Housing Benefit

Wiggly_Worm

"Rang HB twice, supervisor has received our appeal but they have a backlog (as usual..) still no word on DHP either. they've not even asked for a budget sheet yet.. I will fill one in and send it in anyway."

Hmm, the form I was given for DHP is just a single sheet with a box to say why you are applying on one side and a budget sheet on the other. Check you've been given the right stuff. You've already phoned to check 'progress' (ha ha) of a claim, do so for DHP too.

As for debt repayments, when I spoke to CAB a while back about ours they said I am allowed to offer as little as £1 a month if I'm really struggling. Apparently you have 'priority debts' - ones you can go to jail for not paying, like taxes - then ones that can hurt if services are withdrawn - rent and utilities - and all the others will just have to whistle. If you don't have the money, you can't pay. They know that, they just like to lean on people. CAB (Debtline actually, which is a part of CAB) sent me a letter to forward to any bolshy creditors, signed from them, which exlained this. This may be worth a try - creditors will bully you, but will back off when officials step in on your behalf

Keep at em.

Oh, and yes, I am constantly amazed by the HB argument - your rent is too high, so we're going to pay you even less!!! go figure

Wiggly_Worm

[ps] when is the baby due? Have you applied for a Sure Start grant? You can claim from 31 weeks I think, but ask your midwife. I got £300 each for my two

reason_2

Wiggly,

Due in March.. Not yet applied. It's £500 up here! thats what we got for our other child. Already got most of the essentials from the first one, so the money will come in very handy.

Chrysalis

As far as I know when evaluating private rent they only take into account rental prices for houses in the surrounding area and I have been told from the horse mouth so to speak that they dont include council property since that is obviously set at different rates to private property. It could be there is some private properties available in your area that are signficantly cheaper or they are currently playing out lower rates to other claimants in your area for private tenancies, or possibly someone has made a mistake in your evaluation. I find it very hard to believe that they use council and housing association rent prices when evaluating that would be very unreasonable.

deary65

To say the very least I have found reading this thread most disturbing, to think we live in a welfare state born of the need to alieavate pain suffering and hardship. A home is central to a person’s life, indeed the security of which contributes to our civilisation and makes us human.
Regrettably there are those among us who will, if not held accountable by the courts, shape and gloss the law for their own particular purpose but, such fortunately for us all is not the law.
A barrister would never find these matters on their desk for consideration to be expressed by way of a legal opinion, for one very simple reason, ingrained in the minds of all students of law is that, we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Therefore, our constitutional democracy in not capable of creating a law for one group of people who can afford a market rent and yet another for those less fortunate who seek assistant with the same.
However, if the law were to take position on these matters it would hold both parties to any decision reached. That is how I know no such legislation exists.
I hope you all get your difficulties resolved and take this opportunity to wish you all on the board a very happy festive season.

deary65

hi real1314,
I have just read your post,was heavly under the influence last night and just begining to wakeup.

"And just to note, the Rent Officer doesn't set the rent. Market forces do that. The Rent Officer sets the amount of rent that can be paid as HB.

As for the comments about whether this is legal or not (dreary65), I'm no expert on Parliamentary protocol, but I thought that Statutory Instruments were part of the law, and that's what the decision is done under.


Subject to income and circumstances a person is entitled to payment of 100 percent of their rent.
I can assure you that the courts hold a contract between persons to be almost sacrosanct they will not tolerate any interference whatsoever with it, save only with the consent of the parties thereto or by way of a statutory act of parliament.
These matters affect our constitutional rights and are of the upmost importance that is why i took an interest in the thread. A Statutory instrument assists in the better administration of a government department and has the force of law only, such a instrument is not capable of violating a constitutional right.
There are no experts in the law, no mind is capacious enough.
My kindest regards

real1314

The decison of the rent officer doesn't alter the contract between tenant and landlord. It just sets the amount that HB will pay.

Rent = £100
Max HB = £80

Tenant has to pay £20 to fulfil contract.

deary65

Whilst I do not expect people to understand the laws they live under I do expect government department to respect them.
You clearly have little understand of the law of contract. Let me try and explain in a simple way as this might be of interest to others.
The landlord lets and the tenant takes possession for a consideration know as a rent service i.e a money payment .What has taken please in law is an exchange of promises, the landlord promises to gives exclusive possession in return the tenant promises to pay the rent. The parties to the contract have exercised what is known as freedom to contract and they are legally bound by it and the law will hold them to it.
Now the tenant exercises their legal right to claim housing benefit whilst in possession of a legally binding agreement. The law says they are entitled to a 100 percent of their rent payed by housing benefit.
If the rent officer were lawfully authorized to set a rent, the law would hold both the tenant and the landlord to any decision reached.
You understanding in this area of the law my improve if you take the time to read the 1977 Rent Act.
Kind regards.

real1314

hmm, your ability to patronise is exemplary.

how does a contract entered by one party commit a third, currently uninvolved party?

or, if I sign up for a rent of £2,500,000.00 per week for a 1 bed flat in Burnley, and then claim JSA(ib)/IS, should I get full HB on this? I've entered a contract, and you say I should get 100% of my HB.
Tell you what, I'll resign my job and take up a rental on these terms if you'll show me that you're right / or agree to cover the contract (only 6 months) if you're wrong.


I think you need to look at things again.

are you a legal expert by the way?
and which law says they are entitled to 100% of their rent payed by HB?
I didn't suggest that the rent officer was "lawfully authorized to set a rent", in fact I explicitly stated that they were not able to do this.

You seem to "think" you've got the key to a MASSIVE flaw in legislation. I think it's unlikely.

rosysparkle

Where does the law state that a claimant is entitled to 100% of the rent, paid by HB?