Housing for pregnant 17 year old

moneysavinmonkey

beingjdc wrote: »

Oh I know, but it's moneysavingexpert here, not moralitysavingexpert. We have an entire forum for paying the least tax possible - I don't see claiming the most benefit possible as much different, as long as in each case it's within the law.

except where claiming the most benefit possible damages your long-term earning prospects...short term pain, long term gain!

moneysavinmonkey

bubblesmoney wrote: »

if the soon to be son in law fails to get a job centre or something that suits his tastes, then he can still try to be a pop star with this 30£million splash by govt for wanna be pop stars !!! now surely he wouldnt give up on a chance to be a pop star:j

I thought at first this had to be a daily mash 'spoof' type article - double-checked it was definitely from the telegraph website!! unbelievable!!

beingjdc

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

I thought at first this had to be a daily mash 'spoof' type article - double-checked it was definitely from the telegraph website!! unbelievable!!

It's not new. There was a huge fuss when the 'new deal' came out to get people into jobs, made by Equity etc, complaining that it meant 'resting' actors etc wouldn't be able to get to auditions and so on, so a special thing was made for them.

zippygeorgeandben

Can i add my feelings please?

I'm exhausted just reading many of the replies to the OP and I'll be honest, i have skipped pages 6-8 as I was getting far too bogged down in it all!

First of all, a big congratulations to the OP on becoming a grandmother. Sadly I lost my mum last year and she was not fortunate enough to ever become a grandmother, something I know she would have loved so whilst all this is happening, take a moment to think to yourself that not everyone is lucky enough to become a grandmother. I hope your daughter's baby is healthy and there are no complications.

It's hard to comment on this predicament without offending people as it is clearly an emotional subject which many people have strongs views about.

Personally, I don't see why the council should be obliged to house any couple who have a child, whether planned or not. We all know that contreception isn't 100% safe. I'm glad in a way that people who have posted have dispelled the urban myth regarding pregnancy = free house, as that's what I've always believed to be the case. I cannot believe that the father has been looking for work for 4 months, perhaps if they took the benefits away then he might be geared into actually stop watching 'Loose Women' and start working!

Although it is legal to have sex at the age of 16, I do think that it is still to young and should be raised to 18 and as for no jobs in a multicultural area, I live in the most multicultural area in the country, Newham, It's over populated, a !!!! hole (pardon my french) but I do see signs for waitresses/bar jobs etc. Don't be using the fact he has a stutter as an excuse.

Finally, I'd like to thank the OP for being so polite and curteous when responding to posts as they musn't agree with everything people have posted. As one poster put it perfectly, it's moneysavingexpert, not moralitysavingexpert.

Good luck and I hope all goes well with your daughters pregnancy. I hope she realises how lucky she is to have a mother like you and if she doesn't, perhaps you could tell her we aren't all so fortunate to still have our mum's with us. xx

Ben
xx

MrMonkey

I was in a similar position literally five years ago. I was living abroad, my girlfriend got pregnant (these days I choose Durex over Mates) and we chose to move to the UK, as my prospects would be better here and it is a better environment to have a child in.

It was tough, even with support from family. We were fortunate in that we could stay with my parents for the first 10 months. I was also lucky in that I managed to find a job that allowed for some savings pot to be built up. But the idea of renting was not agreeable when the 600pcm minimum for the area (cost of a car would have crippled us, and not keen to move jobs) would have left us in a flat in a drug-den area, with no outside lighting and not a safe environment for my wife and son.

My third piece of luck enabled us to get a housing association place, which is in a brilliant area, and a full 5-minutes walk from my current job. Things have worked out very well for us, but equally they could have turned out much worse. My wife has had to put up with a lot, moving to a different country, living with her in-laws, and most severely being married to me. But our marriage is strong, and we are happy.

My advice would for the boyfriend be to get working asap. Exerience is always useful and when his dream job does appear his application will be better due to him having been in work. Life will be very difficult for a while, but that doesn't mean it wont have its pleasures.

Max_Headroom_3

dedward67 wrote: »

...and give her support she needs. She's insistent she's getting married the end of October and also insistent she wants to setup home with him. We have offered to convert our dining room for her and baby, but neither of us or our 2 children want him living with us too, consequently the only way of her standing a chance of getting any other accomodation was for me to write a letter giving her notice of the 30th Sept.. .

Forgive me being all "Victor Meldrew - youth of today etc", but it does rather seem that daughter INSISTS on having baby, INSISTS on setting up home with loser boyfriend, INSISTS on getting married.

Seems they want it all and want it provided for them.

It does seem that you're bending over backwards trying to accomodate (literally!) their needs whilst they sit around being "insistent". There seems a lot of this in todays society.

Maybe what you really need is a change of tack. Maybe Missy Daughter needs to be told she and boyfriend can insist on all of these things, and since they're adults they can go out there and acheive them.

From all I've read I've no doubt you are a wonderful and loving parent, and all credit to you for that, but maybe all you are really doing here is continuing to make a rod for your own back.

JimmyTheWig

dedward67 wrote: »

Unfortunately there's an urban myth that the council is always happy to hand house keys to pregnant women

Phirefly wrote: »

Perhaps if more teenagers were aware of this reality they may think twice? Seems all they hear about is so-and-so who's had a kid and got a free house from the council.

