A jobless Bradford man today told how a stint of jury service had left his benefit payments in disarray.

David Pedder said the tangle of red tape surrounding Court duties had left him more than £30 out of pocket and with a string of unwarranted bills on his doorstep.

The former warehouseman said the complications began when he was summoned to serve on a jury between January 2 and 12.

Mr Pedder, 41, of Tenbury Fold, Holme Wood, said: "I was told that, because I couldn't take up work in that period, I was not eligible for Jobseekers' Allowance.

"They said that I would have to claim Income Support and then transfer back afterwards."

When he did receive his money, Mr Pedder found it was for £82 rather than his usual fortnightly payment of £104.

Mr Pedder, who was made redundant from Lampways in Knowles Lane two years ago, said: "I have also started getting bills for my rent at £45 a week and Council Tax demands as well. I should not be receiving them and I have no money to pay."

And as he had to cover his own transport costs to Bradford and Dewsbury Crown Courts 'up front', Mr Pedder said he was left further out of pocket.

"At the moment I have £7 to live on for more than a week.

"Although they have sent me cheques to cover the bus fares and lunches, I don't have a bank account so I will have to pay £4 in charges to cash them."

He added: "This system has left me in financial trouble when all I have been doing is carrying out a duty. This must be happening to people all the time and it just isn't right - it isn't so much the money as the principle.

"All this pointless bureaucracy does make people like me suffer."

A spokesman for the Benefits Agency said: "If a jobseeker agrees to undertake jury service they are not eligible for Job Seekers Allowance for the duration of the service as they are not available for work. However, they are entitled to Income Support."

He added: "In relation to Council Tax and rent, changing benefit from Job Seekers Allowance to Income Support should not affect the jobseeker's previous entitlements. In this case there appears to have been a mistake and we are trying to put it right."