Housing benefit going down, how will I manage?

Soubrette

stroodes wrote: »

so parent with custody gets paid twice.............. tax credits and money from ex

Although tax credits are based on household income so any step parent's income will be taken into account and the tax credits reduced accordingly.

Marisco

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You surely don't think that both parents should get the 2/3/4 bed LHA amount?

The thing is though, he already has a flat, Did the gov know and not care about people like this? Surely a better system would be to say that from xxxx only 1 bed rate will apply. I think it's not right to throw people out, if they already have a flat - I know it's not literally - but that is what it amounts to if they cannot afford the extra rent. It should only apply to new claimants.

It sounds like the op has a good system, that benefits the child e.g equal access to both parents. If you read the CSA board, some would kill for that!! I think the point I would make is, why should the father sleep on the sofa, yet the mother has a 2 bed place, and she only has the child the same amount of time as the father? I wouldn't have thought the numbers would be large, as the usual arrangements are, that the PWC's normally have the kids more than the NRP's.

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

The thing is though, he already has a flat, Did the gov know and not care about people like this? Surely a better system would be to say that from xxxx only 1 bed rate will apply. I think it's not right to throw people out, if they already have a flat - I know it's not literally - but that is what it amounts to if they cannot afford the extra rent. It should only apply to new claimants.

It sounds like the op has a good system, that benefits the child e.g equal access to both parents. If you read the CSA board, some would kill for that!! I think the point I would make is, why should the father sleep on the sofa, yet the mother has a 2 bed place, and she only has the child the same amount of time as the father? I wouldn't have thought the numbers would be large, as the usual arrangements are, that the PWC's normally have the kids more than the NRP's.

Unfortunately you would open the system for all sorts of abuse.

For a start, you could have 2 people each expecting to get a family home for the same children.

When the OP gets a full time job, he's unlikely to be able to have the child to stay so often but he'll be able to afford the rent.

ETA

Weren't the changes announced before this January anyway? (Could be wrong on this.)

lovetowinacar

peggy89 wrote: »

sueturnersmith.ur totally right, it wouldnt make sense. my childs mum left me for another man when she was 10 weeks old. she broke up the family but im the one who suffers financially, not her! NOT FAIR!. women can go round getting themselves pregnant, leave the father and reep all the benefits, while dads like me have to pay the mothers and get no help for our children.

I totally agree. My brothers wife had a couple of affairs and decided she didn't want my brother just the children, the home, the car, the furniture and his money. He gladly pays money for the children but when the children stay with him he pays for food, clothing and outings on top of the maintenance etc which means he lives in a large spare bedroom at a friends house (where he naturally pays full lodge to cover food, room, council tax and utilities etc) who allows my brothers children to stay over on put you ups in his room when he has them. He has no spare money although he has worked all his life and still does.
His ex wife on the other hand lives in the family home works a mere 16 hours ehen the children are at school and receives benefits to top up her income to almost the amount the family used to live on, (his child maintenance payments are totally ignored and a bonus for her) the mortgage is paid from the large working tax credit benefits currently and as such with only a few years to run she has claimed the property since he is no longer paying his half (using "her" money to pay the interest - WT credits actually) although he paid all of it for over 20 years. Some ex partners (both sexes) are very greedy and very selfish and think nothing of taking as much as they can and use children as an excuse.

Unfortuantely often the innocent partner gets a raw deal. He would love to have his children live with him but knows that fathers seldom get custody (and he works full time) whereas the unfaithful mother who works 16 hours a week holds the cards.

Bitter? Yes since this situation is replayed many many times around the country. The guilty laugh at the innocent - rant over

Hopefully what goes around comes around

Wee_Willy_Harris

Marisco wrote: »

The thing is though, he already has a flat, Did the gov know and not care about people like this? Surely a better system would be to say that from xxxx only 1 bed rate will apply. I think it's not right to throw people out, if they already have a flat - I know it's not literally - but that is what it amounts to if they cannot afford the extra rent. It should only apply to new claimants.

