Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

mazza111

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

The same rules apply to LHA it is only if they are seen as a sleep-in carer and there is a need for the extra bedroom.

Actually reading it, it doesn't say anything about being a carer. A deduction will not be made from your HB if:you, or your partner, are receiving the care component of Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance in respect of yourself or your partner.

I have stated I don't actually agree with this. In theory it means that the dd could move a friend in, who's on good money, but wouldn't need to pay any rent? That's my reading of it anyway

mysterywoman10

Yes it was possible, it started with husband's being able to transfer tax codes, then they realised it might happen the other way around. So they stopped it.

We did it for a while about 25+ years ago when I had a very good job and my husband re-trained to do the job he does now. It helped us considerably.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1697313

mysterywoman10

mazza111 wrote: »

Actually reading it, it doesn't say anything about being a carer. A deduction will not be made from your HB if:you, or your partner, are receiving the care component of Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance in respect of yourself or your partner.

I have stated I don't actually agree with this. In theory it means that the dd could move a friend in, who's on good money, but wouldn't need to pay any rent? That's my reading of it anyway

Sorry I misread your first post I understand what you mean now but again I think you will find the same rules apply in LHA. I'm not sure it wouldn't affect the housing benefit in some way, I think they are assumed to be contributing to the rent so it would affect the HB, I'm not 100% sure on that one.

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I also find it very hypocritical that when it comes to home owners the disability benefits are for the disablity but when it comes to people receiving other benefits they are not.

If someone has a child, and receives child benefit, it would be impossible to spend absolutely no money whatsoever on the child, unless the child was severely neglected.

For some people who received disability related benefits, they do not need to pay anything extra for their disability and so the money becomes part of their general income.

There often is a difference, although others with disabilities will use the care and mobility components to pay for er ... care and mobility needs. It's a shame not everyone in receipt of DLA did that.

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

50% affected do fall into that category though. We've already established that.

Single disabled people (without needs you mention above) like Nanny have already gone to great length to demonstrate that there is no one bedroomed accommodation and that is backed up by the fact this true.

But it is now a luxury not of their own makiing that you think they should pay for?

Someone in the same position as nannytone has the option to move into a private rental. They do then give up a secure tenancy but, if that is something they wish to hold onto, then they have to accept the extra cost.

Unless there is an about turn, the benefit reductions are going to go ahead and all the talk on here is not going to change that.

Perhaps time for people to become proactive, rather than musing on a forum??

nannytone_2

ab.da54 wrote: »

If someone has a child, and receives child benefit, it would be impossible to spend absolutely no money whatsoever on the child, unless the child was severely neglected.

For some people who received disability related benefits, they do not need to pay anything extra for their disability and so the money becomes part of their general income.

There often is a difference, although others with disabilities will use the care and mobility components to pay for er ... care and mobility needs. It's a shame not everyone in receipt of DLA did that.

so because 'some' disabled people dont spend the disability element of their benefit on their disability then everyone should be penalised?
some people dont spend ALL of their child related benefits on the child .
so surely that should mean that no one should get child related benefits?
just to be sure that they arent spending them on something else

mazza111

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Sorry I misread your first post I understand what you mean now but again I think you will find the same rules apply in LHA. I'm not sure it wouldn't affect the housing benefit in some way, I think they are assumed to be contributing to the rent so it would affect the HB, I'm not 100% sure on that one.

According to that quote from http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/technical-guidance/rr2-a-guide-to-housing-benefit/what-you-can-claim-for/non-dependants/ then no it won't affect HB.

That's where I think things are wrong. She lives alone, she will have to find around £15/week, whereas if she took someone in who's earning, she would pay 0. Or am I reading that totally wrong.


Non-dependant deductions from HB

Deductions are made from your HB for non-dependants aged over 18 who normally live with you. There are six levels of deduction. If the non-dependant is working less than 16 hours a week, the lowest deduction will apply. If the non-dependant is doing paid work for 16 hours or more a week, the level of deduction will depend on the non-dependant’s gross income. A deduction will not be made from your HB if:

the non-dependant is in receipt of Pension Credit
you or your partner are aged 65 or more and the non-dependant is a full time student,
you, or your partner, are registered blind or treated as blind (see page 69 or 71 for an explanation of being treated as blind) or
you, or your partner, are receiving the care component of Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance in respect of yourself or your partner or
the non-dependant is aged 16 or 17 or the non-dependant’s normal home is somewhere else or
the non-dependant is in receipt of a training allowance or a YTS scheme or
the non-dependant is a full-time student (but deductions may be made during the summer vacation if the student does any paid work in this period) or
the non-dependant is a prisoner or
the non-dependant has been a patient in hospital for 52 weeks or more. If the non-dependant leaves hospital but is readmitted to hospital within 28 days their total number of days in hospital are added together
The non-dependant is in receipt of ESA(IR) which does not include a component.

Mainly the part in bold.

mysterywoman10

Well I am proactive but I'm a bit in limbo at the moment, waiting on the powers that be!

Rents should be set at the same as those in the private sector LHA rates I keep bringing up the example of someone in Social Housing who doesn't have a "need" for a 3 bedroom property who is not claiming HB but they are unaffected. Obviously as I've tried to illustrate they are still getting benefits from the state.

People say it isn't subsidised renting but of course it is because in the majority of cases a social housing house rental is far less than a private rented one.

There should be transitional arrangements and the Disibiity issues should have been built into the system in the first place as they should be in LHA.

"Allocation" should be more strictly controlled and more one bedroomed properties build. Then we might start achieving a fairer system.

But cutting the benefits to disabled people (most of whom are not single) but familes with disabled children or adults isn't a fair system. Hopefully thought the last bit we will get changed permanently.

Again I gave an example of a family numerous threads/posts back with a disabled adult in an extension it was ignored.

But your right no more musing, things to do

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

a non working blind person can still transfer their aditional tax allowance ... but no to a partner as such.
it mist be to a husband/wife/civil partner.

u dont understand why vlind people get an additional tax allowance though, as the disability elenent of wtc is aksi oayavke.

for the record ... i never claimed this extra tax allowance.

Perhaps because, as a group, more blind people traditionally have worked than those with other disabilities?

mysterywoman10

Dunroamin wrote: »

Perhaps because, as a group, more blind people traditionally have worked than those with other disabilities?

That is probably a factor but also again historically "blind" people were the first group who were recognised as being disabled and "helped" and they were allowed to be to be treated as normal human beings EQUALS.....thankfully things have moved a long way since then !!

Thats why the blind get all the perks a joke but there is an element of historical fact in it. Given that the RNIB is one of the oldest charities.