Housing benefit going down, how will I manage?

Wee_Willy_Harris

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.

In much the same way that they could share the cost of self contained accommodation. In a fairly typical town (Swindon) the difference between the shared room rate and the single room rate is less that £30 (or £15 each) a week. I guess it just depends on how motivated they are to maintain overnight contact.

Mojisola

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

In much the same way that they could share the cost of self contained accommodation. In a fairly typical town (Swindon) the difference between the shared room rate and the single room rate is less that £30 (or £15 each) a week. I guess it just depends on how motivated they are to maintain overnight contact.

This would be a good compromise between couples who are able to maintain good relations for the sake of their children.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mojisola wrote: »

This would be a good compromise between couples who are able to maintain good relations for the sake of their children.

Which SHOULD be all couples. It takes 2 to sustain an argument. At least one of the parties will have a vested interest in not doing so. Once misplaced pride and vanity are taken in context with the bigger picture, the childs interests can take priority, as they should.

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

TBH, I think this "shared room" rate is shocking.

I do wish that people wouldn't use this misleading and inaccurate term! Nobody has to share a room; it's the accommodation that's shared.

Oldernotwiser

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.
.

But there's absolutely no need for the contact to include overnight stays. As I said earlier, it's often used for the convenience of the NRP and his/her social life rather than that of the child, who would frequently prefer to sleep in his/her own room.

Marisco

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I do wish that people wouldn't use this misleading and inaccurate term! Nobody has to share a room; it's the accommodation that's shared.

Yes I am aware of that, and I still think it's wrong! How would you like to be turfed out of your own flat, and have to share bathroom/living room/kitchen with strangers? Fine if your students, but 34 year olds??? As I said they should have a date on it, and from that date, then people know the situation. But it's just wrong to expect those already in flats of their own to move into shared houses.

Oldernotwiser

Marisco wrote: »

Yes I am aware of that, and I still think it's wrong! How would you like to be turfed out of your own flat, and have to share bathroom/living room/kitchen with strangers? Fine if your students, but 34 year olds??? As I said they should have a date on it, and from that date, then people know the situation. But it's just wrong to expect those already in flats of their own to move into shared houses.

As someone who, despite decently paid professional full time jobs, couldn't afford to rent a whole property for myself until I moved in with my ex husband at the age of 31, I see this differently.

Apart from cheap parts of the country, the single people who are in 1 bed flats are generally those on benefits and those who share are those who work. This is wrong.

As long as there is transitional protection to allow people time to find more suitable accommodation (and some protection for those with a disability) this seems a perfectly fair decision to have been made.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Marisco wrote: »

Yes I am aware of that, and I still think it's wrong! How would you like to be turfed out of your own flat, and have to share bathroom/living room/kitchen with strangers? Fine if your students, but 34 year olds??? As I said they should have a date on it, and from that date, then people know the situation. But it's just wrong to expect those already in flats of their own to move into shared houses.

Many people are facing a loss of income through wage freezes, loss of overtime, loss of core hours etc and are having to make some pretty difficult decisions financially. Why should others be insulated from these harsh realities that most of us now face?

WhiteHorse

Mojisola wrote: »

... it's a child's right to have contact with both parents.

Says who exactly?

neverdespairgirl

Marisco wrote: »

Yes I am aware of that, and I still think it's wrong! How would you like to be turfed out of your own flat, and have to share bathroom/living room/kitchen with strangers? Fine if your students, but 34 year olds??? As I said they should have a date on it, and from that date, then people know the situation. But it's just wrong to expect those already in flats of their own to move into shared houses.

Most of my friends (aged about 32 to 35) who work and don't have chidlren or aren't married share flats.

OK, we live in central London, where accommodation is seriously expensive. But even so, it's hard to see flat-sharing as some sort of Dickensian slum terror for me, when so many professional, working people I know get on with it (and pay for it).