It sounds like the op has a good system, that benefits the child e.g equal access to both parents. If you read the CSA board, some would kill for that!! I think the point I would make is, why should the father sleep on the sofa, yet the mother has a 2 bed place, and she only has the child the same amount of time as the father? I wouldn't have thought the numbers would be large, as the usual arrangements are, that the PWC's normally have the kids more than the NRP's.

I don't think anyone is saying one parent should be better off than another in cases where access is 50/50. Rather that their net income from the state should remain unchanged. How they divy that up between them is entirely their own business.

Wee_Willy_Harris

lovetowinacar wrote: »

I totally agree. My brothers wife had a couple of affairs and decided she didn't want my brother just the children, the home, the car, the furniture and his money. He gladly pays money for the children but when the children stay with him he pays for food, clothing and outings on top of the maintenance etc which means he lives in a large spare bedroom at a friends house (where he naturally pays full lodge to cover food, room, council tax and utilities etc) who allows my brothers children to stay over on put you ups in his room when he has them. He has no spare money although he has worked all his life and still does.
His ex wife on the other hand lives in the family home works a mere 16 hours ehen the children are at school and receives benefits to top up her income to almost the amount the family used to live on, (his child maintenance payments are totally ignored and a bonus for her) the mortgage is paid from the large working tax credit benefits currently and as such with only a few years to run she has claimed the property since he is no longer paying his half (using "her" money to pay the interest - WT credits actually) although he paid all of it for over 20 years. Some ex partners (both sexes) are very greedy and very selfish and think nothing of taking as much as they can and use children as an excuse.

Unfortuantely often the innocent partner gets a raw deal. He would love to have his children live with him but knows that fathers seldom get custody (and he works full time) whereas the unfaithful mother who works 16 hours a week holds the cards.

Bitter? Yes since this situation is replayed many many times around the country. The guilty laugh at the innocent - rant over

Hopefully what goes around comes around

None of which explains why the state should step in with further financial aid. The terms of your brothers separation/divorce are a matter for them, not us.

lovetowinacar

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

A families personal financial arrangements isn't something the state should get involved with any more than is absolutely necessary.

The parents of this child are both adults who should be expected to act in their childs best interests.

There is nothing preventing 50% of the child related benefits going to both parents, if that what they decide to do with it. But that is a decision for them to make, not the state.

You are having a laugh aren't you? Do you really really believe some of these parents (mainly women) with the children deemed as living with them would split their benefits with their ex partners even if it is for the benefit of the children... Perhaps it is time for child maintenance to count towards benefit payments so it is not an extra. In my experience the parent with the children holds the cards, the money and makes the rules the parent who is forced out of his/her home pays, is usually worse off financially and basically has to go along with the card holder to see the children.

lovetowinacar

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

None of which explains why the state should step in with further financial aid. The terms of your brothers separation/divorce are a matter for them, not us.

Very true, I was merely agreeing with a poster and ranting about the unfairness of the system for many dads. I went off the topic.

HappyMJ

You may have a reasonable case for being able to claim a discretionary housing payment for you to remain in your current place rather than being forced to move into a room in a shared house and be forced to sleep together in the same bedroom. As a delivery driver are you employed or self employed? Are you claiming every expense you can possibly claim to minimize your income to the council so that you can get as much housing benefit as possible?

Wee_Willy_Harris

lovetowinacar wrote: »

You are having a laugh aren't you? Do you really really believe some of these parents (mainly women) with the children deemed as living with them would split their benefits with their ex partners even if it is for the benefit of the children... Perhaps it is time for child maintenance to count towards benefit payments so it is not an extra. In my experience the parent with the children holds the cards, the money and makes the rules the parent who is forced out of his/her home pays, is usually worse off financially and basically has to go along with the card holder to see the children.

Most parents are adults. If they choose not to behave in such a way, I don't see why you should deem that justification for the state to jump in and provide the financial top up the aggrieved party feels is due. Separation and divorce are personal matters, the details of which should be left in the hands of those directly involved.

The father (in this case) should already be seeing a substantial reduction is his maintenance liability due to the amount of care he is giving.