expand the cohort until the Department can publish robust evidence of its effects. Are you able to give us that undertaking?

Ms Churchill responded -

'So are you alluding to us holding 15 hours or with this latest laying at 18? Because I could certainly say to you, I think with all confidence that at 18, we want to understand the iterations and make sure that we've got a sound evidence base from there.'

NB - the increase in the AET in January 2023 was based, for individuals, on the equivalent of them working 15 hours per week at the National Living Wage, and this week's increase to the equivalent of them working 18 hours per week.
Despite welcoming the Minister's reply, Lord Hunt went on to say -

'... we accept your undertaking, except we are still as dissatisfied as we were because you haven't provided, in the view of the Committee, sufficient explanation yet. We are awaiting this robust evidence, which I think that we now expect in June 2024.'

The evidence session Regulations to increase the Administrative Earnings Threshold (Legislative scrutiny) is available from parliament.tv
​
​
Work and Pensions Select Committee has called on the government to bring forward proposals to compensate women born in the 1950s who suffered as a result of the DWP's communication failures when their pension age was increased, and asks that it does so in the current parliamentary session
Committee chair highlights lengthy delay and urgency for affected women and calls on government to act on Parliamentary Ombudsman recommendations before summer recess.
Writing to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Mel Stride, Committee Chair Stephen Timms requests government support for 'urgent action' following the Parliamentary Ombudsman's final report in March 2024 which recommended a remedy based on level 4 of its severity of injustice scale, putting awards at between £1,000 and £2,950.
Mr Timms says that the Committee does not seek to question the Ombudsman's proposal for compensation at level 4, but instead has focused on what a remedy may look like -

'The evidence we received indicated support for a rules-based system. This would be a system where payments would be adjusted within a range (based on the PHSO’s severity of injustice scale) to reflect the extent of change in the individual’s State Pension age and the notice of the change which the individual received. This would mean that the less notice you had of the change and the bigger the change in your SPA, the higher the payment you would receive. While not perfect, the advantages of such a system are that it would be: quick to administer; applying known data to a formula to determine the amount due; and relatively inexpensive (compared to a more bespoke system).'

The Committee's recommendation also includes some flexibility for individuals to make the case for further compensation in the event that they have experienced direct financial loss, for example where a woman whose divorce settlement was less than it would have been because it was based on the expectation that she would receive her state pension at 60.
Mr Timms also asks the government to consider -

'... the need for urgent action, given that the Ombudsman started to look at this issue in 2018 and that every 13 minutes a woman born in the 1950s dies ... Implementing a remedy will need parliamentary time, financial resources, and the data and technical systems only available to your department. It cannot happen without government support. We would ask you to bring forward proposals for a remedy by the summer recess.'

Mr Timms' letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is available from parliament.uk
​
​

Debit/Credit Cards Accepted No Closing Costs Cash Price: $950 Finance with $150 Down and 9 Payments of $115 Per Month No Credit Check, No Income Documentation, No Prepayment Penalty 

Facts:

• 30 states have a higher minimum wage than Tennessee's $7.25.
• Tennessee last raised its minimum wage in 2009.
• Since then, inflation has risen by about 36.6%.
• A decent living wage for a single adult in Tennessee is about $13.25 per hour.

Rising Rents in Knoxville

• Rapid Rent Increases: In 2022, rent growth in Knoxville was 9.6%, significantly higher than the national average of 2.3%. This trend has continued, with apartment rents increasing by around 6.06% in 2023 compared to the previous year.
• Forecasted Increases: The trend of rising rents is expected to continue, with forecasts indicating an additional 5% increase over the next year.
• High Occupancy Rates: Despite these rent increases, Knoxville's rental market remains highly competitive with occupancy rates around 96.3%, which is higher than the national average of 94.7%.

Recent Home Price Increases in Knoxville

• Median Home Price: The median home sales price in Knoxville rose to $350,000 in July 2023, representing an increase of around 7.9% compared to the previous year.
• Affordability: As of November 2023, the median home sales price was $346,000, up by about 10.8% from the previous year.
• Income Requirements: The income required to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced home has risen dramatically, from around $59,000 at the start of 2022 to over $110,000 by August 2023.
• Housing Inventory: Despite the rising prices, the total number of homes available in Knoxville is still around half of pre-pandemic levels, contributing to the increased competition and higher prices.