I blame the media for these lies. They're creating the very situation that they're campaigning against.

LillyJ wrote: »

I just wondered one thing, with them getting married, where is the money for that coming from?

I just wanted to add that if they get married after the baby is born the baby's status on their birth certificate is changed. Our first was born before we got married (concieved when engaged) and it hasn't affected anything. We didn't have the money to bring the wedding forward when my (then) fiancee fell pregnant.


I'd say the ideal situation would be...
1. Daughter and BF to both get jobs (even if it means a reduction in income for now).
2. Daughter gives up work at the appropriate time (36 weeks is about normal, isn't it?).
3. Daughter and BF move in to dining room. (*)
4. Baby born.
5. The three of them carry on living in dining room.
6. They decide (once daughter has recovered from giving birth) which parent would be best in paid employment and which would be best a full-time parent. [If daughter goes back to work and it's local then boyfriend could bring baby to her for feeding in her breaks, etc.]
7. They claim child benefit and tax credits now baby is here and can start to build up some savings.
8. Hopefully promotion / better paid job will come up for the one who is working, now they have some experience, with the extra money helping their savings pot.
9. They move out into one bed / two bed property, using their savings as deposit and rent in advance and the money they were putting into savings each month as rent. Claim housing benefit to top up the rent if appropriate.
10. You all live happily ever after.

(*) I understand that point 3 may be a problem as you have said you don't want him living there.
Would you be willing to make this concession if he, for example, showed some commitment and got a job?


And finally...

Phirefly wrote: »

Well either way at least she's got her Dad helping her find a solution.

I thought this was such a lovely comment. The one thing that shows more than anything in this thread is how committed you are to your children. Good for you.

bubblesmoney

beingjdc wrote: »

It's not new. There was a huge fuss when the 'new deal' came out to get people into jobs, made by Equity etc, complaining that it meant 'resting' actors etc wouldn't be able to get to auditions and so on, so a special thing was made for them.

aah the new deal meant to save the govt money by getting people into jobs but in actual fact ended up losing the tax payer more money as per the NAO report on the new deal "Helping people from workless households into work" 19 July 2007

some key facts from the same report

• What ar e workless households and who lives in them?
  A workless household is a household that includes at least one
  person of working-age (men aged 16-64 and women aged
  16-59), where no one in the household aged 16 or over is
  in employment.
• There are almost three million workless households in the
  United Kingdom, which represent 15.8 per cent of all workingage
  households (spring 2006).
• Over 4.21 million people of working-age and 1.74 million
  children (15.3 per cent of all children in working-age
  households) live in workless households in the United Kingdom
  (spring 2006).
• Over 50 per cent of the poor of working-age live in households
  where nobody works (2004).
• 80 per cent of workless households are economically inactive
  – they have no working-age members who are actively seeking
  work (spring 2006).
• Workless households comprise: one person households without
  children (33 per cent), lone parents (24 per cent), couples with
  children (9 per cent) and other households with and without
  children (1 and 33 per cent respectively) (spring 2006).
• Some ethnic groups are more likely to live in a workless
  household than others. The proportion of all working-age
  people living in workless households is highest for the Pakistani
  and Bangladeshi ethnic groups, at 22.3 per cent, and lowest
  for the Indian ethnic group, at 6.8 per cent (spring 2006). (for detailed statistics into what groups of immigrants are 'contributing' what and claiming what see the latest IPPR report. cant be bothered looking for the link but i have the article somewhere on my computer. some startling facts that the public need to see in that report. some stereo types are indeed true for some of these groups and wrong on other groups.)
• Over 4.5 million people claim working-age benefits, totalling over
  £15.9 billion a year.
  The total cost of workless households in benefits is difficult to
  calculate with precision, as the benefits data does not record the
  household status of claimants; however, we estimate the cost to be
  £12.7 billion a year, including £3.4 billion on benefits for lone
  parents. This figure does not include the cost of Housing Benefit or
  Council Tax Benefit.
• from OECD data - Internationally the United Kingdom has one of the
  highest rates of people living in workless households. - almost 3 times that of canada and usa

PasturesNew

beingjdc wrote: »

What if he genuinely is better off on benefits? Suppose he got a 40 hour a week job for £6 an hour and so earnt £198 a week net, £20 a week transport to get to the job leaves £178.

Now imagine he's getting £60 a week unemployment benefit, £80 a week rent paid by housing benefit, and £10 a week council tax. That's £150. So he'd be working for an extra 70p an hour.

In that scenario, staying on benefits and training for a better job in the long-term looks more tempting, doesn't it?

He's 21. Minimum wage is £4.60/hour. Even easier to not be able to afford to live.

moneysavinmonkey

Some ethnic groups are more likely to live in a workless
household than others. The proportion of all working-age
people living in workless households is highest for the Pakistani
and Bangladeshi ethnic groups, at 22.3 per cent, and lowest
for the Indian ethnic group, at 6.8 per cent (spring 2006). (for detailed statistics into what groups of immigrants are 'contributing' what and claiming what see the latest IPPR report. cant be bothered looking for the link but i have the article somewhere on my computer.

It is interesting that you can be bothered to remember all these exact figures + facts and type them up in a topic to which they are only tenuously related but you can't be bothered to provide us with the link to verify your claims.