housing benefit reduction. a solution but the council is blocking it!

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I don't see why not. Multiple needs are very common.

Yes they are. But the majority of people here looking for that single property are elderly, not through over occupying, but through personal needs. The flats (that make up the majority of our 1 bedroom SH accommodation) are ideal for pensioners who may have slight mobility needs. The rest of the 1 bedroom accommodation we have is purely for those over 50 and sheltered housing. So those needs are obviously greater. Hence why they are almost always allocated on needs. They would probably make the 150 points on health/support needs, rather than over occupying.

It was just a question. I was going to see what help was available. But I respect your desire for privacy.

No worries, I've already checked. I actually forgot about the HA that my DD got help from. Then I could have kicked myself as I used to work for them :rotfl:

Great. Her DHP will run out soon enough then the public purse can save a few quid. Everyone's a winner. Bedroom Tax to the rescue once more!

Sarcasm really isn't needed. If she gets DHP (she's waiting to hear), but she probably will as she's in a significantly adapted property, and it runs out, she can reapply. There are other ways round it. She's needing more care than she gets paid for atm, her condition has got drastically worse since she received her award, so could always reapply to get more money from the government. Which in the long run will cost the public purse more. Not only will she get an extra £32/week (MRC) or £58 (HRC), but will be able to have someone stay over to help her a few nights/mornings a week and this will cancel out any bedroom tax. So how is that saving the public purse?

My daughter will probably never work again. And she will be a drain on the public purse, through no fault of her own. She didn't ask to be born with this condition.

nannytone_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I hardly need to look, do I?

not really because you cherry pick the things that you CHOOSE to make an issue.

as long as it keeps you occupied, thats a good thing.
at least you leave other people alone while youre trying to find 'evidence' to make yourself feel important.

not realising that there had been a bank holiday, and sking the date and being misinformed it hardly crime of the century.

but if that gives you proof of a lie, then thank god you arent in the police force!

i dont understand why you are so disturbed by the fact that i have been given suitable accomodation when all the usual suspects who haunt this forum have been saying for months people in my position needed to do exactly that.

maybe its the thought that a benefit claimant isnt being made to suffer quite enough?

lighting_up_the_chalice

mazza111 wrote: »

Yes they are. But the majority of people here looking for that single property are elderly, not through over occupying, but through personal needs. The flats (that make up the majority of our 1 bedroom SH accommodation) are ideal for pensioners who may have slight mobility needs. The rest of the 1 bedroom accommodation we have is purely for those over 50 and sheltered housing. So those needs are obviously greater. Hence why they are almost always allocated on needs.

Most providers will allow those with medical/mobility priority access to their age restricted properties as well.

mazza111 wrote: »

They would probably make the 150 points on health/support needs, rather than over occupying.

But your daughter could have both, thus attracting more points.

mazza111 wrote: »

Sarcasm really isn't needed. If she gets DHP (she's waiting to hear), but she probably will as she's in a significantly adapted property, and it runs out, she can reapply. There are other ways round it. She's needing more care than she gets paid for atm, her condition has got drastically worse since she received her award, so could always reapply to get more money from the government. Which in the long run will cost the public purse more. Not only will she get an extra £32/week (MRC) or £58 (HRC), but will be able to have someone stay over to help her a few nights/mornings a week and this will cancel out any bedroom tax. So how is that saving the public purse?

If she can afford to stay in her 2 bed, that's great. As you say, 2 beds are low demand and it will keep a high demand, one bed free for another suitable applicant. Should THAT applicant be downsizing, it will also release a larger property for a family.

Housing is a huge, complicated issue. Even the smallest of changes can have a massive impact elsewhere... even in a different sector!

For example, the bedroom tax will promote a more efficient use of SH stock. This will reduce the demand in the private sector. This will have a downward pressure on rents charged. This will reduce the overall LHA bill, but will also reduce property values in the "BTL" sector. This reduction may mean that more properties fall within reach of FTBs which will reduce demand further in the rental sector, pusing rents (and the LHA bill) even lower. These (possible) reductions in rental charges will free more money up to be spent in the local community rather than further invested in property by LLs. This movement of money within the local community will promote more local employment opportunities. More employment will give more people access to the FTB market, further marginalising the RTB market and further reducing rentals and the LHA bill.... and so on.... and so on.....

