We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Housing Benefit under occupancy Help
Comments
-
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »You don't think a wheelchair user in a first floor maisonette could possibly be in housing need?
Why would a wheelchair user be living in a first floor maisonette?lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »How about a family of 6 in a 2 bed flat,
Why would a family of 6 be living in a 2 bed flat when LHA covers rent for a much larger property?lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »a family threatened with homelessness, a family that needs to move to provide care and support to a relative, a family who cannot afford their rented/mortgaged property after the loss of a job, someone fleeing domestic violence, a family whos home is due to be demolished, a young mother leaving care, a family leaving supported accommodation, etc etc etc.
You mean like all of those who are affected by bedroom tax?0 -
Why would a wheelchair user be living in a first floor maisonette?
Because they got the maisonette before they got the wheelchair?Why would a family of 6 be living in a 2 bed flat when LHA covers rent for a much larger property?
Because they aren't claiming LHA? Because they cannot secure a property of a suitable size within their budget?You mean like all of those who are affected by bedroom tax?
I don't think that the flat refusal to downsize to a more suitable property because they like having a spare room constitutes housing need... Do you?
I've got to ask... Do you get up early and practice this level of stupidity, or does it come naturally?0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »You asked about 1 beds.
no i said 2 beds. would need 2x2beds.0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »Because they got the maisonette before they got the wheelchair?
What is stopping them from moving? Like the majority of people who are disabled that are affected by bedroom tax.lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »Because they aren't claiming LHA? Because they cannot secure a property of a suitable size within their budget?
If a family of 6 are not entitled to LHA, then they are earning enough to move to a larger property without assistance.lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »I don't think that the flat refusal to downsize to a more suitable property because they like having a spare room constitutes housing need... Do you?
That depends on whether smaller properties are available to accommodate them, most reports indicate that smaller properties are not available in the most affected areas. Hence, why tenants ended up under-occupying properties in the first place.lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »I've got to ask... Do you get up early and practice this level of stupidity, or does it come naturally?
:rotfl:0 -
no i said 2 beds. would need 2x2beds.
Even easier then.......
http://www.manchesterhomefinder.org/public/propertydetails.aspx?pid=12377&
http://www.manchesterhomefinder.org/public/propertydetails.aspx?pid=12412&
Both on this weeks bidding cycle.
And, of course, these new rules will mean that you are less likely to be competing against single person households wanting a spare room.... well, not now they might have to pay for it!0 -
What is stopping them from moving? Like the majority of people who are disabled that are affected by bedroom tax.
Availability? Isn't that the whole point of this policy?If a family of 6 are not entitled to LHA, then they are earning enough to move to a larger property without assistance.
But they are still entitled to that assistance. Perhaps they require some adaptations for a disabled child? Oh, I forgot, disabled people can't move, so they'll just have to stay put, huh?That depends on whether smaller properties are available to accommodate them, most reports indicate that smaller properties are not available in the most affected areas. Hence, why tenants ended up under-occupying properties in the first place.
Yup, that's what everyone says when they don't want to move. Then you look at what IS available and discover the opposite is true. Bradford was a fine example of just that.0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »And, of course, these new rules will mean that you are less likely to be competing against single person households wanting a spare room.... well, not now they might have to pay for it!
The old rules discount single people being able to bid on two-bedroom properties, they would only be eligible to bid on one-bedroom properties.0 -
lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »Availability? Isn't that the whole point of this policy?
No, the whole point of the policy is to reduce housing benefit costs.lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »Bradford was a fine example of just that.
Your 'Bradford example' proved nothing, except that more people bid on two-bedroom properties than three-bedroom properties in the month of October 2012. Which could in fact be a direct result of the impending bedroom tax.0 -
Technical question. LHA is based on the bottom 30% of local rents. Does this include the ridiculously lower average social rents for comparable housing? (Which is going to bring the overall average down). In my LA the maximum social rent for ANY property (unless with a service charge) is around £380 month. LHA for 1 bed is £375, for 2 bed £450.
C'mon Morlock..I'm depending on you for the answer on this one.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards