Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

ab.da54

nannytone wrote: »

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

The whole country is in a mess.

Lots of people are feeling the pinch.

It's impossible not to spend the money on children, unless there is neglect. They need food, a roof over their heads, warmth, clothes, I'm sure parents could come up with a long list.

Where parents don't spend the money on children, I would question their ability as parents.

This isn't about penalising it is about saving money. For some, sure, they are going to face even more difficult times , but they have options - a lodger, moving to a cheaper property. You talk as though there are no options.

For many people life is tough, it isn't just one particular group.

If I'm correct, someone asked the other day what you had done to challenge this. {I could be wrong though, as feeling a bit fuzzled} However, have you contacted your MP, have you been proactive about voicing your concerns about the benefit reduction?

Although I support the changes, I do have concerns about the more vulnerable people this will affect, but the more vulnerable are not necessarily those who receive disability benefits.

nannytone_2

ab.da54 wrote: »

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??

and my option of a private let is 1. a one bed with rent of $110 a week
2. a one bed with rent of £100 a week.
the LHA rate is £75 a week.
also the matter of one months rent in advance and 1 months rent deposit.
£1, 600.
where do you think that someone on disability benefit can put their hands on that kind of amount?

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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

I think, if social housing rents were set the same as the LHA rate, it would end up costing the government more.

Say for example a two bed SH flat is £75 but the LHA rate is £95*, as this reflects the current market rate for private rentals. By bringing them both in line, you raise SH rents. This then costs more in HB and puts more pressure on those who have the extra bedroom, because they will end up paying more too.

*Not actual figures as some LHA rates could be cheaper than SH rents.

Unfortunately, those who are renting council housing and paying full rent, would have signed secure tenancies and I don't think these can be removed.

As I have said, there will be groups who face difficulties, but not necessarily disabled people as the level of benefits can be quite substantial.

mysterywoman10

Except in that excess rent collected from Social Landlords it goes back into the system not into the hand of a private landlord. Which could be used to build more suitable accommodation!

I'm not convinced because although 660,000 people sounds a lot affected how many people actually live in Social Housing does anyone know?

ab.da54

nannytone wrote: »

and my option of a private let is 1. a one bed with rent of $110 a week
2. a one bed with rent of £100 a week.
the LHA rate is £85 a week.
also the matter of one months rent in advance and 1 months rent deposit.
£1, 600.
where do you think that someone on disability benefit can put their hands on that kind of amount?

That's just you though nannytone.

Not everyone will be in the same position that you are in.

The trouble with personalising is that it makes it sound as though everyone will be the same.

mysterywoman10

I don't know how many times I have to say this if they are not disabled then they should not be getting the benefits in the first place, this is an entirely different issue and it applys across, private rented, social housing and home owners. It isn't just SH people that are getting benefits they should not be.

In the same way if you haven't got a child then you should not get child benefit but please do not use the argument that people with disabilities should use their disability income to pay for rent. That is not what it is for.

mysterywoman10

Of course it applys to everyone if they are on HB and disabled and single where is the money going to come from for deposits and a months rent up front?

That's if you can actually find a landlord who will let to DSS (as they still annoyingly call it) it isn't just about security of tenancy either, there are all sorts of other issues you have problems with in the private sector.

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Except in that excess rent collected from Social Landlords it goes back into the system not into the hand of a private landlord. Which could be used to build more suitable accommodation!

I'm not convinced because although 660,000 people sounds a lot affected how many people actually live in Social Housing does anyone know?

Which would be a good thing, however, it would put even more financial strain on those paying the difference on housing benefit reduction, something you are keen not to see happen.

14% of £70 is £9.80

14% of £90 is £12.60

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Of course it applys to everyone if they are on HB and disabled and single where is the money going to come from for deposits and a months rent up front?

That's if you can actually find a landlord who will let to DSS (as they still annoyingly call it) it isn't just about security of tenancy either, there are all sorts of other issues you have problems with in the private sector.

Yes, there are, but then people can take in lodgers if they do not wish to move.

There are so many barriers being thrown up when now is the time to be looking for solutions as April will soon be upon us.

mysterywoman10

Barriers?

So how does this solve the problem of a family with two severely disabled children who can't share for medical reasons?

Where is there lodger going to go? In the garden shed?!

And who would want to live in a shed with a family with two severely disabled children anyway?!!

By far the greatest number affected are families not single people. Who don't "actually" have this spare room to let out to a lodger!