This information highlights the growing affordability issues in Knoxville, with home prices rising faster than incomes, making it challenging for many residents to purchase homes.

Steps to Raise the Minimum Wage

Step 1: Organize a Petition Drive

• Form a Nonpartisan Group: Create or join a group focused solely on raising the minimum wage, without political affiliations. Use platforms like Zoom for virtual meetings, schedule regular meetings, and use social media and local forums to recruit members.
• Research Requirements: For statewide initiatives, the number of signatures required is typically a percentage of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Confirm the exact number with the Tennessee Secretary of State's office. For local initiatives in Knoxville, a charter amendment can be proposed if at least one registered voter files the petition with the county election commission for pre-approval (TCA 2-5-151).
  • Tennessee Secretary of State: (615) 741-2819
• Create the Petition: Draft a clear and concise petition for a minimum wage increase. Here is a sample:

Draft Petition:
Petition for Increasing the Minimum Wage in Tennessee
To the Tennessee General Assembly:
We, the undersigned residents of Tennessee, believe that the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is insufficient to meet the basic needs of individuals and families in our state. Given the significant rise in living costs and inflation since the last adjustment in 2009, we urgently call for an increase in the state minimum wage to a livable wage of $13.25 per hour. This adjustment will ensure that all working Tennesseans can afford necessities such as housing, food, healthcare, and transportation.
By signing this petition, we express our support for this necessary change and urge the Tennessee General Assembly to take immediate action.
Name Address Signature
Step 2: Collect Signatures

• Host Community Events: Organize events like town hall meetings, local fairs, or farmers' markets to gather signatures.
• Utilize Local Networks: Leverage small-town connections where everyone knows each other to spread the word and gather support.
• Set Up Booths: Place booths in high-traffic areas like grocery stores, libraries, and community centers to collect signatures.
• Door-to-Door Campaigning: Go door-to-door in your neighborhood to ask for signatures.

Step 3: Raise Awareness

• Social Media Campaign: Use platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to inform the community and encourage them to sign the petition.
• Local Media: Reach out to local newspapers, radio stations, and TV channels to cover your campaign.
• Flyers and Posters: Distribute flyers and put up posters in local businesses and public spaces.

Step 4: Submit the Petition

• Verify Signatures: Ensure all collected signatures meet the requirements.
• Submit to Authorities: Submit the petition to the appropriate state or local authority for validation.

Deadlines and Requirements

• Submission Deadline: Typically, signatures must be submitted several months before the general election to allow time for verification. For 2024, check with the Tennessee Secretary of State for specific deadlines and the number of required signatures.

How Petitions Work

In general, for a petition to be effective and get an issue on the ballot or to influence local government action, more signatures are usually needed to demonstrate widespread community support. Here’s a brief overview of the process:

• Single Signature Submission: In some cases, a single well-documented request or petition signed by one person can be submitted to local officials to initiate a discussion. However, this method is less likely to compel action without demonstrating broader community support.
• Gathering Multiple Signatures: To increase the chances of the petition being taken seriously, gathering multiple signatures shows that the issue has significant support within the community. This can influence local officials to take action.
• Specific Requirements: The exact number of signatures required can vary based on local laws and regulations. For example, getting an initiative on the ballot often requires a specific percentage of registered voters' signatures.

Example Scenario:

• Submitting a Petition to the City Council: One person can submit a petition to the city council to raise an issue. However, gathering more signatures from residents increases the impact.
• Ballot Initiatives: For ballot initiatives, there are usually legal requirements regarding the number of signatures needed. This varies by jurisdiction.

Strategies to Address Rising Rents

While controlling rent increases directly can be challenging, there are several strategies that can help stabilize the rental market and provide more affordable options:

1. Rent Control and Stabilization:
   • Implement policies that limit how much rents can be increased annually.
2. Increased Tenant Protections:
   • Strengthen tenant rights to provide more security and stability, such as "just cause" eviction protections.
3. Affordable Housing Development:
   • Increase the supply of affordable housing through new developments and mixed-income housing projects.
4. Tax Incentives for Landlords:
   • Offer tax breaks or incentives to landlords who keep rents affordable.
5. Community Land Trusts:
   • Establish community land trusts to manage and develop affordable housing.
6. Rent Subsidy Programs:
   • Expand rent subsidy programs to assist low-income tenants.