So, what looks like a very small change in the SH sector MAY increase ownership, reduce private rents and promote employment.

Housing...... Fascinating, huh?

mazza111 wrote: »

My daughter will probably never work again. And she will be a drain on the public purse, through no fault of her own. She didn't ask to be born with this condition.

And I thank whichever greater power kept me free from the same. But your daughter is a very small cog in a very large machine, and it is very much in her interests to ensure that this machine works and continues to do so.

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

not really because you cherry pick the things that you CHOOSE to make an issue.

as long as it keeps you occupied, thats a good thing.
at least you leave other people alone while youre trying to find 'evidence' to make yourself feel important.

not realising that there had been a bank holiday, and sking the date and being misinformed it hardly crime of the century.

but if that gives you proof of a lie, then thank god you arent in the police force!

i dont understand why you are so disturbed by the fact that i have been given suitable accomodation when all the usual suspects who haunt this forum have been saying for months people in my position needed to do exactly that.

maybe its the thought that a benefit claimant isnt being made to suffer quite enough?

Maybe it's because another benefit claimant IS being made to suffer as a result. And they may be suffering more?

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

And I thank whichever greater power kept me free from the same. But your daughter is a very small cog in a very large machine, and it is very much in her interests to ensure that this machine works and continues to do so.

Mazza's daughter is a person. A fellow human being.

In what machine, may I ask, are you a cog?

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

Mazza's daughter is a person. A fellow human being.

In what machine, may I ask, are you a cog?

It's called "society"... Turns out there IS such a thing after all.

Dogger69

wattdallas wrote: »

People in glass houses an all - maybe you should tell that to your daughter and her boyfriend who are both on JSA .Whats their excuse are they blind .Didnt think so

Being on JSA would imply that they are jobseeking i.e. actively seeking work?

mazza111

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Most providers will allow those with medical/mobility priority access to their age restricted properties as well.



But your daughter could have both, thus attracting more points.

She wouldn't get medical priority because she's already in an adapted property. You don't get those points when you are in a suitable property. The scheme she lives in is brilliant, because it's a little community of people of different ages, different levels of disabilities. Those with mobility needs on the ground floor, those with non mobility needs on the upper floors. The one bedroom flats here are on the ground floor but can't be adapted. Failing that it's sheltered housing. The only other ones that are age restricted are the high rise flats which are 2 bedroom flats which would put her in the same situation that she's in now.

If she can afford to stay in her 2 bed, that's great. As you say, 2 beds are low demand and it will keep a high demand, one bed free for another suitable applicant. Should THAT applicant be downsizing, it will also release a larger property for a family.

She won't be moving, even if I need to pay her rent myself in the meantime, which is what I've been putting aside since the beginning of April. Needless to say, my retirement money is slowly going down.

And I thank whichever greater power kept me free from the same. But your daughter is a very small cog in a very large machine, and it is very much in her interests to ensure that this machine works and continues to do so.

And how it affects her is what concerns me most as her mother.

The rest I'm not even gonna respond to as none of what you have said will effect me nor mine. The only thing that concerns me the most about this BT, is those who can't downsize for the reasons I've given and the disabled who have had thousands spent on adaptations just for them to have to move and have those thousands spent all over again on their new properties.

clemmatis

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It's called "society"... Turns out there IS such a thing after all.

Both society and politics are kept decent by people who refuse to be cogs

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1963/jun/01/death-in-jerusalem/

http://blogs.forward.com/the-arty-semite/168700/two-views-of-eichmann-and-arendt/

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/the-banality-of-evil-arendt

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/eichmann/EichmannArendt05z.htm

(etc.)

lighting_up_the_chalice

clemmatis wrote: »

Both society and politics are kept decent by people who refuse to be cogs

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1963/jun/01/death-in-jerusalem/

http://blogs.forward.com/the-arty-semite/168700/two-views-of-eichmann-and-arendt/

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/the-banality-of-evil-arendt

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/eichmann/EichmannArendt05z.htm

(etc.)

Hmmmmmm.... Equating a 14% reduction in Housing Benefit for those who wish to keep a spare bedroom, to the murder of 6 million minorities? That's some imagination you have there!