Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

nannytone_2

so if i swap to a pribate let and have to top the rent up ... i then become oner of the deserving? pmdteaad of being one of those people that stop families getting a secure tenancy?
even though there is a surplus of 2 bed housing in this area?

it hyst doesnt make sense that one 'needy' group gas to make way for another. were all in need otherwise we would be property owners, like those of you who are telling us to pay up or lose security!

mandiskem

nixe wrote: »

it is rundown compared to halebarns and chedle mosside etc.
only had about 6 shootings and 8 murders all with in a five min
walk from me in the last 3 years
if i moved it could be worse.

there are better areas out there nixe i was in a place where theres no 1 bedroom bungalows there is only me n partner so didnt want to be in a 2 bedroom and i certainly didnt want a 3 too big the place didnt have a cinema or anything like that had nothing for kids to do nearest cinema is 8 miles away like a ghost town with loads of roundabouts i moved out of area moved into cheshire better quality of life

Morlock

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I said that a quantity are. You said that was untrue ("Absolute rubbish"). I provided links to adverts which confirm what I said.

You didn't post links confirming anything. I said it was absolute rubbish that many areas allowed a person with shared care to bid on properties with an extra bedroom for their children.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Can I make a suggestion? Do a little research before you post. It would save me a lot of time if I didn't have to keep correcting you.

What exactly have you corrected? Claiming that you have corrected me, does not mean that you have. I have corrected you on many of your misguided comments here (see?).

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

I fully agree with you (posted the same yesterday on DT), they NEED to tackle business not paying, EU and overseas donations, immigration, larger families and many other things.

I do think it's wrong the disabled are hit (see my post when I expained to OP prior to your arrival on this thread) and the need for 2nd bedrooms.

But ... Uncle Jack alone as mother left the tenancy in a 4 bed house when the tax payers are paying £1800 pm rental privately for a family is wrong. Families where 4 children have their own room as opposed to sharing is wrong.

I always feel that dolphins get caught in a shark net with all changes and do not feel happy about that. Despite the way I come over at times I am not "happy to live in my ivory tower" but the reality always is for each winner there is a loser. Changes to anything are never individual.

If they raised fuel tomorrow - I'd not be affected as out all day and run round like a headless chicken and don't even use heating so not affected with a high income, leccy and I'd be whalloped as I use so much.

Everyting in life has winners and losers .... It just sucks when you are on the loosers (not beneficiary) side.

But is there a losers side in this?

Reduce the overall HB bill and cuts elsewhere can be avoided.

The reduction in HB entitlement can be mitigated/avoided by downsizing.

Efficiency in the SH sector will have a downward pressure on demand in the private rented sector.

That reduced demand will have a downward pressure on rents.

Everyone's a winner!

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

You didn't post links confirming anything. I said it was absolute rubbish that many areas allowed a person with shared care to bid on properties with an extra bedroom for their children.

I refer you to #431

Morlock wrote: »

What exactly have you corrected? Claiming that you have corrected me, does not mean that you have. I have corrected you on many of your misguided comments here (see?).

Just take a read of the last few pages. You missed the post I referred to above so you may not be reading everything a thoroughly as you should. Perhaps that's why you keep making such a fool of yourself. My earlier suggestion still applies. Try it. I think it would help.

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

But is there a losers side in this?

Reduce the overall HB bill and cuts elsewhere can be avoided.

The reduction in HB entitlement can be mitigated/avoided by downsizing.

Efficiency in the SH sector will have a downward pressure on demand in the private rented sector.

That reduced demand will have a downward pressure on rents.

Everyone's a winner!

I do think there are losers yes.

I think it needs to be means tested. Someone on £71 pw needs to find a lot of disposable income to pay £14 pw, plus moving costs, it's not their fault the govt allowed historic tenancies. Some disabled (I do not think all are) are losers, and there are losers in the private sector too.

Despite the unfair status I don't think many will move actually. I think that those in very unsuitable private accomodation still won't have access to homes they need. They will still loose.

My GM waited 9 years for her LA home, despite severe disabilities. 9 years is FAR too long for anyone to wait. I don't think these changes will reduce that wait by much if honest because they will pay in the main.

Always loosers... Overall there will be more winners which is why support this move, but doesn't mean I don't accept that some will be harder hit that others. I'd be inhuman if I didn't acknowledge that.

sunnyone

people who need a wheelchair indoors need much more houseing help than a blind person, a blind person can learn their space around any home where as wheelchair user cant unless they can actully move around in thier own home.

People in wheelchairs fulltime need lots of space to move around, peopel with diffrent disabilities need diffrent adjustments

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

so if i swap to a pribate let and have to top the rent up ... i then become oner of the deserving? pmdteaad of being one of those people that stop families getting a secure tenancy?
even though there is a surplus of 2 bed housing in this area?

it hyst doesnt make sense that one 'needy' group gas to make way for another. were all in need otherwise we would be property owners, like those of you who are telling us to pay up or lose security!

There's a 2 bed available in your village right now. Looks OK too. I did link to it before but you may have missed it.....

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-38175323.html

So, keep the spare room and save about £10 a week! How does that make you MORE needy?

lighting_up_the_chalice

princessdon wrote: »

I do think there are losers yes.

I think it needs to be means tested. Someone on £71 pw needs to find a lot of disposable income to pay £14 pw, plus moving costs, it's not their fault the govt allowed historic tenancies. Some disabled (I do not think all are) are losers, and there are losers in the private sector too.

HB is already means tested.

princessdon wrote: »

Despite the unfair status I don't think many will move actually. I think that those in very unsuitable private accomodation still won't have access to homes they need. They will still loose.

But the reduction in HB costs will mean they won't be hit by the alternative cuts. If they don't save money here, they will grab it elsewhere.

princessdon wrote: »

My GM waited 9 years for her LA home, despite severe disabilities. 9 years is FAR too long for anyone to wait. I don't think these changes will reduce that wait by much if honest because they will pay in the main.

On that point, I agree. I understand your GM moved into accommodation for the elderly. Those over working age are exempt.

princessdon wrote: »

Always loosers... Overall there will be more winners which is why support this move, but doesn't mean I don't accept that some will be harder hit that others. I'd be inhuman if I didn't acknowledge that.

I guess it's a matter of perception. To my mind, when the bigger picture is viewed, we could all benefit from this modest change.

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

the modest shortfa;; is 1/7 if my total income ...
u qish you had some appreciation of how hard it is to live on benefit

That doesn't add up numerically. 14% of your rent is 1/7 of your rent, it cannot be 1/7 of your total income.