Welfare Reform Act, making it difficult to move and take a job

adwyer

The welfare reform Act is actually stopping me from moving to find work. According to the Act, I am eligible for a 3 bedroom house, this is because I have 3 children ages 11 (girl), 7 (boy), 3 (girl) and moving to a 3 bedroom house is not an issue.

According to the Act, 2 different sexes under 10 can share a room, 2 of the same sex can share a room until the oldest is 16 and over 16s need their home room. Again fair enough, it's a pretty fair policy and like I said I'm happy to downsize.

However, I'm looking to move to a new area, as I have a good network of friends and employment contacts in the area and looking for work. I can't risk going private rented unless I get a job first, but its difficult to get a job in an area you live 300 miles away from and move there in a reasonable period of time, but this is not a problem.

The problem is my house is 5 bedroom and I am currently under occupied, meaning according to new rules my house is to big by 2 bedrooms, but because I am not homeless, Housing associations in/out side the area see me as having no housing need, so recommended I go on HomeSwapper. Again not a problem and I have done this whilst applying for jobs and found 3 moves,

However under new rules the people I swap with must fit the following criteria

1 couple or a single with four 16 year old of any sex

1 couple or a single with three 16 year olds and two kids under 10 of any sex

1 couple or a single with three 16 year olds and two kids under 16 of same sex

1 couple or a single with two 16 year olds and four kids under 10 of any sex

1 couple or a single with two 16 year olds and four kids under 16 of same sex

1 couple or a single with two 16 year olds and two kids under 16 of same sex and two under 10 of any sex

1 couple or a single with one 16 year old and 6 kids under 10 of any sex

1 couple or a single with one 16 year old and 6 kids under 16 of same sex

1 couple or a single with one 16 year old and 4 kids under 10 of any sex and 2 under 16 of the same sex

1 couple or a single with one 16 year old and 4 kids under 16 of same sex and two under 10 of any sex

1 couple or a single with 8 kids under 10 of any sex

1 couple or a single with 8 kids under 16 of same sex

1 couple or a single with 6 under 10 of any sex and 2 under 16 same sex

1 couple or a single with 6 under 16 of same sex, with 2 under 10 of any sex

1 couple or a single with 4 under 10 of any sex, with 4 under 16 of the same sex

Basically I need to find a family with between 5 to 10 members based on the criteria above, who are living in a 3 bedroom house to be able to move, the chances of this happening are nil

Any suggestions of what I could do? (staying in my current area is not an option).

CLAPTON

While I feel sympathy for your personal circumstances, you have been receiving massive undeserved benefits from tax payers and wish to continue to do so.

Choices have to be made by many people; whose not receiving benefits have to make do.

The rules were completely mad and continue to be so (for heaven sake why can't two 16 girls share a room?)

adwyer

CLAPTON wrote: »

While I feel sympathy for your personal circumstances, you have been receiving massive undeserved benefits from tax payers and wish to continue to do so.

The rules were completely mad and continue to be so (for heaven sake why can't two 16 girls share a room?)

That's a bit of an assumption on your part, I am after moving for work after losing work in my current area and not having much success in finding re-employment AND as stated I want and am happy to downsize, I've not been receiving anything at this moment in time so forgive me for saying kiss my a@@e!

Read what I put, no more, no less, if you read it properly and take off your Daily Mail spectacles, you would see I don't actually disagree with people sharing rooms and its not about benefits its about entrapping a person in an area when he is wiling to move to find work and better his circumstances.

jazabelle

CLAPTON wrote: »

While I feel sympathy for your personal circumstances, you have been receiving massive undeserved benefits from tax payers and wish to continue to do so.

Choices have to be made by many people; whose not receiving benefits have to make do.

The rules were completely mad and continue to be so (for heaven sake why can't two 16 girls share a room?)

Why are they undeserved? The OP is not saying the rules are wrong, just that they're so exact it's making it harder to achieve a swap.

cattie

I sympathise as a friend is in a similar situation regarding under occupancy. Divorced mother, 3 children all grown and left home and her occupying a huge 4 bedroomed mansion flat.

She recently wanted to do an exchange with a couple with 2 girls who live in a 1 bed flat. The exchange has been turned down as like you they have criteria on who they will allow to take over the tenancy. The crazy thing is my friend gets full hb & cb rebates for living in this under occupied lovely big family home.

I wonder if in your situation if the criteria has to be so rigid. For example, could a tenant, be they single or a couple with children, possibly a grandchild or two too if children are older and procreating and living there, be able to qualify? Or same scenario regarding tenants and some (perhaps older grown up) children, but with grandparent/s or another close relative living with them?

Some disabled people who need a carer qualify for an extra bedroom if it's necessary for the carer to stay over. And some disabled people do need a room to themselves for medical reasons, so thats 2 bedrooms needed there straight off, leaving 3 for other family members to fill.

