Appealing the Bedroom Tax

Dunroamin

306chris wrote: »

My family are in this category. If you think that the benefits we receive are generous then come and live with us for a week. I’ve been out of work since Oct having worked since I was 16 (now 32). One point that pigs me right off is the one size fits all approach to this. This is a real example

My neighbour and I both live in identical houses i.e. the floor layout is the same (as is the case for all virtually all the 2 and 3 bed houses on our estate) . Now she has two very large bedrooms and I have one large, one medium and one box room. We both have a boy and a girl each (all under 10 different ages though) now they have put up a partition to give the same layout as me and won’t be subject to reduced benefits, but if we were to knock through and make it a two bed it wouldn’t alter thing either. How is that fair?

Also, please explain to me how you can get a letter saying that you are entitled to x amount to live on each week as that is the min amount by law you need to live on and then for them to take away 10% of the gross amount?

I think that, if you add up all the benefits you receive and then gross it up, you might understand what some of us mean by saying that the benefits package that families receive is generous.

Also, if you a 14% reduction of HB, it cannot possibly be a 10% reduction of your total benefits; that just doesn't add up.

mysterywoman10

Dunroamin wrote: »

I think that, if you add up all the benefits you receive and then gross it up, you might understand what some of us mean by saying that the benefits package that families receive is generous.

Also, if you a 14% reduction of HB, it cannot possibly be a 10% reduction of your total benefits; that just doesn't add up.

You are missing the point it makes no difference whether you or anyone else or I think the package is generous.

The government specifies a minimum amount to live on...in the case above one neighbor gets it the other doesn't.

Yes agreed about that bit being strange re partion but even without the partion the situation is the same and shows why it is such a ridiculously ill thought out tax/cut.

Maybe there will be a case for a top up somewhere else to bring them back up to the minimum amount the government says they need to live on.

bloolagoon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

You are missing the point it makes no difference whether you or anyone else or I think the package is generous.

The government specifies a minimum amount to live on...in the case above one neighbor gets it the other doesn't.

Yes agreed about that bit being strange re partion but even without the partion the situation is the same and shows why it is such a ridiculously ill thought out tax/cut.

Maybe there will be a case for a top up somewhere else to bring them back up to the minimum amount the government says they need to live on.

They often ignore the minimum flooring. Those in private rental, those who are taxed, those on job seekers in rural high cost public transport to sign on, those who pay tax on benefits, those whom are paying back a budgeting loan and many other reasons.

ab.da54

306chris wrote: »

My family are in this category. If you think that the benefits we receive are generous then come and live with us for a week. I’ve been out of work since Oct having worked since I was 16 (now 32). One point that pigs me right off is the one size fits all approach to this. This is a real example

Give me an honest answer - how much do you receive each week?

Two kids, it's about £150 with tax credits and child benefit
Two adults on Joint JSA is what? £110

So over £250 a week free money and you can't pay approx £10 on rent? Sure it will be tight but add in housing costs and you're getting a fair whack off the government in all fairness.

If figures are wrong, give me your figures and someone can check if you're getting the right amount for your circumstances.

Good luck with the job hunting by the way. It's not easy being out of work.

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon wrote: »

They often ignore the minimum flooring. Those in private rental, those who are taxed, those on job seekers in rural high cost public transport to sign on, those who pay tax on benefits, those whom are paying back a budgeting loan and many other reasons.

All the last points would apply whether you are in SH or LHA not taking something into account in calculating the minimum amount to live on is not the same as taking it away from one specific group based on the number of bedrooms.

Minimum flooring I would agree should apply in LHA but this is down to the free market and what landlords are allowed to charge, regardless of bedroom allocations. I'd be in favour of capping private rentals based on minimum flooring sizes absolutely.

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

You are missing the point it makes no difference whether you or anyone else or I think the package is generous.

The government specifies a minimum amount to live on...in the case above one neighbor gets it the other doesn't.

Yes agreed about that bit being strange re partion but even without the partion the situation is the same and shows why it is such a ridiculously ill thought out tax/cut.

Maybe there will be a case for a top up somewhere else to bring them back up to the minimum amount the government says they need to live on.

If you receive benefits from DWP, the letters state 'this is the amount the law says you need to live on'.

When you receive child benefits or child tax credits from HMRC, do those letters say 'this is the amount the law says you need to live on'?

mysterywoman10

I don't know and it's a fair point

Although it would really make a very conclusive argument for those who don't have children wouldn't it ?

This tax won't save much money and it is fundementally flawed for numerous reasons that have been illustrated time and time again and it won't bring it in line with LHA or address the problems there.

Single people are still being treated differently in SH to LHA for starters particularly since the introduction of the 35 rule.

mysterywoman10

ab.da54 wrote: »

Give me an honest answer - how much do you receive each week?

Two kids, it's about £150 with tax credits and child benefit
Two adults on Joint JSA is what? £110

So over £250 a week free money and you can't pay approx £10 on rent? Sure it will be tight but add in housing costs and you're getting a fair whack off the government in all fairness.

If figures are wrong, give me your figures and someone can check if you're getting the right amount for your circumstances.

Good luck with the job hunting by the way. It's not easy being out of work.

Isn't the point though why should they pay when the neighbor gets the same amount, in the same situation? Same size house just laid out differently? Two children both of different sexes under 10?

I bring you back to my point from day 1 an overall cut across the board would have been fairer, simpler, cost effective end of and save a lot more money £5 each think about it and do the sums.

Because the reality is a huge amount of the people afffected either need the extra room or they will do in a couple of years time anway. The only ones who are probably discounted from that are single people in two bedroomed accommodation, so build more one beds and then offer moves once they are built. In the meantime save money and less administration.

bloolagoon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Isn't the point though why should they pay when the neighbor gets the same amount, in the same situation? Same size house just laid out differently? Two children both of different sexes under 10?

I bring you back to my point from day 1 an overall cut across the board would have been fairer, simpler, cost effective end of and save a lot more money £5 each think about it and do the sums.

Because the reality is a huge amount of the people afffected either need the extra room or they will do in a couple of years time anway. The only ones who are probably discounted from that are single people in two bedroomed accommodation, so build more one beds and then offer moves once they are built. In the meantime save money and less administration.

If they introduced the shared accommodation rate into social housing, many single would share a home and save the cost of new builds. It should have been part of this proposal.

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I don't know and it's a fair point

Although it would really make a very conclusive argument for those who don't have children wouldn't it ?
.

Agree with you there about single people.

Another question, if someone on benefits receives their letter about 'this is the amount the law says you need to live on', but they want a budgeting loan.

They accept the loan and the reduced payments, why aren't they shouting out but, but, but 'this is the amount the law says you need to live on'?

If it's the fact that they see the loan repayments as part of their bills, just like they see water rates as part of their bills, and gas, electric, so on and so forth, why are they not seeing a small contribution to rent as part of their bills?

I can see where someone with no children, on JSA only, will struggle but for families who have children - children who have aroof over their heads, why oh why are parents not taking some responsibility for the homes their children are safe in? How many people, in how many countries, would be so grateful to be paying a small amount each week, knowing their children are tucked up safely in bed, with a roof over their heads, yet, here, families who receive a fair whack off the government do not want to pay anything towards keeping their family secure.

It's a cost that has so far been avoided but it's a cost that is equally as importat as food, drink, heat and a safe roof. I wish families would just stop and consider how lucky they actually are when compared to others. Families - and I'm not talking families where someone has a severe disability here [although they also receive a fair amount] - but families with no disability, they get a fair whack. The children have a roof over their heads, why not think about how they are providing a small amount for security, comfort rather than moaning that it's no longer free.