Petition Example for Rent Control and Tenant Protections

Petition for Rent Control and Tenant Protections
To the Knoxville City Council:
We, the undersigned, request that the Knoxville City Council take immediate action to address the rising cost of rent and protect tenants by implementing rent control measures and strengthening tenant protections. Specifically, we propose the following initiatives:

1. Rent Control: Implement rent control measures that limit annual rent increases to no more than a set percentage, tied to inflation.
2. Just Cause Eviction Protections: Establish "just cause" eviction protections to prevent arbitrary evictions and provide stability for tenants.
3. Tax Incentives for Affordable Rent: Offer tax breaks or incentives to landlords who commit to keeping rents affordable.
4. Encourage Long-Term Leases: Promote the use of long-term leases with fixed rent increases to provide stability for both tenants and landlords.

By implementing these measures, Knoxville can help ensure that housing remains affordable and accessible for all residents, promoting a stable and thriving community.
By signing this petition, we express our support for these initiatives and urge the Knoxville City Council to take immediate action to protect tenants and address the rising cost of rent.
Signature: _______________
Print Name: _______________
Address: _______________
Email: _______________

Other Strategies to Help Afford Homes

Local Level:

1. Affordable Housing Programs: Support and expand local programs that provide affordable housing options.
2. Down Payment Assistance: Advocate for city or county programs that help with down payments for first-time homebuyers.
3. Community Land Trusts: Promote local models where the community owns the land and leases it to homeowners, reducing the cost of purchasing a home.
4. Zoning Reforms: Push for zoning changes within Knoxville to allow for more diverse and affordable housing developments.
5. Financial Education: Provide resources locally to help individuals better manage their finances and improve their credit scores.
6. Rent-to-Own Programs: Implement or support local programs where tenants can rent properties with the option to buy after a certain period.
7. Increased Housing Supply: Encourage the construction of more housing units in Knoxville to meet demand.
8. Public-Private Partnerships: Foster collaborations between the city and private developers to create affordable housing projects.
9. Inclusionary Zoning: Require a portion of new developments in Knoxville to include affordable housing units.
10. Tax Incentives: Offer local tax credits or abatements to developers who build affordable housing or to homeowners for property improvements.
11. Tiny Homes and ADUs: Promote the development of tiny homes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Knoxville as affordable housing options.
12. Housing Cooperatives: Support cooperative housing models locally where residents collectively own and manage their housing.
13. Employer-Assisted Housing: Encourage local employers to provide housing assistance or benefits to their employees.
14. Energy Efficiency Programs: Implement local programs to improve the energy efficiency of homes, reducing utility costs and overall housing expenses.
15. Foreclosure Prevention Programs: Provide local assistance and counseling to homeowners at risk of foreclosure to help them retain their homes.
16. Land Banks: Establish land banks at the city level to acquire, manage, and repurpose vacant and foreclosed properties for affordable housing development.

Steps for Local Action:

• Petition for Ballot Initiatives: Registered voters can start petitions to get these issues on local ballots. This involves gathering a required number of signatures from the community.
• Engage with Local Officials: Attend city council meetings, contact local representatives, and advocate for these programs and reforms.
• Form or Join Advocacy Groups: Collaborate with local organizations focused on housing and community development to amplify your efforts.
• Raise Public Awareness: Use social media, local news, and community events to inform and mobilize residents around these initiatives.
• Vote: Encourage community members to vote for local leaders and initiatives that support affordable housing and related programs.

Example Petitions:

Petition for Comprehensive Affordable Housing Initiatives
To the Knoxville City Council:
We, the undersigned, request that the Knoxville City Council take comprehensive action to promote affordable housing through a combination of tax incentives, public-private partnerships, inclusionary zoning, expanded affordable housing programs, and the establishment of land banks.

1. Tax Incentives: Offer local tax credits or abatements to developers who build affordable housing or to homeowners for property improvements. These incentives will encourage the development and maintenance of affordable housing units, ensuring more options are available for low- and moderate-income families.
2. Public-Private Partnerships: Foster collaborations between the city and private developers to create affordable housing projects. By working together, the public and private sectors can pool resources, expertise, and funding to develop housing that meets the community's needs.
3. Inclusionary Zoning: Require a portion of new developments in Knoxville to include affordable housing units. Inclusionary zoning ensures that affordable housing is integrated into new developments, promoting economic diversity and increasing the availability of affordable homes.
4. Affordable Housing Programs: Support and expand local affordable housing programs to provide quality, affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income residents. Currently, many residents are struggling to find affordable housing, which impacts their quality of life and financial stability. By expanding these programs, we can ensure that more residents have access to safe, decent, and affordable housing.
5. Land Banks: Establish land banks at the city level to acquire, manage, and repurpose vacant and foreclosed properties for affordable housing development. Land banks can transform unused or abandoned properties into valuable assets for the community, providing opportunities for affordable housing development and revitalizing neighborhoods.

