Werner R. writes us in this regard in an email to us and relates to one of our research on Internal operating procedures a consortium which we provide, thanks to Google cache in our case in Ludwigshafen am Rhein konnten.Darauf way he takes a stand on this subject and write us his experiences by himself, unfortunately learn the hard way musste.Und all this despite his entrepreneurial spirit that has kept running with the German economy.
He writes: I'm assuming they exist and indeed beyond BA.
In June 2006 we received a request from the homeowners as ARGE to reduce our KdU. Our home had 126 sqm . My question to the manager of the consortium, as this is possible, has the answers to me so.
you had money from all over-the top!
Müntefering would not comment on he has referred me to Stewens (Bavarian Social Minister). This left me after more than a year, say it is not (more) responsible. Responsibility lies with us now for the Government of Upper Palatinate. Has me on the request addressed to the BMAS question (whether the information provided by the consortium that the homeowners have to freeze to death by the arbitrary reduction of the actual heating costs because of the risk to its transfer
driven out of their homes should pertinence) so answered. The consortium would rightly not accept the repayment of a home!
In November 2006, BSG has defined the "reasonable limits" of home ownership
for rent. Lo and behold, now we suddenly had "unprotected residential property" because the SPA for the social assistance (still) current Schutzgröß en the ALG II hat.Nun set a few personal questions that would be if they are answered with honesty demanded by our Chancellor, no doubt allow only one logical conclusion:
They were (and are they still do) these instructions service of the BMAS, which conflict with the official Administration of BA.
In June 2006, there were not the law of the BSG from Nov 07, 2006th
well but there was one of the BA Instructions , after a self-occupied house property to 130 square principle (no questions asked) is considered as a protected residential property.
Someone (who) must, therefore, have said the consortiums (we are not a single case ) to request that we meet the existing working procedure to find us a "reasonable" accommodation. This Someone had to know already that the SPA this one from the previously practiced law will make the LSGe a different law-determination. At a minimum, the consortium has already received 2 days after the establishment of the SPA on it.
What was even necessary to move to the SPA to this decision?
Well, first of all was necessary that the Federal Government shall not by their ability § § 14 and 27 SGB II made use, not corrected so even the uncertainty of the adequacy added. (It also still has a certain group of voters by a clause deter this attributable to the elections the political leaders, so is left to the "independent" legal violence).
was further necessary that the ARGEN often had failed against the Administration of BA, not just the power department, but also the opposition point. The
but had not yet let REAS as an attainable goal savings, because the SGE and LSGe have not played since. All claims for LSG level were already in view of the existing service order of the BA in favor of home ownership in owner entschieden.Da have not approved the rule LSGe in those decisions, the audit, so they had to be bypassed. It had to get a SG that is ruling in an appeal on the SPA.
What could be more appropriate as well as a process in which the applicant
still prevails?
So it had to be a property deal, which had to prove in each case after the decision BSG as a protected property. This gives you the same can still make
public relations: The BSG strengthens the rights of homeowners, it was too lesen.Nun then comes but also the fact that the SPA ü About made that specific decision rules has also, in this litigation have not had the slightest relevance. The SPA had to decide whether the suit pending property was protected from 80 square meters: no more, no less.
Now you can ask the question, why not follow the instructions
consortiums and their service and how the well-established case law on LSG level were abolished by the BSG
ist.Hätte the performance department, the service followed the instructions of the BA, h & # 228; tte the SPA Rating können.Hätte not be reached, the Opposition office followed the instructions of the consortium that serves BA would be a decision by the SPA ausgeschlossen.Hätte also the SG does not appeal on the BSG, that is, to circumvent the gefestigteigten LSG-law, allowed the SPA would also not come because of the unauthorized revision of a decision can.
If the SPA rule on the content of the action out (why did that other practices contrary to his well-? , it would now be no legal provision that The ALG II expenditures in the framework set by the Federal Government (with) determined. determined, because yes is the only amendment in SG-book II, the tightening of sanctions, not only would have been enough politically to achieve the necessary cost savings held. New laws that would be suitable, the SBU is to relieve the "revision of the Hartz IV laws" not even mentioned.
But that in addition to official and unofficial administrative instructions that prevent this are where there were also from further actions of the disorder.
I will mention just three:
The KDU be anywhere below the extent expected for that type of accommodation that this Anngemessenheitsgrenzen could meet publicly, is now a problem for the needy.
be still on the SG-laws ARGE trained specialists false information as far as communities of need (over 25 year old unemployed with a vocational qualification) is concerned, this would not be entitled ALG II is already (or better still) the default information.
seeking financial aid is complete as one of the household income, as computed fully allotted. It would require probably not the special knowledge of a trained clerk, to know that half of the state aid for education will be granted as loans and loans have no income.
It is hardly conceivable that the so acting against law and order officials to do so voluntarily, with no discernible motive. It is also inconceivable that the court after many decisions that are not even against decisions adopted by them, always do even more. And is not inconceivable that the state, not this abuse of the so congested social courts for parking.
He might well, but he does not really.
The State, or the responsible BMAS has a substantial interest in ensuring that so many wrong decisions (which strangely all are false only at the expense of those in need), the costs in the SG-II budget cut. Not only is the overloading of the SGE is accepted, it is even intentional. Who 2-3 years as of vulnerable people (mostly defenseless) so long as its right to waive fee must say, is inclined to do without complaint and claim. Namely the lack of money to these people already, and not in 2-3 years.
I hope thus to have contributed to what concerns the question of whether unofficial service instructions are for the ARGEN. The options listed below speaks at least as much that can hardly doubt about it.
Regards Werner R.
added more from us about the machinations of the so-called joint ventures, in the case of Ludwigshafen on listed here:
requiring labeling can be seen, the legal form to make Gmbh letterheads
the Rhein-Pfalz-Kreis Expel intentionally Hartz VI receiver?
Bad luck and margins Gfa Vorderpfalz Ludwigshafen mbh
The machinations of the GFA mbH Ludwigshafen
0 comments:
Post a Comment