Just received 'Housing Benefit changes' letter, not sure of the implications.

Dunroamin

Pretty well covered in most newspapers over the last couple of years..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/02/housing-benefit-disabled-people-streets

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324116/David-Cameron-Were-sticking-housing-benefit-cuts.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-of-families-to-lose-out-in-benefits-111129

mynameistallulah

Sandwich wrote: »

Less than 2 month's notice isn't enough time.

You are not capable of making alternative arrangements in two months?

Seems this is not the first time you have blamed other people for your own error:

Sandwich wrote: »

I didn't inform the Council of my switch because I was still doing full-time hours, and I thought that my uni would inform the Council of any changes which would affect my liabilities.

Take some responsibility!

whitelabel

heathcote123 wrote: »

Even if it only makes a small percentage of people realise that they will only get a reasonable standard of living by going to work and earning it for themselves, it could possibly be the single best government decision ever.

even if that affects the vast majority who are unable to work ?

mynameistallulah

whitelabel wrote: »

even if that affects the vast majority who are unable to work ?

What is the proportion of people out of work who are single, non disabled and between 25 and 35?

Dunroamin

whitelabel wrote: »

even if that affects the vast majority who are unable to work ?

Are you sure that the vast majority of disabled people are aged between 25 and 34 - do you have a link for that?

Sandwich

Dunroamin wrote: »

I have rather less sympathy for someone who's claiming benefits as a way of completing a PhD!

That's just a gross mischaracterisation of my position. Yes I am doing a PhD, but I switched from full-time to part-time when I ran into financial difficulties, so that I could start working. And I do work. I take all the work I can get as a matter of fact, but like a lot of people nowadays, I work on a casual, temporary, part-time basis and my income is low.

Would you rather I quit studying? I think it makes a lot more sense to keep plugging away at that so that in a year or so's time I in a good job earning a good salary and paying my taxes.

whitelabel

Dunroamin wrote: »

Are you sure that the vast majority of disabled people are aged between 25 and 34 - do you have a link for that?

they are the only people affected by the change so in that instance - people who are disabled or ill, claiming HB and affected equate to 100%

mynameistallulah wrote: »

What is the proportion of people out of work who are single, non disabled and between 25 and 35?

you're perhaps misinterpreting,

Im stating, is it the right decision even if it affects the majority of people who are unable to work,

not that the majority on hb are unable to work
if people are able to work, I agree they should

the only provision for exemption of these changes are disabled who get "severe disability premium as a result of middle or higher rate care component of DLA"
which is not an easy benefit to get, so the majority of disabled or those unable to work to illness on esa, would be affected adversly by the changes if they are single and under 35

percentages dont really matter
what is happening for support for this sector... they should be neglected and lumped with those who do have the provision of help ?

first ESA regulations being stripped then hb

why not just stick them all in institutes and put them out of the way all together eh ?


I feel for the landlords who are going to have a shortage of tenants too now

Dunroamin

whitelabel wrote: »

they are the only people affected by the change so in that instance - people who are disabled or ill, claiming HB and affected equate to 100%



you're perhaps misinterpreting,

Im stating, is it the right decision even if it affects the majority of people who are unable to work,

not that the majority on hb are unable to work
if people are able to work, I agree they should

the only provision for exemption of these changes are disabled who get "severe disability premium as a result of middle or higher rate care component of DLA"
which is not an easy benefit to get, so the majority of disabled or those unable to work to illness on esa, would be affected adversly by the changes if they are single and under 35

percentages dont really matter

Why do you keep repeating this as if it's a fact?

heathcote123

Sandwich wrote: »

In my part of the country (Birmingham, there are around 51,000 job seekers) and only 7000 jobs. That means there's more than 7 applicants for each job. So please don't act like it's just a matter of getting down to the job centre, because it's not that simple.

But yet whenever I pop into a shop, or buy a coffee, I get served by lots of young foreign people that don't even have the advantage of speaking english natively.

How do they do it?

I have sympathy for the old timers whose industries have disappeared and cant really adapt, but for young able bodies natives, there is really is no excuse. They are only there because the benefits option is available.

princessdon

Landlords are PART of the problem and what led to this.

I know many who increase their rental price to ermm the exact amount of LA allowance.

Also others will be affected who have 3 or 4 bedrooms and are single as their children have moved out. It isn't targetted at one specific group of people it is about reducing the money paid and some landlords have been very greedy over the years.