Housing benefit and under occupancy

KxMx

elliegirl wrote: »

There is no reason for you to tell me or my girls what being a part of the family means. My girls have no problem paying what the council has decided.
It seem that you think working adults equates to good wages. One is on minimum wage doing 17hrs a week and the other is a mum to a one year old, doing 2 part time jobs at minimum wage totaling 18 hours. They also help me care for my husband and when I am ill which is quite often they take care of both of us. To me the caring that they do means family more to me than what they pay.:mad:

Well, you were the one who wondered if you would have to throw them out on the streets so... if the money needs to be found to keep a roof over everyones head then it will have to be found. And if it has to come from them it has to come from them.

I'm not saying it's fair, or would be easy, but needs must in such a situation.

No need for dramatics but a family meeting to discuss the changes and what needs to be done. Now the council looks like it has decided your household needs to pay more, so someone, somehow, has to find the money. However hard or easy if it's the difference in remaining at home or funding their own places then they need to pay more.

If my own family situation changed I would have no hesitation in handing over extra to my Mum, because while it might mean I go without something, it would after all be keeping a roof over my head and that of my family.

elliegirl

KxMx wrote: »

Well, you were the one who wondered if you would have to throw them out on the streets so... if the money needs to be found to keep a roof over everyones head then it will have to be found. And if it has to come from them it has to come from them.

I'm not saying it's fair, or would be easy, but needs must in such a situation.

No need for dramatics but a family meeting to discuss the changes and what needs to be done. Now the council looks like it has decided your household needs to pay more, so someone, somehow, has to find the money. However hard or easy if it's the difference in remaining at home or funding their own places then they need to pay more.

If my own family situation changed I would have no hesitation in handing over extra to my Mum, because while it might mean I go without something, it would after all be keeping a roof over my head and that of my family.

The throw them out in the streets remark was an off the cuff remark. And if you read the replies below my post you would have seen that I had been misinformed.

All I was saying to you was that I don't need to be told what family means, I am well aware of the meaning and that I am extremely proud of my daughters for all the help they give us while we are unwell.

Dunroamin

bright_side wrote: »

The difference being that private tenants know where they stand from the word go. Social tenants, some of whom have lived in their homes for a very long time and have spent a huge amount of money on them are suddenly having the goal posts changed. Obviously had social tenants known this would happen, they wouldn't have bothered!

One could of course argue that social housing shouldn't be available for people who have a huge amount of money to spend on accommodation. I don't have that much sympathy for people who fork out thousand on a rented property of any kind.

seven-day-weekend

I don't see why public money should pay someone to have a spare room. Have one by all means, but pay for it yourself.

If you don't wish to do this, either downsize or get a lodger.

bright_side

Dunroamin wrote: »

One could of course argue that social housing shouldn't be available for people who have a huge amount of money to spend on accommodation. I don't have that much sympathy for people who fork out thousand on a rented property of any kind.

Good point. I have never quite understood why some people choose to stay in social housing when they could easily afford to buy, however this new ruling won't affect them.

seven-day-weekend

bright_side wrote: »

Good point. I have never quite understood why some people choose to stay in social housing when they could easily afford to buy, however this new ruling won't affect them.

Who will it affect then? It always has affected private tenants afaik?

FBaby

bright_side wrote: »

The difference being that private tenants know where they stand from the word go. Social tenants, some of whom have lived in their homes for a very long time and have spent a huge amount of money on them are suddenly having the goal posts changed. Obviously had social tenants known this would happen, they wouldn't have bothered!

But it is all about interpretation. Whether you consider yourself lucky to have more security than if they were private tenants, but accepting that unless you actually own your property, nothing can be secure forever (well, actually, neither if you own your property!).

I personally think it was shortsighted to assume that no change would ever take place in light of the recession afflicting the whole world.

bright_side

It will only only effect people in receipt of housing benefit. It will not effect people who can afford to pay their full rent - they can afford to stay in their homes no matter how many spare rooms they have.

FBaby

elliegirl wrote: »

The throw them out in the streets remark was an off the cuff remark. And if you read the replies below my post you would have seen that I had been misinformed.

All I was saying to you was that I don't need to be told what family means, I am well aware of the meaning and that I am extremely proud of my daughters for all the help they give us while we are unwell.

But surely, if it wasn't for the fact that you are entitled to social housing, they would have to look for accommodation in their own rights like many young adults have to do? Both work under 20 hours...how many young adults get good accommodation working such few hours? One daughter decided to have a child young, that was her choice too. They are lucky to be able to rely on social housing currently.

I know a couple of young graduates who live in basic accommodation yet most of their salary going into their rent. That's the reality for many of them. I did the same when I was 25, decided to give my job up to go back to studying, and earn very little after that. I shared a flat with two guys I didn't know in one of the most deprived borough of London. I cried quite a few times, but it gave me the incentive to get a better job and afford better accommodation, which I did in the end.

FBaby

bright_side wrote: »

It will only only effect people in receipt of housing benefit. It will not effect people who can afford to pay their full rent - they can afford to stay in their homes no matter how many spare rooms they have.

Except for those who suddenly can't afford to pay their rent because their hours are cut or are made redundant and they are given 2 months notice to get out if they can't pay any longer...