Appealing the Bedroom Tax

bloolagoon

Does this discretionary payment apply to private renters? Is it the same budget for both, or is this an additional separate pot of allocated/ring fenced funding.

I know many families who have been refused in the past, however, if from April there is a funding injection I can advise them to consider re applying as some are paying a large amount of income into private rents.

daimonde

bloolagoon wrote: »

Does this discretionary payment apply to private renters? Is it the same budget for both, or is this an additional separate pot of allocated/ring fenced funding.

I know many families who have been refused in the past, however, if from April there is a funding injection I can advise them to consider re applying as some are paying a large amount of income into private rents.

the DHP budget, is one pot of money, just a bigger pot now.

despite it being a bigger pot, theres likely to be more people turned down, the under occupancy / bedroom tax is going to hit it hard. a good few LAs often dont use their full annual allocation but will anticipate running out this coming financial year.

not only will the april changes hit it hard but theres the benefit cap on its way as well.

there are a couple of major Housing Associations in our area using DHP as the default method to cover their shortfall, theyre advising ....or rather passing the buck.....everyone hit to apply for DHP. We have 100+ applications queued at that moment for april - normally at any one time that figure would be in single figures.

there are some in our area who have received a DHP on a rolling basis, almost on auto-renew that has lasted well over a year, a quick statement to say nothing has changed and its paid again. now we're looking at adopting a very strict 3months max and thats it.

DHP is not the solution im afraid. Its a crappy band aid that will fall off at the first wash and leave an open wound.

Dunroamin

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Everyone should have equal access to information and what might be available to them.

It is up to the LA's to determine who is the most needy.

But why apply for restricted funds when you don't really need them? That's greedy, not needy.

Anny_2

Morlock wrote: »

There is no certainty whatsoever. Princessdon has read the descriptors and decided that because some of them might possibly apply her, she would definitely qualify, but chooses not to claim. The reality is a lot different, as many claimants who presumed they would qualify, do not.

It sounds very selfless to claim to qualify, but not do so for 'moral' (or whatever) reasons, it adds a bit of credibility when supporting policies that are generally against those who do claim.

There does appear to be a disproportionate amount of claims from members of a certain 'clique' on MSE that they are entitled to one benefit or another and that they choose not to claim these benefits. I have not seen this on any other forum. I have, in the past, suggested to one or two that they are using this 'supposed' entitlement in order to take a moral stance and claim superiority when they are being judgemental to others who genuinely need to claim and do claim benefits. My suggestions did not go down very well at all :rotfl::rotfl:

The games people play!

mysterywoman10

daimonde wrote: »

the DHP budget, is one pot of money, just a bigger pot now.

despite it being a bigger pot, theres likely to be more people turned down, the under occupancy / bedroom tax is going to hit it hard. a good few LAs often dont use their full annual allocation but will anticipate running out this coming financial year.

not only will the april changes hit it hard but theres the benefit cap on its way as well.

there are a couple of major Housing Associations in our area using DHP as the default method to cover their shortfall, theyre advising ....or rather passing the buck.....everyone hit to apply for DHP. We have 100+ applications queued at that moment for april - normally at any one time that figure would be in single figures.

there are some in our area who have received a DHP on a rolling basis, almost on auto-renew that has lasted well over a year, a quick statement to say nothing has changed and its paid again. now we're looking at adopting a very strict 3months max and thats it.

DHP is not the solution im afraid. Its a crappy band aid that will fall off at the first wash and leave an open wound.

Yes this is correct daimonde last sentance explains it very well. I'm surprised that some LA's didn't use there full quota though very odd! Given how small it was originally and then trebled when LHA cuts were bought in.

Is it ring fenced then the extra amount for SH? EDIT Sorry mis-read your first sentance it is one big pot. errrrr slightly bigger

MissMoneypenny

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

To appeal to the first stage tribunal costs nothing.

It costs the taxpayer: so even less money left in the state pot for those who need it.

