Housing benefit and under occupancy

Popperwell

PippaGirl wrote: »

Worse still, 100% council tax benefit ends in April 2013, from then on it will be a maximum of 90% so people who are living on just one benefit, say JSA, will have to find and pay for 10% of their annual council tax bill. I'm like you, I get DLA and this will help swallow the shortfall for a while but DLA shouldn't be for that, it should be to help you provide the care you need.

Hi Pippa,
And with that company that does the assessments we've no guarantee that is safe but of course it isn't safe because they are scrapping DLA and it changes to PIP which is 20% less and the criteria is more difficult and stricter to fit...

Ironic that the same company is a sponsor of the Paralympics...big demonstration against the company today, whist they are on they should aim their anger at the government too...

Don't know if it has been reported on the tv news but it was mentioned on Radio 4. The media are generally ignoring such a lot of what is happening...or adding to the woes of many by giving fuel to those who really have no idea what is happening or what most people claiming help is like, they actally help fuel the hate and nasty remarks being directed at the vulnerable.

But hey anyone who managed to see the two documentaries a few weeks ago on tv will now know how skewed the assessments are but it doesn't stop the worrying we all are facing.

And let us not forget that many of those who work are struggling and again a few weeks ago one of the few documentaries on tv showed someone(not on benefit)having to ask for help from a food bank.

The UK in the 21st Century:(:mad:

BigAunty

PippaGirl wrote: »

It used to be a modest deduction from the non dependent child as it used to be capped however the Condems have removed the cap and technically a young adult can pay a considerable amount of the total rent.

My young adult son working minimum wage was asked to pay 60% of the whole rent of this house, and he's in the 5ft by 6ft room! Had his wage been higher he would have been asked to pay more.

Again, this is contrary to my understanding of how it works and caps are still in place.

In April 2010, a household claiming HB which has a non-dependent earning a gross income not less than £122.00 but less than £183.00 (so that's full time NMW of someone under 21) had a deduction of £17.00 per week. Last year, it increased to £21.55. Currently, it is now £26.25. Council tax discount deduction is £3.30.

This means he should be getting a roof over his head for £4.22 a day and at £30 a week, a lot cheaper than moving out.

Someone earning more than £394 per week would find their parents council tax and housing benefit deductions would amount to £83 - still a bargain compared to market rent and just 20% of their gross income.

Dunroamin

PippaGirl wrote: »

And, this is the worst part - whereas with the main benefit claimant the LA only use their take home pay wrt calculations of how much they should pay towards their rent and council tax and therefore how much benefit they receive, so they disregard amounts taken out of the pay packet towards reimbursed business expenses such as mileage paid by work, or student loan deducted from pay so never received - with the young adult non dependents the Government has forgotton to say that these can be disregarded from their wage so a young adult who has mileage and phone call costs reimbursed or loses money from their wages towards a student loan won't have that taken into account and they can be asked to pay more money towards the household rent than they actually receive!

Considering you have to be earning well over £15,000 to be repaying a student loan, I really can't see why it would be a sacrifice for the young person concerned to be making a sizeable contribution to the household rent.

PippaGirl_2

I'm just not sure they should be paying all or most of it for the whole family? I think it is absolutely fair they pay their way; for instance here there are 3 adults so he should pay 33% and not the 60% he was paying before? Had his wage been higher he would have paid more than 60%. My son doesn't have a student loan but they only take his gross wage into account so see the hundreds he gets in reimbursed expenses as income, his hourly rate is minimum wage but he works 12 hour shifts and usually at least 6 days a week sometimes 7 so his wage is not as low as most youngsters. He pays for that work by paying most of the rent here covering rent for his mother and sister who both have disabilities.

BigAunty, the caps used to be fixed and are lifting in jumps every year until 2014. The biggest problem is they only assess a non dependents gross wage and not what they actually receive. I just don't think they should have to pay more than their own individual fair share and not have to support their parents and disabled siblings.

eta I hasten to add, that he no longer pays the rent or council tax as I am on DLA. I had been on HRC and after review I lost all of it, and appealed. While waiting for the appeal I had to pay more money for his presense here than he or I had plunging me into further debt just to eat. I won the appeal fortunately or I would have been forced to throw him out on the streets or starve. I am dreading there being a time between when I am too well to be eligible for DLA and being well enough to work, then I will be stuffed. Obviously once I can work things will be fine but with the new non dependent rules and criteria he cannot afford to pay what he doesn't have as the reimbursed expenses they take as income he has and is using for petrol throughout 4 counties daily so I can't take it off him.

BigAunty

PippaGirl wrote: »

...Had his wage been higher he would have paid more than 60%. ... He pays for that work by paying most of the rent here covering rent for his mother and sister who both have disabilities.

BigAunty, the caps used to be fixed and are lifting in jumps every year until 2014. The biggest problem is they only assess a non dependents gross wage and not what they actually receive. I just don't think they should have to pay more than their own individual fair share and not have to support their parents and disabled siblings.

This is what I'm struggling to understand, perhaps because you are focussing on the percentage of rent he ends up paying towards while I am focussing on the percentage deducted from his wage.

