Housing benefit going down, how will I manage?

Oldernotwiser

McKneff wrote: »

I agree with this post apart from ' your posts are spot on' I can only say they are 'normally 99.9% ' spot on.

This time. mmm

Hope this has got to you before the 'ignore list'

regards
Annie

Quoted....

WhiteHorse

Mojisola wrote: »

It is very unfair. The resident parent gets access to benefits and help with rent for a separate bedroom for the child. The non-resident parent, who has the child for almost half the year, gets nothing.

It is not unfair. Why should the taxpayer fund two houses?

Mojisola

WhiteHorse wrote: »

It is not unfair. Why should the taxpayer fund two houses?

It is unfair for the non-resident parent.

It would also be unfair for the taxpayer to have to fund two houses but that doesn't make it right for the non-resident parent.

It's going to be exacerbated by the new rule that only allows shared-room rates for the under-35s. Perhaps anyone under 35 who is a non-residental parent should still be allowed the one-bedroom flat rate?

Marisco

TBH, I think this "shared room" rate is shocking. What happens to disabled under 35's who cannot work? Will they be forced out of their flats, and have to houseshare with others? Imagine if you were 33 and had your own flat since you were say, 21, then all of a sudden you're told you cannot stay there, as you cannot afford the "top up" rent? They should only do this for new claimants, not people who have been living in their own place for years!!!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mojisola wrote: »

It is unfair for the non-resident parent.

It would also be unfair for the taxpayer to have to fund two houses but that doesn't make it right for the non-resident parent.

It's going to be exacerbated by the new rule that only allows shared-room rates for the under-35s. Perhaps anyone under 35 who is a non-residental parent should still be allowed the one-bedroom flat rate?

The benefits system is intended to meet a claimants immediate NEEDS. While he may have an overwhelming desire to have overnight access, a desire is a WANT and, as such, is no business of the state. Should he wish to have more than his basic needs satisfied, that is something for him to take responsibility for, not the state.

Were his ex to move to a different part of the country, would you expect his benefits to be increased to provide for the extra transport costs involved in maintaining access? Would that not be equally "unfair"?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Marisco wrote: »

TBH, I think this "shared room" rate is shocking. What happens to disabled under 35's who cannot work? Will they be forced out of their flats, and have to houseshare with others? Imagine if you were 33 and had your own flat since you were say, 21, then all of a sudden you're told you cannot stay there, as you cannot afford the "top up" rent? They should only do this for new claimants, not people who have been living in their own place for years!!!

It may not offer much relief, but the DHP funding has been increased considerably.

Dependent on the individuals care needs, it is quite possible for a disabled claimant to qualify for the 2 bed rate.

Disabled claimants would also be in receipt of enhanced benefits to meet the extra costs of administering their disability.

Having said all that, my personal feeling is that the old upper age for the shared room rate (25) was already too high.

Mojisola

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The benefits system is intended to meet a claimants immediate NEEDS. While he may have an overwhelming desire to have overnight access, a desire is a WANT and, as such, is no business of the state. Should he wish to have more than his basic needs satisfied, that is something for him to take responsibility for, not the state.

I don't think it's the father's needs or wants - it's a child's right to have contact with both parents.

People are very quick to condemn absent parents who don't keep contact with their children but the way the benefit system favours the resident parent actually makes it difficult for the NRP to maintain contact.

I don't have the answer and I don't think the benefits system is a bottomless pit - although if a lot of the fraud was dealt with there would be more to go round - but it's not right that an unfair situation should be ignored especially if children suffer as a result of it.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think it's the father's needs or wants - it's a child's right to have contact with both parents.

People are very quick to condemn absent parents who don't keep contact with their children but the way the benefit system favours the resident parent actually makes it difficult for the NRP to maintain contact.

I don't have the answer and I don't think the benefits system is a bottomless pit - although if a lot of the fraud was dealt with there would be more to go round - but it's not right that an unfair situation should be ignored especially if children suffer as a result of it.

You missed a bit of my earlier post, which is quite pertinent.....

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Were his ex to move to a different part of the country, would you expect his benefits to be increased to provide for the extra transport costs involved in maintaining access? Would that not be equally "unfair"?

Mojisola

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You missed a bit of my earlier post, which is quite pertinent.....

"Were his ex to move to a different part of the country, would you expect his benefits to be increased to provide for the extra transport costs involved in maintaining access? Would that not be equally "unfair"?"

I would expect the parents to share the cost of the children travelling between the two homes.

cosmic-dust

Mojisola wrote: »

"Were his ex to move to a different part of the country, would you expect his benefits to be increased to provide for the extra transport costs involved in maintaining access? Would that not be equally "unfair"?"

I would expect the parents to share the cost of the children travelling between the two homes.

If child support was in payment, the NRP would get a reduction for travel costs.