I thought this government had/are, bringing in an appeal fee now to make these appealants contribute, instead of the taxpayer footing all the costs?

bloolagoon

daimonde wrote: »

the DHP budget, is one pot of money, just a bigger pot now.

despite it being a bigger pot, theres likely to be more people turned down, the under occupancy / bedroom tax is going to hit it hard. a good few LAs often dont use their full annual allocation but will anticipate running out this coming financial year.

not only will the april changes hit it hard but theres the benefit cap on its way as well.

there are a couple of major Housing Associations in our area using DHP as the default method to cover their shortfall, theyre advising ....or rather passing the buck.....everyone hit to apply for DHP. We have 100+ applications queued at that moment for april - normally at any one time that figure would be in single figures.

there are some in our area who have received a DHP on a rolling basis, almost on auto-renew that has lasted well over a year, a quick statement to say nothing has changed and its paid again. now we're looking at adopting a very strict 3months max and thats it.

DHP is not the solution im afraid. Its a crappy band aid that will fall off at the first wash and leave an open wound.

Thank you very much. This site is fantastic for useful information. I will inform those I know who are struggling to apply, they can only say no. I interpreted all the media reports that this injection was purely for social housing and was ring fenced, as did my colleagues. I will pass the word to all community based teams that private renters have access too.

I appreciate that it is a bandaid to treat a wound but at this point every bit of assistance is appreciated.

Do you consider it advantageous to make a new thread so that private renters are aware they can apply? There has been a lot of unrest locally as some tenants in private feel almost forgotten and lower priority for the government. People are assuming this increase was not accessible to them.

Thank you again for your input.

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon wrote: »

Thank you very much. This site is fantastic for useful information. I will inform those I know who are struggling to apply, they can only say no. I interpreted all the media reports that this injection was purely for social housing and was ring fenced, as did my colleagues. I will pass the word to all community based teams that private renters have access too.

I appreciate that it is a bandaid to treat a wound but at this point every bit of assistance is appreciated.

Do you consider it advantageous to make a new thread so that private renters are aware they can apply? There has been a lot of unrest locally as some tenants in private feel almost forgotten and lower priority for the government. People are assuming this increase was not accessible to them.

Thank you again for your input.

Any issues to do with disability and the sizing criteria apply equally to the private rented sector as well in regard to the cited case. Yes good idea to start another thread to highlight this for the private renters in receipt of housing benefit. I think they are both forgotten groups to be honest. There was a tripling as I mentioned to the DHP budget in our area when LHA rates were cut but it was already stretched to the limit then.

angrybuffalo

Dunroamin wrote: »

But why apply for restricted funds when you don't really need them? That's greedy, not needy.

In my experience, people who don't need means-tested benefits tend not to apply for them. perhaps you are worrying unnecessarily? the DHP funds are likely to be oversubscribed, and people in need turned down. there seems little point in anticipating or projecting a 'greed' problem.

angrybuffalo

Dunroamin wrote: »

I can't really see that there's a shortage of 2 bed homes - the world and his wife seem to have been allocated them!

no way of knowing what you see of course - doubt you have the 'all-seeing eye'. but perhaps i should have said 2 bed-roomed houses. there really is a problem there, because while there has been new-building of 2 bed apartments - aimed at young professionals, many are not really suitable for families with young children. families with 2 same sex children in a 3 bed home (often 2 beds + a box-room!) will be deemed to be under-occupying. (there was an interesting article in The Guardian featuring the Bushbury estate in Wolverhampton a week last Saturday - sorry I'm not allowed to send a link - where a shortage of 2 bedroomed houses was identified, and I believe is not untypical. ) Flats are not that suitable for young children, and I personally do believe that safe outdoor garden space is important for the development and well-being of young children.

A lot of the new-build 2 bedroom flats are in the private sector, where the rent (and consequentially the HB bill) is higher that a 3 bed council house. Imho, it is a great shame to oblige young families to move to a less suitable, more expensive accommodation, to achieve nothing good whatsoever, merely the satisfaction of some ideological delusion around the possibility that some people with very little have more than they ought to be allowed to have.