I know over the past 3 years the non-dependent deduction for the example I provided has gone up by 37% (if my maths is correct) but never seems to exceed around 21% of their gross income and is often less than this, according to my quick browse of the deduction. This has perhaps come around because the govt found they were spending more on benefits than they receive in income tax receipts from employees.

Also, I believe that there aren't non-dependent deductions made for those with disabilities, therefore their 'share' of the rent as such is already sorted out for them - he doesn't directly pay extra for others, if that's what you mean.

He's not really supporting his parents, he's paying the type of keep that is common to someone earning hundreds of pounds per week (not just to parents on benefits).

If he's working 60-70 hours a week at NMW of £4.98, then he's grossing £298 - £348 per week, and if the NMW rate is the over 21s rate, this will gross him £371 - £433.

So the impact on your housing benefit and CT through non-dependent deductions at the lower rate of £298 is around £65 per week while if he earned £433, the deduction will be around £83 pounds.

When you say he pays 60% of your rent, I'm starting to think that a) he earns a lot and b) your rent is really low.

bright_side

My understanding of this is that as long as you have a secure tenancy, no one can MAKE you move. The 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two extra bedrooms is deducted from your weekly rent and the remaining figure is used to calculate housing benefit.
For me this equates to £56 four weekly, plus with the upcoming changes to council tax benefit, I will be looking at having to find at least another £70 a month in total. Whilst I am working I could probably scrape it together, however should I lose my job, be unable to work due to illness or should my son not be able to go straight into work when he leaves school next year, it would be impossible.

I am fortunate in that I have been able to find someone in a two bed who needs a 3 bed, so we are applying to do a mutual exchange.

On the down side, the whole house NEEDS redecorating and new flooring throughout. I have within the last year redecorated most of my home and had new carpets/flooring laid, oblivious to the fact that these new rules were being brought in. It is soul destroying to say the least. Whereas some h/a and councils have a down sizing incentive in place, mine does not, so I will get no financial help whatsoever.

The saddest thing for me, is that I know my next home will only be temporary, because when my almost 16 yr old moves out, I will have to do it all again!

BigAunty

PippaGirl wrote: »

I'm just not sure they should be paying all or most of it for the whole family? I think it is absolutely fair they pay their way; for instance here there are 3 adults so he should pay 33% and not the 60% he was paying before? ...

I think the problem with trying to make non-dependents pick up a share of the rent proportional to the number of adults rather than a modest deduction from HB/CT for the actual tenants claiming benefits is Local Housing Allowance.

Some households in the private sector get Local Housing Allowance, for example, of £500 a week - therefore in this scenario, the working son would pay £166 per week, around double the highest capped contribution.

~Chameleon~

bright_side wrote: »

I am fortunate in that I have been able to find someone in a two bed who needs a 3 bed, so we are applying to do a mutual exchange.

On the down side, the whole house NEEDS redecorating and new flooring throughout. I have within the last year redecorated most of my home and had new carpets/flooring laid, oblivious to the fact that these new rules were being brought in. It is soul destroying to say the least. Whereas some h/a and councils have a down sizing incentive in place, mine does not, so I will get no financial help whatsoever.

The saddest thing for me, is that I know my next home will only be temporary, because when my almost 16 yr old moves out, I will have to do it all again!

Will the cost of refurbishing another house be MORE than the extra rent you will need to find to stay there? If so, why move? - especially if you've just finished redecorating your own house to your own standards/tastes. Doesn't make sense to me.

Popperwell

Well as I have said, if things stayed much as they are now I may as well stay put as most properties that come up around here are two bedroom properties so at best on the BT alone I would say approx £13 a week.

If any small properties come up theyt are so out of the wayand such horrible locations not only will I not feel safe I would have to use taxi's and buses to get anywhere and soon that would mean I am paying more by using transport.

At least where I am I am in a safe area and I am only two streets from the shops so I can walk(badly )or a taxi only costs £2.50 better than nearly £5.

But with BT, the changes in council tax help and not knowing if I will still get DLA there are lot of unknowns...we know DLA is to be scrapped anyhow and replaced by something more difficult to get and it is 20% less.

And as you say if any of us move we will probably have the cost of redecorating and refurbishing the new place...

Even people not in receipt of benefit now are going to be suddenly caught out on this one and there will be many unhappy people.

bright_side

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Will the cost of refurbishing another house be MORE than the extra rent you will need to find to stay there? If so, why move? - especially if you've just finished redecorating your own house to your own standards/tastes. Doesn't make sense to me.

It will be a minimum of an extra £800 per year, which would be just about manageable at the moment, but should my income lessen I would be in trouble. Being single means that everything is down to me and I can't run the risk of getting into financial difficulties and having to move out quickly to who knows where. By doing it now, I have more choice about where we go and the type of property we move to and is less likely to effect my mental health!

When my son moves out, which could be anything from a couple of years time, the extra would rise to at least £1400 per year.

So no, the cost of redecorating/flooring in a new place would most definitely not be more than the extra I would have to pay to stay here.