Universal credit - how it will work

mrs_motivated

dseventy wrote: »

As a LL (with 18 properties) I ask you to take a reality check! :rotfl:

The biggest problem with finding somewhere to live when you can't pay for it yourself was paying the rent direct to claiment.

Whilst I appreciate LLs get a bad rep for upping rents and (god forbid) making a profit, I left the HB and LHA market when money meant for the rent was paid direct.

Yes you can apply for the rent to be paid direct, but why even bother?

D70

Apologies, I was speaking about large social landlords eg local authorities. As a small private LL,I agree this would not be the solution.

nannytone_2

I grew up in a deprived community in East London.
I was a single mother, who had 2 kids by the time i was 19. i split from their dad when i was 27.

i worked until my disability ( registered blind in 1996) meant i could not continue.

i was bought up to believe that 'not working' wasnt an option, and i bought my kids up the same way.

they now both have families of their own, and chose partners with the same work ethic as themselves.

they all work and tghe only benefits they receive is child benefit.

so dont use the 'deprived community' as a reason for people sitting on their backsides ad claiming benefit!

i admit, tgat at the moment, the full time jobs arent readily available ..... but what was the excuse 10 years ago?

i have a friend with 7 kids ranging from 31 to 14 .... and shes NEVER worked... and nor have thge various fathers!

once her youngest turned 10. she started claiming carers allowance ( her mum gets mid rate DLA)

I volunteered at DUAL for 4 years, and eventually left because of the abuses to the system that i was becoming complicit in as my job wasnt to 'adjudicate' but just to fill the forms in .... even if i knew it to be a pack of lies!

missapril75

princessdon wrote: »

Why should 2 parents of older children with no disabilities be able to claim TC on 24 hours a week? Why aren't they sujbect to JS rules - Ie they have to sign on to get more work.

Anyone else remember Tomorrow's World? Leisure time. That's what it was supposed to be like in the future for us all. :rotfl:

nannytone wrote: »

there will never be a 'just' system. it would be too costly

I still believe we pretty much had it back in the 70s and 80s. There was a rule (The Wage Stop) that put a ceiling on benefit levels to prevent them going above an individual's actual earnings (not some theoretical thing that would fit one person but not another); a bit more money if you had a household to maintain, less if you didn't and something in between if you shared.

HB hadn't been invented so rent was paid with 'dole' so no duplication of work from two different departments. You could still get your rebate on low income grounds.

If you had a medical need that incurred extra costs you got them covered.

People with budgeting problems could agree to a fixed amount deducted and held ready for when they needed it. Consequently applications for assistance with all the things done separately now (CCG, B/Ls & C/Ls) barely existed because people simply asked for the money collected.

Last wages affected when people were first due (it is a means test after all) so there was some clawback but then benefits were paid in advance and people used to be able to get a non recoverable payment (and bus fares) to cover then until wages on a return to work.

Oh, happy days.

What made all this workable was that unlike today's JSA conts based money, conts based unemployment/sickness benefit was more than the means tested/income based Supplementary Benefit. There was also Earnings Related Supplement topping it up for 6 months.

People did not routinely move onto the means tested version as it was a waste of everyone's time.

So although it was a bit more involved it was on a minority of people and not almost everyone like today.

We were brainwashed by the government back in the 80s into believing that "simplifying" the benefit system would enable it to be done by computer. But, surely, that's what technology was supposed to be about; Making difficult but necessary tasks more manageable.

Instead of which we got Personal Allowances and Premiums. Already that gave several different rates when just two would have been used previously.

But the worst part was the premiums. The old rules recognised your legitimate medical expense, the new ones didn't and you wouldn't get the extra cost covered.

If you did meet the Premium conditions you gained an extra amount whether or not you actually incurred expenses that others didn't. There are any number of medical conditions that don't necessarily result in additional costs to the patient, perhaps because so many things are already covered like hospital visits, extra prescriptions, equipment etc or the costs might be negligible - like extra bathing. And for that you get an extra £30 and, bizarrely, £43 if you have a healthy spouse with no additional costs.

jason1231972 wrote: »

I no longer do it for a living, but I too have worked closely amongst 'deprived communties', coming mostly into contact with claimants of means-tested benefits....