By implementing these strategies, Knoxville can create a more inclusive and sustainable housing market that supports the needs of all residents. This comprehensive approach will help address the current housing shortage and ensure long-term affordability in our community.
By signing this petition, we express our support for these initiatives and urge the Knoxville City Council to take immediate action to promote affordable housing through these measures.
Signature: _______________
Print Name: _______________
Address: _______________
Email: _______________
Down Payment Assistance
Petition for Down Payment Assistance Programs
To the Knoxville City Council:
We, the undersigned, urge the Knoxville City Council to advocate for and establish city or county programs that provide down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. Many residents find it challenging to save enough for a down payment, which is a significant barrier to achieving homeownership. By providing down payment assistance, we can help more residents transition from renting to owning their homes, promoting long-term financial stability and investment in our community.
By signing this petition, we express our support for the creation and implementation of down payment assistance programs to help first-time homebuyers in Knoxville.
Signature: _______________
Print Name: _______________
Address: _______________
Email: _______________

State or Federal Level:

• Subsidized Housing Vouchers: Increase the availability and funding for housing vouchers that subsidize rent for low-income families.
• Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC): Promote MCC programs that provide tax credits to first-time homebuyers at the state or federal level.

Combining these approaches with efforts to raise wages can create a more comprehensive solution to housing affordability issues.

How New Jersey Did It:

• Legislative Action: Passed in 2019, the law set a schedule for gradual increases to reach $15 by 2024.
• Annual Adjustments: Provisions for annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
• Broad Support: Significant political backing from the governor and legislature.
• Sector-Specific Plans: Different timelines and rates for small businesses, seasonal workers, and agricultural employees.
• Economic Advocacy: Studies and advocacy highlighted the benefits, helping to build public and political support.

Tennessee's Business Environment and Minimum Wage:

• Business-Friendly State: It's true Tennessee is known for being business-friendly, which can make raising the minimum wage challenging.
• Jobs Over $12/Hour: While many jobs may pay over $12 an hour, not all workers have access to these opportunities, especially those with limited skills or education.

Steps to Take:

• Educate and Advocate: Inform the community about the benefits of a higher minimum wage for both workers and the economy.
• Highlight Success Stories: Share examples from other states like New Jersey that have successfully raised their minimum wages without harming businesses.
• Promote Nonpartisan Support: Work with groups that focus on worker rights without political affiliations to gather broader support.

By focusing on education and nonpartisan advocacy, it's possible to create a more inclusive conversation around raising the minimum wage.

Good morning everyone!
I am moving to Budapest for working purpose. My contract is free of taxes since it is a 12 months internship, that's why I'm afraid if it will be possible to use the public healthcare system for free.
I have my EU documents (Italian ID + passport) but I don't have any health insurance or document related to healthcare in my country.
So I would like to ask which documents do I need to provide or request in order to access the Hungarian healthcare system for free?
Have a great Sunday!

Debit/Credit Cards Accepted No Closing Costs Cash Price: $1,500 Finance with $200 Down and 12 Payments of $140 Per Month No Credit Check, No Income Documentation, No Prepayment Penalty 

Article: https://www.useyourbrainforex.com/post/maduro-imposes-9-tax-on-private-companies-for-pension-fund
Big developments in Venezuela! President Nicolas Maduro has just issued a new decree that imposes a 9% tax on private companies to establish a state-run pension fund. This significant move is part of the government's effort to create a more sustainable pension system after years of economic instability.

Key Details:

• Tax Rate: Private companies will be taxed 9% based on their total payroll expenses.
• Effective Date: The decree goes into effect immediately.
• Publication: The decree was documented in the Official Gazette on May 16.
• Exemption: Companies listed in a national registry can receive up to one year of exemption from this tax.

Background:

Earlier this month, the government-controlled National Assembly passed a law allowing a levy of up to 15% on private businesses. Maduro's administration is keen on leveraging the benefits of Venezuela's recently revived dollarized economy to provide more substantial support to pensioners who currently receive payments in bolivars, a currency that has faced severe devaluation.

Reactions:

While the government views this as a necessary step to ensure economic stability and improve the living standards of retirees, there has been pushback from the business sector. The Venezuelan business association, Fedecamaras, has voiced concerns that this new tax adds another layer of financial burden on businesses already dealing with a complex and onerous tax system. They warn that this could potentially stifle economic growth and deter investment.
What are your thoughts on this new policy? Will it help in stabilizing the economy and supporting pensioners, or will it add too much strain on the private sector? Let's discuss! 🤔💬

The following bills were presented to be voted upon by members of the house at the behest of Speaker Anastasia Kedves:
Vuldavian Child Bereavement Support Act (Hermann PLP)
Vuldavian Agricultural Security and Farmer Support Act (Hermann PLP)
Royal Metric Measurement Standardization Act (Hermann PLP)
Vocational Education and Rehabilitation Act (Hermann PLP)
Veteran's Healthcare Ministry Act (Hermann PLP)
Vuldavian Border and River Security Act (Hermann PLP, Csama NUP)
Vuldavian Ministry of Self Defense Act (Hermann PLP)
Vuldavian Scientific Research Center and STEM University Establishment Act (Hermann PLP)
Regulation and Inspection Act (Okravik NUP)
Vuldavian Tax Bill (Zalán NUP)
Vuldavian Highway Bill (Zalán NUP)
Judicial Reform Bill (Constitutional amendment) (Hunyadi and Csoma PLP)

Debit/Credit Cards Accepted No Closing Costs Cash Price: $1,350 Finance with $200 Down and 12 Payments of $125 Per Month No Credit Check, No Income Documentation, No Prepayment Penalty 

Hello Reddit,
I’m reaching out to share my recent experience with the Schengen visa application process, and to seek advice and support from this community. My wife and I recently applied for a Schengen visa through the Swedish Embassy for a trip to celebrate our 15th year together (not our marriage anniversary). Despite meticulous preparation, our application was denied, leaving us frustrated and disheartened. Here are the details:
Our Background:

• We are both working professionals.
• The trip was purely for tourism and to celebrate our anniversary.
• My wife earns a bare minimum salary but works for a reputable company, while I earn more than a decent about for my age, for this trip and for the country I am living in!
• I showed ample financial means through a combination of savings, government bonds, and deposit scheme investments, with a 1:1:1 ratio. My liquid bank savings alone were sufficient to cover the trip for two weeks.

Documents We Submitted:

1. Completed and signed visa application form.
2. Proof of identity and marital status (photocopy of passport, national identity, marriage certificate).
3. Round-trip flight confirmation.
4. Hotel reservations
5. Financial stability and proof of income (payslips, salary certificate, bank account statement, solvency certificate, TIN certificate, income tax certificates, and saving certificates).
6. Health and travel insurance policy covering the entire stay.
7. Detailed itinerary.

Reason for Denial: The refusal letter cited two reasons:

1. "The information communicated to justify the purpose and conditions of the planned stay are not reliable."
2. "There are reasonable doubts as to your intention to leave the territory of the member states before the expiry of the visa."

Our Feelings: Despite presenting a strong case with genuine and meticulously prepared documents, we were denied. This feels like a severe injustice, especially considering our stable backgrounds, education, and financial ability to support the trip, only for the people like us. It’s hard not to feel that this scrutiny is disproportionately harsh. I understand there are a lot of political neusance going on, but with strong background and education, and ability to spare, I guess this is just us!
Seeking Advice: Has anyone else faced a similar situation? How did you handle it, and were you successful on a subsequent application? Any advice on how we can strengthen our application further or address the reasons for denial would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for reading and for any help you can provide.
TL;DR: Applied for a Schengen visa through the Swedish Embassy with my wife to celebrate our 15th year together. Despite a thorough and genuine application, we were denied for reasons that seem unfounded. Seeking advice and support from those who have been in a similar situation.