I don't know if it would help you to look into these other 'family' possibilities, but I wish you luck as it must be a very frustrating situation to find yourself in.

adwyer

cattie wrote: »

I sympathise as a friend is in a similar situation regarding under occupancy. Divorced mother, 3 children all grown and left home and her occupying a huge 4 bedroomed mansion flat.

I don't know if it would help you to look into these other 'family' possibilities, but I wish you luck as it must be a very frustrating situation to find yourself in.

Yeah, you are right about grandchildren and the disabled etc., but that creates a new issue; I may have to find 2 families wanting to move into together or a massively overcrowded house, something I don't really have the resources to find......

Private rented is a risky option without a job at this moment (should be OK if I get a job first) and using CLAPTONS logic would cost the tax payer a lot more for a lot less as rents in private accommodation have a higher criteria cap, which makes the whole thing a shambles in a way.

My rent now is £100 a week for a 5 bedroom and if I am on benefits next year I will have to pay 25% of that myself, However if I move to a private rented 3 bedroom house in the same situation next year the government would pay 100% of the £150 a week rent, when the local housing associations 3 bedroom houses have an average rent of around £80, so from a money saving level this works out a lot worse for the tax payer.

CLAPTON

adwyer wrote: »

That's a bit of an assumption on your part, I am after moving for work after losing work in my current area AND as stated I want to downsize, I've not been receiving anything at this moment in time so forgive me for saying kiss my a@@e!

Read what I put, no more, no less, if you read it properly and take off your Daily Mail spectacles, you would see I don't actually disagree with people sharing rooms and its not about benefits its about entrapping a person in an area when he is wiling to move to find work and better his circumstances.

this is a discussion board;
yes I make assumptions and you have made many too.

the basic issue here is with the benefits culture

if you were not in 'social' housing in the first place your problem wouldn't exist;
you are only 'entrapped' because you're entrapped in the housing benefits system;

so your ar*e done' need kissing but the brain cells need some gentle massage

I'm not 'blaming' you personally but a system that makes your situation so difficult and the point is that you are the victim of a mad system.

CLAPTON

jazabelle wrote: »

Why are they undeserved? The OP is not saying the rules are wrong, just that they're so exact it's making it harder to achieve a swap.

how can the rules not be 'wrong' if they make the swap harder to achieve?

if he wasn't in the social housing system then he wouldn't have the problem

he is saying the basics of the social housing is right; it's just that they need further refinement to meet his needs

the reality is that they are a basically a mad system with daft consequences.

BigAunty

Let your local MP know about how the mutual exchange scheme and social housing landlords allocation policies have this glaring defect.

Can't see that this would give you an instant remedy if the social housing rules are set in stone but perhaps could fix it for future tenants who want to move to take up a job and need a different size property.

adwyer

CLAPTON wrote: »

this is a discussion board;
yes I make assumptions and you have made many too.

the basic issue here is with the benefits culture

if you were not in 'social' housing in the first place your problem wouldn't exist;
you are only 'entrapped' because you're entrapped in the housing benefits system;

so your ar*e done' need kissing but the brain cells need some gentle massage

I'm not 'blaming' you personally but a system that makes your situation so difficult and the point is that you are the victim of a mad system.

I do NOT get housing benefit, I pay my own rent, but feel free to ignore the true issue, Welfare and Benefits are not interchangeable words, I am talking about the Welfare reform Act, which has the primary aim of getting people into work, yet the is acting regressively in this instance due to be what looks like misinterpretation of what parliament intended when the act was passed. Its a modern day poor law and has similarities to the Act of settlement because it's reducing the mobility of the workforce.

You are just hating for the sake of hating, but even in a society of saints, the person late for mass would be deemed a deviant, I am entrapped because I refuse to get into ££££ worth of debt that could ultimately cost the tax payer more if I end up on benefits and go private rented in the future, when social housing is a lot more reasonable priced and affordable to my needs at this moment in time.

I am ultimately thinking of the bigger picture, if I pay £75 a week rent instead of £150, I could save enough for a deposit to get me onto the property ladder, I'm trying not to put myself in a state of anomie as I like my feet firmly on the ground, you clearly have some superiority complex of some sort, but I on the other hand don't suffer any kind of status frustration and am happy with what a man of high society would call 'my own kind', clearly as my nan Sybil would say we live in 'two nations'

but you do need to remember that only 10% of the Welfare state is actually spend on the unemployed, with 50% being spent on OAP's, which suggest that 40% is actually going on the working and middle-classes, so if you have middle-class on benefits these days, how are the working-class meant to earn a reasonable living?

I don't know maybe if we all start to 'knock around' with millionaires differential association will manifest in a positive way.

CLAPTON

adwyer wrote: »

You are just hating for the sake of hating, but even in a society of saints, the person late for mass would be deemed a deviant,

Whilst I have to say, I admire the technical excellence of your eloquence and your learning, sadly you are putting it to poor and offence use.

as they say, I'm out.