Housing Benefit capped at £400 a week!

Bullfighter

ILW wrote: »

Why is that so difficult to understand. Seems obvious to me.

Sorry, your post isn't clear are you agreeing with me or not?

(Honest question)

ILW

Bullfighter wrote: »

Sorry, your post isn't clear are you agreeing with me or not?

(Honest question)

Yes, I am agreeing with you, cannot see why others do not seem to get it.

Wee_Willy_Harris

When_is_the_reset? wrote: »

It seems there is a contender for the King of the substance-free one-liners.

Everyone needs a hobby.

Which doesn't answer the question.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Because they are not paying for it, but relying on others to. Simple as that.

So, state schools, NHS hospitals, public transport etc etc etc should all be regarded in the same way?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So, state schools, NHS hospitals, public transport etc etc etc should all be regarded in the same way?

I do not think that claimants should be guaranteed a service that is better than 50% of non claimants.

puddy

When_is_the_reset? wrote: »

My personal experience shows that the people two doors down do not need the level of accomodation they currently have.

There are plently of cheaper houses around that would suit but the LHA seems to be happy to waste my money.

so how many bedrooms does the property have and how many of them in the family are there?

if you have concerns about whether they are in an appropriately sized property and claiming fraudulently, then you should report it

you also dont know whether they are making up their rent shortfall (if they are overaccommodated) by other means

we base need on set criteria about what is expected to provide healthy, happy children, yes we can all remember situations from our own childhoods where we shared rooms and property was not appropriate, but how many of us thought that they would change that when it came ot having our own kids, theres a reason we dont live like we used to in the 50s anymore

puddy

you also say there are plenty of cheaper houses around, but how many of those would be willing to take the hb claimants, people on benefits have to take what they can, so many landlords dont take dss and until the government put some legislation in for private rentals (to compensate for the right to buy which has decimated social housing), tenants will have to take what they can get, even if it is more expensive than somewhere else

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

I do not think that claimants should be guaranteed a service that is better than 50% of non claimants.

It's not, is it?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It's not, is it?

It is if LHA is set at the everage rent for an area.

puddy

Bullfighter wrote: »

In one sentence, defend regional adjusted maximums.

HINT: Why should someone on housing benefit have any say at all as to where in the country they get free accommodation?

there are regional maxims anway LHA is the broad market rental for the area, but this budget says that from now on, the LHA rates will not be the average, they will be on the 30th percentile of the average, which I think means that they will be 70% of the average but im not sure about these terms