No outgoings taken into consideration?

mazza111

Dunroamin wrote: »

I didn't suggest that she get rid of the car.

That was in response to you saying most people wouldn't suggest she got rid of the car, I should have quoted you then quoted spamfree behind you.


It was meant as.... Dunroamin,,,,, Spamfree has already suggested she get rid of the car.

I apologise for not being more clear

Spamfree_2

mazza111 wrote: »

That was in response to you saying most people wouldn't suggest she got rid of the car, I should have quoted you then quoted spamfree behind you.


It was meant as.... Dunroamin,,,,, Spamfree has already suggested she get rid of the car.

I apologise for not being more clear

Whether I suggest she gets rid of the car is irrelevant, because it's up to her if she wants the car or would rather have a few hundred pounds to spend every month instead. She can't have it both ways.

Anyways, the million dollar question is just how much does she want the Government to give her so she doesn't have to get rid of the Sky?

skintmacflint

Chrissiew wrote: »

My husband is 55 years old, has COPD, diabetes and high blood pressure, he has to have medication for all 3 conditions and for his COPD he has 3 separate prescriptions for that alone, you try paying for loads of prescriptions
.

As long as your husband's diabetes isn't just controlled by diet then he should qualify as being exempt from all his prescription fees. Yoiu need to fill in the form for it.

Anubis_2

princessdon wrote: »

It's also that the figures dont stack up

She should get £90 (ish) PW for ESA, plus the severe disability premium of £54 pw plus DLA etc

Yet in her £305 she has only included a small amount of those.

It's hard to give advice when you don't know really what people are dealing with. I have been assuming personally that OP can add a lot to her figures she gave if that was her OH wage plus only about £60 from her "income".

Severe disability premium isn't payable as the OP is in a couple, unless her OH gets DLA at least at MRC too.

I have never known HB take outgoings into consideration but as its only temporary it sounds like the OP has applied for a discretionary payment towards rent, which is only a short term temporary solution - in this case, they would take outgoings into consideration, as they would want to know the I and E of the household.

SandraScarlett

iluvmarmite wrote: »

Yea those who have a mobtorbility car should get rid of their only means of being able to get out and stay housebound:cool:

Surely it's about having the choice to either keep the car, or use the allowance? Nobody is suggesting that anyone who has a mobility car should relinquish it and stay housebound, but if they are only using it a couple of times a week, it might be better, from a financial point of view, to opt for the allowance instead, and use cabs when they need to go out.

If someone has to attend medical appointments several times a week, then the car may well be the better option, but it's just about having the choice, isn't it?

DH and I used to go shopping a couple of times a week, but after having, on several occasions, to ask an SA to use the tannoy, because DH had wandered off, it now makes more sense for me to pay a monthly fee, and have as many grocery deliveries as I want.

People are trying to make suggestions so that others have more disposable income - that's all.

xx

mazza111

Spamfree wrote: »

Whether I suggest she gets rid of the car is irrelevant, because it's up to her if she wants the car or would rather have a few hundred pounds to spend every month instead. She can't have it both ways.

Anyways, the million dollar question is just how much does she want the Government to give her so she doesn't have to get rid of the Sky?

For goodness sake it was in response to your earlier post. It's very hard for a disabled person to go without some form of transport. If it was irrelevant why did you suggest it?

I agree sky tv isn't a necessity. However, some people also see the tv as a lifeline. My mother's tv is on constantly because she sees it as her company. At this late stage in her life I don't grudge her having it. It's not my thing, but even having the background noise on helps my mother and makes her feel less lonely. Which she's been now since my father died. No matter how many times a week we are there, we will never fill the gap left from my father.


Anubis, I think you've hit the nail on the head dear. I had forgotten about the HB being looked at that way.

And for once I agree with Spamfree that sky tv shouldn't be looked at when doing these considerations. But disability can leave terrible feelings of isolation.

Dunroamin

mazza111 wrote: »

I agree sky tv isn't a necessity. However, some people also see the tv as a lifeline. My mother's tv is on constantly because she sees it as her company. At this late stage in her life I don't grudge her having it. It's not my thing, but even having the background noise on helps my mother and makes her feel less lonely.

But there's a big difference between just having a TV and paying for Sky, don't you think?

mazza111

Definitely! And I think that's why some people are getting upset at this thread. We all need to cut our cloth accordingly and if i was in that position that would be the first to go, but again, I don't watch much telly, so could be just me being flippant about it. I'd be paying my license fee and that would be it

BigAunty

iluvmarmite wrote: »

Sooo not only has the OP been called a scrounger she is now being called a liar! ...

It sounds like a lot of posters on here think they are benefit experts and know it all, but in reality don't know as much as they believe they do.

There is not one housing benefit claimant in the country who gets HB based on their telecoms, tv and utility bill commitments, not one, not even HB claimants with disabilities.

There are strict rules to calculate HB based on various factors - the main calculating principle is income (and basic household expenses are completely ignored).

Nobody needs to be an 'expert' in the byzantine housing benefit rules to know that a claimants personal expenditure is ignored in every aspect of the calculation.

As previously indicated, a council has discretion over the sum it awards for an interim housing benefit payment (one paid if a claim has not been fully processed by them within 2 weeks).

It is perhaps this flexibility or discretion at the point of payment that the OP mistakenly believes they have taken into account her Sky subscription, loan repayments or whatever, when giving her that sum. It is simply wishful thinking or a misunderstanding on the part of the OP who has an absolutely unshakeable belief that her high household bills should be taken into account.

Now her high water and energy bills may be much higher than average for totally legitimate reasons relating to her health, and broadband may well be considered an essential basic expenses, but this isn't met by the public purse when it pays for the roof over her head.

As an interim HB payment, the council can give what they like simply because they have future payments where they can deal with any over/underpayment made with that initial one. And the final award will certainly once again ignore her high energy and water bills,telecoms, tv, debts and so on. It will simply be premised on her liability and eligibility for HB after her household income is calculated.

Merrylegs1969

Dunroamin wrote: »

But there's a big difference between just having a TV and paying for Sky, don't you think?

Not sure about other parts of the country but, here in Cornwall (and I presume the rest of the SW) analogue TV hasn't been available for a couple of years. Freeview is also rather hit and miss.