Housing/Council Tax Benefit

Wee_Willy_Harris

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I think he read it as she would move OUT of the family home (alone) - I had to read it a few times, before I realised that's what he must have done! The rest he just added on for effect. She never even suggested at any point that she would pretend to be apart.

I guess some people are just too quick to think the worst of others.

Is it worth waiting for such a morally upright person with such strong personal values to do the decent thing and appoligies???

Deepmistrust

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Is it worth waiting for such a morally upright person with such strong personal values to do the decent thing and appoligies???

Lol, no.

No doubt they'll justify it to themselves somehow. Like "well she shouldn't have said she'll move out...because someone else on these boards once said they were going to move out...and then went on to say they were doing it in order "to make a single claim" so it's not my fault it's so endemic that I automatically made the false assumption that she was going to do the same, and chose not to clarify this with her, but to attack her for it anyway".

Kind of thing lol;)

Wee_Willy_Harris

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Lol, no.

No doubt they'll justify it to themselves somehow. Like "well she shouldn't have said she'll move out...because someone else on these boards once said they were going to move out...and then went on to say they were doing it in order "to make a single claim" so it's not my fault it's so endemic that I automatically made the false assumption that she was going to do the same, and chose not to clarify this with her, but to attack her for it anyway".

Kind of thing lol;)

Sounds about right. As does (having read some of her other posts) the fact that her own daughter is no stranger to the teat of taxpayer kindness. I'm sure I read somewhere, something about glass houses and stones being a bad combination? It'll come to me, I'm sure.

Deepmistrust

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Sounds about right. As does (having read some of her other posts) the fact that her own daughter is no stranger to the teat of taxpayer kindness. I'm sure I read somewhere, something about glass houses and stones being a bad combination? It'll come to me, I'm sure.

There is an awful lot of double standards and hypocrisy floating around these boards. Many of the self-righteous finger wagging brigade are the worst for it. A simple stratch beneath their own surface of raging upstanding morality usually uncovers plenty.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Deepmistrust wrote: »

There is an awful lot of double standards and hypocrisy floating around these boards. Many of the self-righteous finger wagging brigade are the worst for it. A simple stratch beneath their own surface of raging upstanding morality usually uncovers plenty.

Yes. I've notice the "Don't take from the pot" mentality. Not because it may be wrong, but because there will be less left for them to trouser!

clb776

thank you for your support! To be honest i would have probably came up with a similar response a couple of years ago! I am now so petrified about all this i have no idea what to do. At the moment it will be ok, it'll have to be! what if entitled to is right and if i haven't got a job by th time my jsa finishes that we will still get the same as we do now?! Does anyone know for sure? And we got sent a form for a discretionary housing payment, is that for when it finishes because they might pay more then it just depends on how they feel on the day?

Wee_Willy_Harris

clb776 wrote: »

thank you for your support! To be honest i would have probably came up with a similar response a couple of years ago! I am now so petrified about all this i have no idea what to do. At the moment it will be ok, it'll have to be! what if entitled to is right and if i haven't got a job by th time my jsa finishes that we will still get the same as we do now?! Does anyone know for sure? And we got sent a form for a discretionary housing payment, is that for when it finishes because they might pay more then it just depends on how they feel on the day?

DHP (Discretionary Housing Payment) is a fund all local authorities have available to assist with short term shortfalls in rent. ie 24 year old pregnant girl rents a 2 bed house for her and baby, only entitled to shared room rate till baby is actually born, rent is double this amount. DHP could make up the difference until baby is born. In your case, your circs have suddenly changed and you have quite a shortfall between rent charged and LHA payable. They MAY make a DHP award to cover some/all of this shortfall. HOWEVER, DHP is short term, time limited. It's supposed to enable you to cover the shortfall for enough time for your circs to change. In your case, that means enough time to find more affordable accommodation. The usual maximum is 6 months, but there are no hard and fast rules so it may be for longer.

sunnyone

dktreesea wrote: »

I know you are entitled to your opinion, but that's such an unreasonable attitude. "Minimum wage" ought to mean enough to be able to support a wife and baby, without resorting to child care, AND be able to pay the council tax and rent. Rent affordability used to mean no more than 25% of your after tax income.

Why is it the OP's fault if government policy means, rather than forcing employers to pay a decent days pay for a decent day's work, that other taxpayers have to top up the short fall? Sure, that's other indivuidual tax payers. The corporations tax collected each year isn't even enough to cover the country's yearly interest bill, let alone any repayment of the principal.

As for debt, are you really suggesting it it okay for the middle class, on their £60K family income a year, to go into debt, but not the working class? Or that we should all look into our crystal balls and see that we could be losing our jobs sometime in the future, so shouldn't go into debt now? Yes, it's easy to be judgemental, but how about you try to get by on very little money, week in week out, and see if you don't get into debt now and then.

people on good wages as the OP was has no reason to be in debt, we have always saved for the rainy days and thats a rare thing today, no one knows whats round the corner and your life can change in a flash.

Everyone today wants everything NOW, it often means that things arnt appreciated because they are instant unlike when you save for something, have a look at the bancrupcy board, I did and I was shocked!

We have lived on very little at times and that makes you more likely to save incase it ever happens again or at least it has for us, we went without to pay off the houses so that we are secure, how many today just get bigger and bigger motgages without moving only to discover that the morgage benefit that they were expecting didnt cover all the remorgages?

I apologise OP if I made a mistake in the reading of your OP and the above isnt directly about you but its my views based on life and experiances.

sunnyone

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Sounds about right. As does (having read some of her other posts) the fact that her own daughter is no stranger to the teat of taxpayer kindness. I'm sure I read somewhere, something about glass houses and stones being a bad combination? It'll come to me, I'm sure.

My daughters an adult that was abandoned by her partner with a newborn baby, she can come home at anytime (we have redecorated her room and turn the spare room into a nursery for my grandson) but she has chosen to stay in the home she shared with her ex and she claims what shes entitled to now, shes going to college to improve her education so she can earn enough to keep her and her son which is more than many others are doing if you read thesse boards.

Im not hypocrite, so throw stones at my detached stone built 200 year old house as much as you want, my daughter isnt me but she was brought up to understand that she has to work if she wants anything, thats why shes at college.

Wee_Willy_Harris

She works at a college? What is she, the caretaker?