Housing Benefit under occupancy Help

ijwia

so i should move to a bedsit then ?

as housing associations don't build many 1 bedroom properties

private landlords in glasgow charge more for the 1 bedrooom properties than the local housing charge for a 2 bedroom flat

barnaby-bear

ijwia wrote: »

so i should move to a bedsit then ?

as housing associations don't build many 1 bedroom properties

private landlords in glasgow charge more for the 1 bedrooom properties than the local housing charge for a 2 bedroom flat

But since you don't pay your rent it doesn't matter - get a 1-bed private on LHA and free up the two bed so a couple+child can move from the more expensive private 2-bed.... or move into a bedsit it's what most working people who can't afford a flat do - it's not exactly a hardship, most working single people would love their own flat but are happy enough in a bedsit...

mazza111

barnaby-bear wrote: »

There are loads of 1-beds to rent privately (haven't you seen your average new development!) and loads of people in 2-bed private rentals wanting social housing; at least this way it incentivises people to shuffle around and cut the overall cost of private rental for the tax payer... it completely irrelevent to anyone who chooses to pay their rent themselves too - nobody paying their own rent will have to pay any tax or any extra....

Not in this area there isn't... There is a handful of 1 bedroom council flats at the end of my street. My dd is in one of them. As a former postie in the town, I can guarantee that's about the smallest here.Most new social housing being built is at least 2 bedroom. Although they are trying to make more 3/4 bedroom as this is where the most shortages is.


So at your reckoning, people who are on HB should move into a 1 bedroom, even if they are only on it a short time? I bet my dd would still cost less to the taxpayer for rent in her one bedroom flat than someone renting a room.

Or someone in a 2 bedroom social housing place will still cost less to the tax payer than them moving into a 1 bedroom private let.

Remember a lot of people aren't getting HB long term, yes a lot are, but a lot of them maybe just in between jobs for example.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea to free up oversized houses. But around here it's wee granny Smith who's sat in her 5 apartment house, who won't be asked to pay anything. But those in 2 bedroom places will have to, even though there's no one bedroom places available.

seven-day-weekend

ijwia wrote: »

so i should move to a bedsit then ?

as housing associations don't build many 1 bedroom properties

private landlords in glasgow charge more for the 1 bedrooom properties than the local housing charge for a 2 bedroom flat

You have several choices :

a) pay the extra rent
b) downsize
c) take in a lodger

Up to you.

ijwia

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It's to do with getting your rent paid, but is not part of Housing Benefit,

why is it included under HOUSING BENEFIT SECTION THEN ?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

it is a different Benefit for people who live in privately rented accommodation.

again why is it included under HOUSING BENEFIT SECTION THEN ?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

You are not being punished for anything,

so its normal and fair for the state to change the rules for folk when their circumstances haven't changed ?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

you are being expected to pay for the extra room like someone in privately rented accommodation would do

and you think that making people on limited incomes (benefits) pay extra for rooms is fair ?

my benefit award letter comes with a statement that says this is the amount that the law says you need to live on

so how can it be fair if i am expected to pay extra from that amount to pay for the shortfall in housing benefit ?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

(or downsize, or take in a lodger, then you don't have an extra room)

i am going to see the housing association later about downsizing, i aint taking a lodger as i dont keep well and stay in a deprived area

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Not everyone knows about Benefits, which is why they ask questions, but they normally ask them politely.

i did ask nicely i only got an attitude after recieving responces with an attitude, got it ? thanks

seven-day-weekend

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE%5E2883&insId=1&maxPrice=500&maxBedrooms=1&radius=0.5

ten pages of one-beds and studios available to rent for £400 a month or less in my postcode.

However, I do appreciate that someone may not want to give up a secure tenancy.

barnaby-bear

ijwia wrote: »

so its normal and fair for the state to change the rules for folk when their circumstances haven't changed ?