'They' are a real mixed bag...

She genuinely thought that it was some kind of mistake that she had 'bad' weeks and 'good' weeks, even after many years of claiming....

Great story and good experiences.

enabledebra

Jumbo_Cod wrote: »

I would like to understand from all of those who make a point of saying they come from "deprived communities" or work in "deprived communities" actually spit out what they do.

It's all too easy for people to throw that card down then spew their vitriol and rely on the former for justification.

"As it happens, I found a way out. Others don't/won't - either through willingness or actual inability"

LOL just proven....another anti-benefit crusader. Just because you claim you found a "way out" doesn't appoint you as moral crusader.

Why don't you tell us of your gallant struggle?

I don't really care where contributors grew up or what their experience is as long as they 'know what they are talking about' and by this I mean benefit rules not opinions. I think opinions should be saved as far as possible for discussion time and this applies to those on both sides of the river...

Cate1976

I think that when UC comes in, there should be an option for people who genuinely can't manage on a monthly payment to get it weekly. My husband can't manage money at all, it's taken me a long time to get to the point where I can say to leave to leave £??? in the bank if he takes money out. For example I tell him to leave £50 in, the available is £7?, he knows to only take the £20. It doesn't help that he struggles with Maths due to going to a rubbish high school, the problem wasn't thatn he's not bright but struggled with reading and school had policy of problems with reading back of the class you go. Really unfortunate is that if he was 2 years younger than he si, he'd have got some help due to the Warnock report. He was going to college doing entry level reading and maths. The next level up from what he has isn't available where we live.
I manage all the household finances and with careful budgeting, will be able to cope just about on monthly payments, it won't be easy so if I can, I'd get it paid weekly.
I also think that the option to have the HB part paid to LL should be there as some people will spend that part on other things.
It'd help if the Fincial Ombudsman would get the banking system changed so that balances are updated by doing credits before debits, I've been caught out before by arranging for money to go out the day money is going in, bank have done debits before credits which has meant the debit has bounced. This would mean that the DD/SO could be set up to go to the LL the day UC gets paid.

HappyMJ

If customers of the council do not use the housing benefit to pay the rent they will be evicted. Rent for most people is priority number 1 above everything else.

Morlock

mrs_motivated wrote: »

...the tales of people on ESA whilst spinning upside down at Drayton Manor (which by the way makes every tax payers blood boil, mine included)

I don't know the tale, but it would be narrow-minded of you to presume that all ESA claimants are incapable of enjoying a funfair.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

Allowing a couple to work 24 hours a week (12 hours each) with teenage children and claim Tax Credits to top it up isn't right (disabilities aside).

The couple would not be entitled to working tax credit if working 12 hours each. One of them would need to be working at least 16 hours (with limited exceptions);

"If you're responsible for children you need to be aged at least 16, and work the following hours to get Working Tax Credit:

• if you're in a couple, your joint paid working hours need to be at least 24 a week, with one of you working at least 16 hours a week"

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start/claiming/income-hours/work-out-hours.htm#1

mrs_motivated

Morlock wrote: »

I don't know the tale, but it would be narrow-minded of you to presume that all ESA claimants are incapable of enjoying a funfair.

Point taken.

BigAunty

Cate1976 wrote: »

I think that when UC comes in, there should be an option for people who genuinely can't manage on a monthly payment to get it weekly. ..

...
It'd help if the Fincial Ombudsman would get the banking system changed so that balances are updated by doing credits before debits, I've been caught out before by arranging for money to go out the day money is going in, bank have done debits before credits which has meant the debit has bounced. This would mean that the DD/SO could be set up to go to the LL the day UC gets paid.

I disagree - UC should simplify things and not set up exceptions where people cannot or won't budget for various reasons. It is much better if there are rules that people change their behaviour to fit rather than a system which has masses of discretion in it.

As for the gap between credits and debits, this is a human management issue (budgeting to ensure sufficient funds), not a systems issue.

But for your information, the faster payment has been introduced with many banks which means many operate transactions in an almost real time manner, meaning payments go into an account immediately rather than taking 3 days.

So go and move your bank account to one with this system in place if you can't handle the lag between credits/debits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_Payments_Service