Housing benefit going down, how will I manage?

Ladyshopper

Just lost a long post, grrr.

Think people are missing the point - the op does NOT have his daugher 50% of the time, he has her for 50% of the school holidays. The holidays total 13 weeks, so he has her for 6.5 weeks out out 52 in a year. The rest of the time he has her for 2 nights a week.

Yes its admirable that he obviously loves having her. However, mother is obviously main carer having her for 45.5 weeks, so not sure why anyone thinks he should get some of her benefits or not pay maintenance?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Could you give us a link to the rule that says it's legitimate to "sign over the Child Benefit to you as this would entitle you to the 2bed rate? If needed, you could give her the money in cash so she isn't out of pocket?". Not surprisingly, the links you've given don't mention that particular scenario.

The child can only be counted on one LHA claim at any given time. So if the child counts towards HIS LHA claim, it won't count towards HERS. In practice, this may make no difference depending on the make-up of the families involved.

However, like you, I can't help but smelling the unmistakable aroma of "contrivance", which I thought was very much frowned upon by the benefit bods.

HappyMJ

Ladyshopper wrote: »

Just lost a long post, grrr.

Think people are missing the point - the op does NOT have his daugher 50% of the time, he has her for 50% of the school holidays. The holidays total 13 weeks, so he has her for 6.5 weeks out out 52 in a year. The rest of the time he has her for 2 nights a week.

Yes its admirable that he obviously loves having her. However, mother is obviously main carer having her for 45.5 weeks, so not sure why anyone thinks he should get some of her benefits or not pay maintenance?

It's what's best for the child. If he goes into a room in shared house he will have to share a bed with his daughter. Is that OK? As he's 26 and the child 7 that'll go on for another 9 years till he can get a 1 bed flat and they can have a lounge and a bedroom to sleep in. She'll be 16 then and whenever staying over in Dad's room will have to share his bed. Don't think daughter will want to share a bed with Dad much past 8.

Otherwise there will be a reduced father-daughter relationship where they only see each other in a daytime on the weekend if both are available.

Wee_Willy_Harris

HappyMJ wrote: »

It's what's best for the child. If he goes into a room in shared house he will have to share a bed with his daughter. Is that OK? As he's 26 and the child 7 that'll go on for another 9 years till he can get a 1 bed flat and they can have a lounge and a bedroom to sleep in. She'll be 16 then and whenever staying over in Dad's room will have to share his bed. Don't think daughter will want to share a bed with Dad much past 8.

Otherwise there will be a reduced father-daughter relationship where they only see each other in a daytime on the weekend if both are available.

I can only assume, if he's still living in shared accommodation in 9 years, that he has failed to secure full time employment. If that is the case, then he will have all the time in the world to spend with his darling daughter cementing their relationship.

If, of course, he has found full time employment at some point in the next 9 years, he will have the personal resource to secure the accommodation he so desires in order to cement their relationship.

Ladyshopper

HappyMJ wrote: »

It's what's best for the child. If he goes into a room in shared house he will have to share a bed with his daughter. Is that OK? As he's 26 and the child 7 that'll go on for another 9 years till he can get a 1 bed flat and they can have a lounge and a bedroom to sleep in. She'll be 16 then and whenever staying over in Dad's room will have to share his bed. Don't think daughter will want to share a bed with Dad much past 8.

Otherwise there will be a reduced father-daughter relationship where they only see each other in a daytime on the weekend if both are available.

But thats hardly the mother's fault is it? I agree its not a great situation for him to be in, but he isn't the main carer, and therefore isn't entitled to anything.

I do understand he is trying to be the best Dad he can be, but it seems he is either going to have to live with it, or try and find more work to earn more money to bump up his earnings.

Oldernotwiser

HappyMJ wrote: »

It's what's best for the child. If he goes into a room in shared house he will have to share a bed with his daughter. Is that OK? As he's 26 and the child 7 that'll go on for another 9 years till he can get a 1 bed flat and they can have a lounge and a bedroom to sleep in. She'll be 16 then and whenever staying over in Dad's room will have to share his bed. Don't think daughter will want to share a bed with Dad much past 8.

Otherwise there will be a reduced father-daughter relationship where they only see each other in a daytime on the weekend if both are available.

For goodness sake - why assume that the guy's going to still be claiming Housing Benefit in 9 years time!

Anyway, I often think that overnights with the NRP are more for the convenience of the PWC than for the child itself.

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely the assumption is that the NRP (of whichever gender) will be working and that the PWC needs extra money because, while the children are young, s/he may be at home or working part time?

Exactly. I think it's partly that and partly that the PWC will be the one buying school uniform, paying for school dinners, school trips, etc etc. Children cost quite a bit more than the food they eat/hot water they use on the days the NRP has them. I think the current regime assumes these expenses are shouldered by the PWC.

Benefit entitlement used to be calculated using child maintenance as income, but this caused below-benefit-level poverty in the many cases the NRP didn't make the payments they were supposed to.

I think the current system is unfair. But the other way around will be unfair too - and it's not unreasonable to say that the other way around causes worse hardship - particularly for the child.

Whichever way, there will be injustices and losers.

fluffymovie

Benefit planning is not defined as fraud in accordance with any Si but point taken. After working in benefits since 2000, I grow weary of the injustices in the system. However, I offered a suggestion and feel your response mckneff was personal when it didn't need to be.

I feel I have helped a lot of people over the years I have contributed to this forum but will cease now and retire fro
giving a different point if view.

McKneff

#Well to be quite honest, its maybe for the best to be honest, I can understand benefit planning. Your suggestion didnt come anywhere near that definition.
Youre damn right, it was personal, it was you who made the suggestion. You dont seem to understand my point.
again, ask your OH what they think of your suggestion and ask them for an honest answer.

By the way, I'm a pensioner, still paying tax, worked since I was 15, flogged my chuffing pan out for 45 out of my 47 years of working life, and believe my Ive done some really crap jobs earlier in my life, brought a family up, with none of the help and money that is now absolutely thrown at people these days. If we didnt work, we got nowt, we did without, now can you understand why I am angry.

fluffymovie

I did and he said it wouldn't be something prosecution would be considered for.

Someone increasing hours from 15 to 16 so they can claim wtc - benefit planning. Someone only working a certain number if hours so they can get ESA under permitted earnings disregard - benefit planning.

Not illegal, not contrivance which isn't a term in hb regs in regards to anything else than tenancies.

Nasty and added to ignore