Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-sector-housing-under-occupation-wr2011-ia.pdf

In essence, the government are targeting the most overcrowded, least under-occupied sector of the housing market with an 'under-occupancy tax'. This bears no relation to more efficient use of housing stock, particularly when considering that areas with the highest rates of over-occupancy are the same areas as those with the lowest rates of under-occupancy.

In short, the policy does nothing to address the problem of over-crowding or homelessness. It can be argued that it will have a direct result of increasing homelessness in areas where under-occupancy is not generally a problem in the local housing market.

It is very difficult to find any logic in its implementation, considering that 81% of claimants affected only under-occupy by one bedroom, it is not likely to have much positive effect, just more hardship for benefit claimants.

There is a limit to what governments can influence. They can only influence that over which they have control. Social Housing policy over recent decades means that there is a disproportionate percentage of tenants who rely on HB to meet their rental obligation when compared to the private sector. Changes already introduced via LHA have addressed this same issue in the private sector, but the comparative non reliance on LHA means that many can afford to under-occupy without recourse to the public purse. That is one reason why the figures you present are, at best, misleading.

Either way, 40% isn't to be sniffed at with 1.8 Million languishing on waiting lists.

northerntwo1

How on earth do those researchers know how many live in my home? No one has ever asked me. Find it rather perculiar that they know how many people live in homes without asking.

Perhaps they relate to benefit claimants only, so the number in other sectors would be lower.

lighting_up_the_chalice

northerntwo1 wrote: »

How on earth do those researchers know how many live in my home? No one has ever asked me. Find it rather perculiar that they know how many people live in homes without asking.

Perhaps they relate to benefit claimants only, so the number in other sectors would be lower.

They interview a random sample and extrapolate. If they wanted a wider exploration, they could just use Council Tax records combined with Child Benefit records. But I'm sure that would be protected by the DPA.

northerntwo1

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

They interview a random sample and extrapolate. If they wanted a wider exploration, they could just use Council Tax records combined with Child Benefit records. But I'm sure that would be protected by the DPA.

Thank you very much for the information. I do not believe my Council Tax Records ask for my children's details and as many are losing Child Benefit I am not entirely convinced their data is as reliable as those who need to disclose information for benefits reasons.

nannytone_2

northerntwo1 wrote: »

So she is living by her means just like my parents did as they could not afford to move. She will move because she gets more benefits to allow her to move, maximising her benefits entitlement. That is the same in each walk of life, I'd like my children not to share but I do not think the Government will pay me to move into a larger home. The Govt only support those on benefits not to live in less desirable circumstances.

Or I sell and move to a less desirable area with more bedrooms as we all have choices.

the makor difference is that you are in a position to shaape your own future.
the disabled, laregely, are not.

if i moved from social housing, i wouldnt get the opportunity to get a secure home for myself, either by buying or getting a secure tenancy within the private sector.
the only means i have of safeguarding my future, is by maintaining my social housing tenancy.

my disavikty is such that there is no possible chance of umprovement and the only certainti is that it will get worse. and strangely enough, medical studies have proven a link between the seterioration of people with my condition and stress,


now the pros[ects of not knowing if im going to be able to afford to stay in my home and community ( where my friends and support are) the upcoming changes to council tax, universal credit and PIP are really starting to cause major stress. and im a strong resiliant person ... i cant imagine the impact it's all having on others who are less capable.

in the past 2 yearsi have suffered the death of a grandchild, the breakdown of a long term relationship and being made homeless. then i was offered my flat. i spent my life savings (3k) making it amy 'forever' home, that is money that i will never manage to save again.
so forgive me if i am selfish enough to think that i have suffered enough without the prospect of having to live hand to mouth for the next 40 years

northerntwo1

I have the most utmost sympathy for those with disabilities. Their children are not disabled. I am sorry that I see nothing morally wrong with siblings sharing a room.

Your own situation of which I will argue against as partially sighted and losing home and surroundings that are familiar, I find disgusting.

I do not advocate the same sympathy for 2 children sharing a room.

northerntwo1

To explain as I pressed enter too early. To ask someone with limited sight to move from a home that they are familar with, whose furniture and layout are known, whose neigbours and whose outside environment are know is wrong. I truly believe that certain exemptions qnd common sense should apply.

I can't support the "I want my children to have a room each"

I make no apologies for this in any shape or form.

nannytone_2

northerntwo1 wrote: »

I have the most utmost sympathy for those with disabilities. Their children are not disabled. I am sorry that I see nothing morally wrong with siblings sharing a room.

to be honest, nor do i.
but that is where you are contradicting yourself.
you say people need to free up the larger homes for families, but then youre saying that families dont need the larger homes as the children should share?

its the official guidelines that say no child over 9 should share with a sibling of another sex, or that same sex siblings shouldnt share after 16.
so the only people that might want my 2 bed flat are a couple with 1 child ... presumably they would have neen moved from a 1 bed ... of which there are none in my area.

a teenage mother in my area would wait no more than 3 months for a house with a garden... thats why neither accepted my property ... they knew a house was around the corner!

not only is there no property available to me to move into. there is also no one that wants my property ... apart from a single or couple who work.
makes me wonder who should be a higher priority for social housing ....

lighting_up_the_chalice

northerntwo1 wrote: »

To explain as I pressed enter too early. To ask someone with limited sight to move from a home that they are familar with, whose furniture and layout are known, whose neigbours and whose outside environment are know is wrong. I truly believe that certain exemptions qnd common sense should apply.

I can't support the "I want my children to have a room each"

I make no apologies for this in any shape or form.

Isn't DLA supposed to pay for the additional costs incurred as a result of a disability? Wouldn't this modest shortfall be such a cost?

northerntwo1

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Isn't DLA supposed to pay for the additional costs incurred as a result of a disability? Wouldn't this modest shortfall be such a cost?

Certainly so, perhaps I am misguided here, but the only family I know with limited sight issues state that mum will be denied under a new regime and so not applicable very soon. I cannot say with certainty but they appear to be of the belief that their DLA will end. Perhaps this is a time to clarify and apologise if I am incorrect.