Yes - the state changes the rules on visa status, child benefit limits, how pensions are calculated, self-employment regulations, taxes, VAT, what drugs are free on the NHS to balance the budget all the time.... :think:

ijwia

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Yes - the state changes the rules on visa status, child benefit limits, how pensions are calculated, self-employment regulations, taxes, VAT, what drugs are free on the NHS to balance the budget all the time.... :think:

and it's also fair for the state to tell someone this is what the law says you need to live on then (reducing housing benefit) then make them pay more for their rent ?

you dont see that as immoral ?

telling someone on the lowest income of state benefits that they should now pay part of their rent because the government hasn't provided enough housing for the country, as is generally accepted by all the experts

i dont believe that there are enough 1 bedroom flats in glasgow to take on this change

i wonder if there will be a legal challenge to this

people being moved into 2 bedroom flats by local authority when they were on a low income and needed housing benefit to pay the rent
then expected to move house or take in a stranger or pay 14% or upwards out of their already tiny income because the government changed the rules

in theory the government in 10 years time could come back and attack us again for living in a 1 bedroom flat saying that you could stay in a bedsit and decrease housing benefit again

in another note

dispatches last night said mps expenses during the scandal 3 years ago was £90 million odd in cost to the taxpayer

now after all the furore the mps expences have reduced to a satisfactory £89 million

at least some are happy

pmlindyloo

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It's to do with getting your rent paid, but is not part of Housing Benefit, it is a different Benefit for people who live in privately rented accommodation.

You are not being punished for anything, you are being expected to pay for the extra room like someone in privately rented accommodation would do (or downsize, or take in a lodger, then you don't have an extra room).

Not everyone knows about Benefits, which is why they ask questions, but they normally ask them politely.

I am sure you didn't mean this as how it reads

Housing Benefit can be claimed by people who live in privately rented property and also those who live in council/HA properties.

The amount of Housing Benefit awarded for those in privately rented accommodation is assessed using the local housing allowance. This varies from place to place. The local housing rates depend on your age, number of children (their sex and their ages) etc.

So for those living in privately rented accommodation the highest amount of Housing Benefit they would be entitled to would be based on the local housing allowance.

So, if you are eligible for a 2 bedroomed place and the local housing allowance is £150 per week then your maximum Housing Benefit would be £150 a week. If your rent was higher than this then you would be expected to make up the 'shortfall' yourself.


Council House tenants have always been awarded the full amount of rent for their Housing Benefit. This was based on the fact that council house rents are much lower than in the private sector.

Now because of the shortage of social housing the idea is to restrict the number of bedrooms allowed to match the household 'needs' (number of people/children/age) just as they do when assessing HB for privately rented places.

Arguing about it isn't going to alter things.

You either have to find the extra money/get a lodger/exchange/find a one bed privately rented place if there are no 1 bed council places.

Apologies to regular readers who know all about this but thought it might help the OP understand the system and also correct the misunderstanding.

seven-day-weekend

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I am sure you didn't mean this as how it reads

Housing Benefit can be claimed by people who live in privately rented property and also those who live in council/HA properties.

The amount of Housing Benefit awarded for those in privately rented accommodation is assessed using the local housing allowance. This varies from place to place. The local housing rates depend on your age, number of children (their sex and their ages) etc.

So for those living in privately rented accommodation the highest amount of Housing Benefit they would be entitled to would be based on the local housing allowance.

So, if you are eligible for a 2 bedroomed place and the local housing allowance is £150 per week then your maximum Housing Benefit would be £150 a week. If your rent was higher than this then you would be expected to make up the 'shortfall' yourself.


Council House tenants have always been awarded the full amount of rent for their Housing Benefit. This was based on the fact that council house rents are much lower than in the private sector.

Now because of the shortage of social housing the idea is to restrict the number of bedrooms allowed to match the household 'needs' (number of people/children/age) just as they do when assessing HB for privately rented places.

Arguing about it isn't going to alter things.

You either have to find the extra money/get a lodger/exchange/find a one bed privately rented place if there are no 1 bed council places.

Apologies to regular readers who know all about this but thought it might help the OP understand the system and also correct the misunderstanding.

Thank you, you explained it better than I have.

To the OP, whether I think it is fair or not is not the point , the point is that this is what is going to happen, so you have to deal with things as they are, not how you would like them to be.

Actually I do think it is fair that ALL people in rented property, whether private or public, who claim help with their rent, should be treated the same regarding that (and I include pensioners in that, the only ones I would make exceptions for are those with certain disabilities who need an overnight carer.).