Debit/Credit Cards Accepted No Closing Costs Cash Price: $1,500 Finance with $200 Down and 12 Payments of $140 Per Month No Credit Check, No Income Documentation, No Prepayment Penalty 

I know I will probably get criticized massively for this post but I am going to post anyways.
I understand that everyone is super pessimistic about the Canada Disability Benefit and how everything has been going so far (I have felt this too). I do however have some sort of optimism. As a pleasant discussion, I want to give my thoughts on how this benefit has turned out so far (since budget day).
As we all pretty well know the government has allotted 6.1$B dollars over the next six years to the Canada Disability Benefit and it's implementation. It is guarded behind the gruesome Disability Tax Credit which is completely filled with barriers and doesn't fall in line with the Canada Disability Benefit Act. I do agree that this is something that let the disability community down as it is a well needed measure to lift people with disabilities out of poverty. The amount and application process are fully inadequate and needs to change (I agree with this).
However, just hear me out. My optimistic side is telling me that this truly is just the beginning as everything I have seen from disability organizations (their documents, reports, roundtable discussions, etc.) have all pointed to the same conclusion that this budget allotted is completely inadequate and that the application process is burdensome. From what I have seen they are still advocating/fighting to make this an adequate benefit with a barrier-free application process. Furthermore, my optimistic side is also telling me this truly is just the beginning and not the end of this regulatory process. We still yet to have full regulations implemented into the Act and things can and will change. We still have the Part 1 of the Canada Gazette which would have draft regulations on which the disability community and its organizations can publicly comment on (which I will post the link to when it is available) of which the government should take into account these considerations.
Afterwards, they will finally publish the final regulations in the Part 2 of the Canada Gazette of which would be the final set of regulations before payments start to arrive in July 2025. Remember all the regulations have to be completed by June 22nd, 2025. One year after the Act comes into Force (June 22nd, 2024).
My opinion is that yes it is a terrible amount and application process but it was needed so that there would even be a benefit at all. This budget needs to pass to at least have a benefit. I feel like these are just the initial steps before things get amended because believe it or not there are people who care about us and want us to succeed.
I know we have been let down on multiple occasions but I feel like we all need to be a little more optimistic of the future and advocate just as hard with that positive mindset. Again, I know how you all feel. I am in the same exact position where I am lucky to have one meal a day if anything at all some days.
Thank you for reading and I will finish this off with a quote from Helen Keller.
"Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence."

• Helen Keller

Debit/Credit Cards Accepted No Closing Costs Cash Price: $1,950 Finance with $200 Down and 18 Payments of $125 Per Month No Credit Check, No Income Documentation, No Prepayment Penalty 

Resources I have read through: - IRS Guidines (https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/used-clean-vehicle-credit) - Eligibility FAQ (https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/topic-d-frequently-asked-questions-about-eligibility-rules-for-the-previously-owned-clean-vehicles-credit)
Most of this is pretty straight forward. If you meet the income requirements, haven’t claimed the credit recently, the car is 2 years old, under 25k for the sale price, battery size etc.
I am confused and looking for clarification on 2 points here.
The first is, what exactly does it mean by “the purchasing taxpayer is the first qualified buyer”? Obviously any 1 owner vehicles will qualify. But where it is murky for me is a 2 owner vehicle. If the 2nd owner bought the car after August of 2022, but for over 25k, are they considered a qualified buyer or not, since they can’t claim the credit? Would this car be eligible for me to get the credit on as the third owner?
Secondly, are “document fees” included in the 25k or not? It says “excluding separately stated taxes and fees required by state or local law” but are document fees something different than this? Car dealers are confusing….
Thanks for any clarification!

So my wife is panicking a little bit cause we just got a notice from the IRS saying that they never got her dad’s 1040 form from 2019. The thing is that her dad died but he didn’t die until 2021. The form says that there could be payments that need to be made and her dad was not good about doing his taxes, so it’s likely he did owe money. The problem is that we don’t have any documents or access to any of his tax documents from that year. We filed his last year of taxes for 2021. We’re going to talk to the IRS about this but until they open on Monday we want to know if this anything we need to worry about since he was alive and should have done the taxes then?

Here are the main changes: Restriction of driving rights for military service evaders. Punishment for evading mobilization: those evading face fines from 17,000 to 25,000 UAH. Failure to pay fines may result in seizure of property and debiting of funds from accounts. Criminal liability is imposed on those who fail to appear at the TCC after personally delivering a summons after passing the VLK. During the document check, the TCC specialist or police officer will take photo and video recordings. It is necessary to have a military registration document with you and show it at the request of a TCC representative, police officer or State Tax Service. This also applies to men from 18 to 25 years old. Those recognized as partially fit must re-pass the VLK. Those who received II - III disability groups after February 24, 2022 (except for military personnel) must undergo a repeat medical examination to determine suitability for service.
https://x.com/GeromanAT/status/1791734855065055642

Debit/Credit Cards Accepted No Closing Costs Cash Price: $1,200 Finance with $200 Down and 12 Payments of $110 Per Month No Credit Check, No Income Documentation, No Prepayment Penalty 

I am an international student graduating from a university in Toronto. In February, I submitted a visitor visa application for my parents to attend my graduation ceremony in June 2024. I included all necessary supporting documents to demonstrate their financial solvency, such as recent bank statements showing ample funds (more than CAD $33,000) for the trip, and a property and fixed asset valuation report from a Chartered Accountant. Additionally, my parents have a strong international travel history including recent visits to the UK, the US and many other countries. I clearly stated in the invitation letter and the purpose of the travel document that their visit was to attend my graduation and that they would return home by the end of June 2024 due to business and property responsibilities.
These were the supporting documents for the application:

• I provided 3 bank statements that accumulate funds equivalent to $33,000 CAD and a fixed asset valuation report of my father’s property from a Chartered Accountant, reflecting its current fair market value of more than 5 Million CAD
  
• ⁠The purpose of travel is to attend my graduation mentioned in the invitation letter and the purpose of the travel document with the proof of solid family ties back home that shows they must come back by the end of June. Both my parents have a good international history with a record of recent visits to the UK, the USA and other countries.
  
• ⁠Documents proving their family ties to Home country are:
  
  • Asset valuation report that reflects property ownership
  • Recent bank statements that accumulates funds of $33,000 CAD
  • The business licence for my enterprise in Home Country
  • Rent receipts from all the tenants of my solely-owned business property with the rental agreement
  • Tax return since 2021
  • National Identity Documents

However, I received a refusal letter from IRCC last night including the following reasons:

I am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/section-179.html). I am refusing your application because you have not established that you will leave Canada, based on the following factors: Your assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for yourself (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application. 

I have 3 options in hand now: 1. Re-apply (Processing Time: 80+ days) 2. Reconsideration (as quickly as 5 business days) 3. Judicial Review (the most expensive and time consuming option)
I decided to submit a reconsideration letter. However, I am not sure how much of a difference it would make. I would appreciate any support on how to prepare an ideal reconsideration letter. Also, I would like to know if this reconsideration request actually makes any difference.
Thank you!

I am an international student graduating from a university in Toronto. In February, I submitted a visitor visa application for my parents to attend my graduation ceremony in June 2024. I included all necessary supporting documents to demonstrate their financial solvency, such as recent bank statements showing ample funds (more than CAD $33,000) for the trip, and a property and fixed asset valuation report from a Chartered Accountant. Additionally, my parents have a strong international travel history including recent visits to the UK, the US and many other countries. I clearly stated in the invitation letter and the purpose of the travel document that their visit was to attend my graduation and that they would return home by the end of June 2024 due to business and property responsibilities.
These were the supporting documents for the application:

• I provided 3 bank statements that accumulate funds equivalent to $33,000 CAD and a fixed asset valuation report of my father’s property from a Chartered Accountant, reflecting its current fair market value of more than 5 Million CAD
  
• ⁠The purpose of travel is to attend my graduation mentioned in the invitation letter and the purpose of the travel document with the proof of solid family ties back home that shows they must come back by the end of June. Both my parents have a good international history with a record of recent visits to the UK, the USA and other countries.
  
• ⁠Documents proving their family ties to Home country are:
  
  • Asset valuation report that reflects property ownership
  • Recent bank statements that accumulates funds of $33,000 CAD
  • The business licence for my enterprise in Home Country
  • Rent receipts from all the tenants of my solely-owned business property with the rental agreement
  • Tax return since 2021
  • National Identity Documents

However, I received a refusal letter from IRCC last night including the following reasons:

I am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/section-179.html). I am refusing your application because you have not established that you will leave Canada, based on the following factors: Your assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for yourself (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application. 

I have 3 options in hand now: 1. Re-apply (Processing Time: 80+ days) 2. Reconsideration (as quickly as 5 business days) 3. Judicial Review (the most expensive and time consuming option)
I decided to submit a reconsideration letter. However, I am not sure how much of a difference it would make. I would appreciate any support on how to prepare an ideal reconsideration letter. Also, I would like to know if this reconsideration request actually makes any difference.
Thank you!