Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

not more patronising .... more honest

I'll stick to my own honesty, thanks.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

Of the 81% of claimants affected by having one spare room, the majority of those are likely to have a disability, as 61% of claimants affected have a disability. Any savings will be at the expense of disabled people who are less likely to be able to move elsewhere and will stay put and absorb the cost. So, yes, the disabled are getting a real thrashing.

And, of course, the rate of disability tends to increase with age, so a disproportionate percentage of those 61% will not be of working age ans won't be effected.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nixe wrote: »

thats so true in my case, me and hubby have room each
both have serious medical problems.
we have to pay unless we move where it will me who sleeps
on the settee, i had a stroke 5 weeks ago so cant do it.
he defo could not sleep on the settee.

So,it's either a sofa-bed, or a modest payment for the extra bedroom from your DLA, a benefit specifically awarded to cover the additional living costs of a disability. Seems simple enough to me.

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

And, of course, the rate of disability tends to increase with age, so a disproportionate percentage of those 61% will not be of working age ans won't be effected.

The figure is 61% of those affected are disabled, working age claimants.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

The figure is 61% of those affected are disabled, working age claimants.

Even better, as that means even MORE Social Housing may be freed up for disabled applicants languishing in unsuitable properties on the waiting list. I'm sure you are delighted by that?

mazza111

Heycock wrote: »

MAZZA111....HB/LHA provisions explicitly state no allowance for extra bedroom need for disability/carer unless the carer is from outside the family and stays over (I think) at least 3 nights a week. So screw the couple where one is the carer but who can't share a room for sound medical reasons. They still get the one room rate. When this was pointed out to Ian Duncan Smith he responded that this was never the intention...Oooops! but he'd look at it again. He hasn't.
Many LAs are using the same rules for housing allocation but this is discretionary... I've managed to get on the permitted bidding group for 2 bed properties but I think it was pure charm that did it. IF we ever get the much wanted switch into Social housing we'll still only get the one room rate. But I accept that. We'd still be paying a lot less rent than we do now for a comparable private sector property. My main motivation to get out of the private into social is for the security of tenure.

Thnx, I wasn't sure on the disability thing and missed your post while I was typing another. There's no bidding system where we are. Many house moves are exchanges where people want a different sized property. Failing that, you go on a list and I think you're allowed to refuse 3 properties before you go bottom of the list again.


As for asking a disabled person to sleep on a sofabed. Clueless! They are meant for occasional use, not every day use.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Then you have the same choices as everybody else. If there are no 1 beds, you will have to afford a 2 bed. If you cannot afford a 2 bed, you will have to move to where there ARE 1 beds.

Sorry, but it really is that simple.

I can't move out the area, I have responsibilities here, like my disabled daughter on one side of the valley and my disabled mother on the other side of the valley. So yes, I will have to pick up the short fall for the benefit of my family. So where will this money come from? That is the big question. Again it's the logics that don't apply. I am in a 2 bedroom property. There are empty properties of the same size in this area. If I moved to another area, and was in the position of claiming HB then they would be paying MORE for me to live in a 1 bed? Does that make sense to you?

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Yes and I think you've had some very articulate and valid arguments, although they don't seem that relevent to the south-east and london and average sentiment here... I also think you've demonstrated that you are prepared to adapt and see the wider arguments; the OP on the other hand seems so phased by what are normal life changes (to the point of worrying they might die) that it worries me what the system can do to people. I think on average it's a reasonable policy - I don't think the pensioner exception has much logic....

Oh I totally understand the other side of the argument. I was in Brighton for about 15 years where the social housing was abysmal and the private rents were extortionate. I think this is where the government need to apply logic to these situations. If property is available, fine by all means charge.

BTW most of the 1 bed places here are either sheltered housing or pensioner places.

I think nannytone lives in a place like mine where there is inadequate housing for couples or singles.

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?

Honestly, some people who's disabilities are that bad, their dla is used up on transport for hospital visits and care needs. Not housing needs. Just last week my dd had 5 different appointments. Although I drive her there, if I wasn't around that would be taken up by taxis. Approximately £6 each time if she's at local hospital. If she's at the RI it's a lot more than that. That's not to mention the trips for shopping etc. DLA can easily be eaten up by transport costs, especially if the recipient doesn't drive. She does get a free bus pass, but can't get on the bus... No taxi schemes available in this area.


I apologise for the long post but I wanted to address the points made since I went to bed last night.

ijwia

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Plenty of people working full time are in the same boat. The choices that are available to you are limited, difficult even, but very clear.

for christs sake how many times do you have to be told

people working on low incomes have choices and are able to get better employment or a 2nd job to help financially

people sick or disabled are on fixed low incomes and the government is forcing them to move when the chances are there are not enough 1 bed flats/houses or pay the shortfall in the rent off of an already low unchangeable income.

putting sick/disabled people in the same bracket as fit and healthy working people is a symptom of a heartless society! (for the purposes of housing)

If you don't think that the government should look more compassionately on the sick/disabled than those that are in a position to better there circumstances

then theres no hope for you and god forbid you or any of your friends and family ever get sick/disabled

shameless

MissMoneypenny

ijwia wrote: »

people working on low incomes have choices and are able to get better employment or a 2nd job to help financially

people sick or disabled are on fixed low incomes and the government is forcing them to move

The sick and disabled have extra benefits.

Nobody is forcing anyone to move; that is a choice they make themselves. Either pay a small amount towards those extra bedrooms you don't need, or move and let another family who need cheap housing/those bedrooms, have that bigger property.

Smaller houses have smaller bills, so that's an advantage to moving to a smaller place for those on a fixed income.

nixe

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

So,it's either a sofa-bed, or a modest payment for the extra bedroom from your DLA, a benefit specifically awarded to cover the additional living costs of a disability. Seems simple enough to me.

a sofa bed dont why i did not think of that before,
could it because i have arthritis and cant on days even lift
a cuppa, or that hubby has muscles that work back to front
and cant even at times hold a pen.
but here is the good news he will possibly lose his legs
so will have half a body, they could then up the £14 a week
to say £19 as a full human is not using the room
or should he get a discount.
the room is not spare i am using it.

Heycock

people working on low incomes have choices and are able to get better employment or a 2nd job to help financially

Ijwia...I sympathise with some of your arguments to a degree but in what strange parallel universe of employment bounty do you live in?
Choices for the low paid are non-existent. There is nothing out there for anyone, abled or disabled.
Before becoming a full-time carer I worked between 55 and 70 hours a week at a lot less than minimum wage. On benefits i'm only marginally worse off financially but immeasurably better off mentally. Do you think I would have continued working those hours at half minimum wage if I'd had a choice?