Housing Benefit capped at £400 a week!

SingleSue

silvercar wrote: »

According to the rules, two children of the opposite sex shouldn't share a room once the eldest reaches 11; I accept that. What I find difficult to understand is why, once a child reaches 16 they need a room of their own What is wrong with a 16 year old boy sharing a room with his 14 year old brother?

A family of 5: mum, dad, 16 year old, 14 year old boy and 12 year old girl would be entitled to a 4 bed house. Anyone paying their own rent from earned income would probably not be able to move from a 3 bed to a 4 bed, just because their eldest hits 16.

I agree, my 16 year old son shares with my 13 year old son..youngest has a room of his own for his medical equipment.

They all cope fine with it.

LHA for a 4 bed here currently is £731.84 per four weeks.

debrag

A family we just did a houseswap with don't work and have 6 kids. OH's sister doesn't work - just drinks & smokes waiting for her pension age to come (next year I think) her son doesn't work either just drinks & smokes gets DLA andESA but can easily work.

elisebutt65

silvercar wrote: »

According to the rules, two children of the opposite sex shouldn't share a room once the eldest reaches 11; I accept that. What I find difficult to understand is why, once a child reaches 16 they need a room of their own What is wrong with a 16 year old boy sharing a room with his 14 year old

This isn't law btw - it's just advised that kids 'shouldn't' share rooms. I shared with my brother and my sister until I was about 14, when my dad eventually built an extension.

silvercar

elisebutt65 wrote: »

This isn't law btw - it's just advised that kids 'shouldn't' share rooms. I shared with my brother and my sister until I was about 14, when my dad eventually built an extension.

Its not the law, its the rules tht govern LHA calculations, so the taxpayers will pay your rent on a bigger house according to their criteria.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You said....

[/I]

..... so LHA claimants will be IN the bottom 50%, not BETTER than it.

If they get the average they will be better off then 40 to 50% of non claimants (assuming 10% claimants)

Wee_Willy_Harris

silvercar wrote: »

Its not the law, its the rules tht govern LHA calculations, so the taxpayers will pay your rent on a bigger house according to their criteria.

Or a nicer, smaller house.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

If they get the average they will be better off then 40 to 50% of non claimants (assuming 10% claimants)

Your point being?

lvader

hellokitty08 wrote: »

I have already seen people moaning about this, but can anyone give me an exmaple of where you cant find a 4 bed house to rent for under £1,600 a month?

I just want to know really. I am not saying you can, I just wanted to know where.

How about you get a 3 bedroom house and get the kids to share. I don't get any benefits at all and my kids have to share a room. :mad:

Wee_Willy_Harris

lvader wrote: »

How about you get a 3 bedroom house and get the kids to share. I don't get any benefits at all and my kids have to share a room. :mad:

She could get a nicer 3 bed then, as she will still get the 4 bed rate.

Old_Git

when I was a growing up my parents had 5 children in a 3 bedroom house .Four boys in one room .No one from the bedroom patrol council said your not allowed to do that .Guess what ,its a good way of learning to share .
whats wrong with getting a sofa bed and using the living room as a fourth bedroom .
Why do they all expect a room off there own ,and all paid by LHA .Or is it well they cant share because they wouldnt have room for there games ,laptop,playstation ,mobile phone ,television ,DVD ect.