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

mynameistallulah

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

I guess he is hoping that the more he rambles, the more likely we are to notice that he cannot answer the question!

mynameistallulah

princessdon wrote: »

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.

They are also part of the answer - those extra 2 or 3 bedrooms can be let to people affected by the under 35 change.

whitelabel

the intonation is perhaps being lost in text.

Im asking, do people think it is the right government decision to make if it as stated by some one "if it only makes a small percentage of people realise that they will only get a reasonable standard of living by going to work..."
when the majority of those in the smaller group of people who are genuinely unable to work, (not to be interpreted that the majority of those either disabled or just claiming HB ARE unable to work) may not have resources, as a result of their circumstances to pay themselves the additional to stay where they are, are adversely affected and forced to move

I agree a place with more than 1 bed room for 1 person is not needed.
but that shouldnt necessarily mean they have to share space with other people if they havent chosen to before

if they are single getting full hb and in a 3 or 4 bed, I agree downsizing to a 1 bed is reasonable if they have no medical needs for an additional room (which is provided for in the plan)
but moving those in a 1 bed to a shared place, where in our city is only perhaps £100 a month less but still not covered in full by HB (so in the case of my friend they will still have to pay to top up the rent from the ESA living allowance) is a major hassle for little return

not to mention the initial point the councils letter are still very poorly written and misleading and deliberately timed to be sent at a time when there is no contact
(having worked in companies with very large mailouts they are def timed not just co incidence") is poor show esp if they are misleading about the amount of time they are giving.

daimonde

the LA probably sends these letters out on a weekly basis, its probably a template with just dates to be added in. they appear to have a trigger for them at two months before the change. My LA has similar, we also sent out an initial letter about 6months in advance, this 2nd one almost a courtesy reminder. Cant say all LAs do the same theres a lot of changes within LAs.

id be amazed if an LA purposely sent them of over a 4day bank holiday, firstly as above, theyll have been sent out on an ongoing basis, people have theyre annual review - we just call it an anniversary date & no real review is involved, just the LHA rate is updated. So theyll have been sent out every week / month since the changes were announced.

for our LA, its the kind of job that takes less priority than dealing with something that will affect someones benefit straight away, ie a new claim, change of circs etc.
we have a list generated on a thursday (which is a pretty short list to be honest), we populate the letter templates & the letters are sent out elsewhere automatically.

there have been extra funds made available in DHP budgets as result of this change and this may be an option but its not guaranteed & not a long term solution either.

mynameistallulah

whitelabel wrote: »

the intonation is perhaps being lost in text.

Im asking, do people think it is the right government decision to make if it as stated by some one "if it only makes a small percentage of people realise that they will only get a reasonable standard of living by going to work..."
when the majority of those in the smaller group of people who are genuinely unable to work, (not to be interpreted that the majority of those either disabled or just claiming HB ARE unable to work) may not have resources, as a result of their circumstances to pay themselves the additional to stay where they are, are adversely affected and forced to move

I agree a place with more than 1 bed room for 1 person is not needed.
but that shouldnt necessarily mean they have to share space with other people if they havent chosen to before

No, you are missing the point that you cannot refer to a "majority" or indeed a "minority" without quantifying such a statement.

heathcote123

princessdon wrote: »

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.

So, when you say 'many', exactly how many landlords do you know that engage in this behaviour?

Dunroamin

whitelabel wrote: »

I agree a place with more than 1 bed room for 1 person is not needed.
but that shouldnt necessarily mean they have to share space with other people if they havent chosen to before

You seem to be missing the point that they've only ever had this choice because someone else has been paying for it!

princessdon

whitelabel wrote: »

I agree a place with more than 1 bed room for 1 person is not needed.
but that shouldnt necessarily mean they have to share space with other people if they havent chosen to before

And I agree that people should have to share. Many working and not reliant on HB are living in worse cramped conditions because they can't afford to move. I know a family whose parents sleep in the living room on a sofa bed and their 4 children sleep in the 2 bedrooms due to rising costs. I know other families who are financially struggling and take in lodgers to make ends meet.

The ones I do feel sorry for is those with long term leases who will lose deposits and have fees to break the lease. I would like to think there is support for those as they can't readily move as easily.

heathcote123

whitelabel wrote: »

Im asking, do people think it is the right government decision to make if it as stated by some one "if it only makes a small percentage of people realise that they will only get a reasonable standard of living by going to work..."
when the majority of those in the smaller group of people who are genuinely unable to work, (not to be interpreted that the majority of those either disabled or just claiming HB ARE unable to work) may not have resources, as a result of their circumstances to pay themselves the additional to stay where they are, are adversely affected and forced to move

I agree a place with more than 1 bed room for 1 person is not needed.
but that shouldnt necessarily mean they have to share space with other people if they havent chosen to before

You're losing me here - why are the majority of able bodied under 35 year olds genuinely unable to work?

princessdon

heathcote123 wrote: »

So, when you say 'many', exactly how many landlords do you know that engage in this behaviour?

I don't know them all personally so I agree that was a throw away comment BUT if you look at the "going rental rate" for a HMO that allows social tennants it can't be a suprise that it is equal to the rate paid by the LA. I know friends whose rents increase to the exact amount of the LA increase each year etc.