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

lighting_up_the_chalice

nannytone wrote: »

because the system is what a civilised nation is all about.
it looks after those in need.

You mean systems like that employed for the allocation of Social Housing? Systems that ensure those in the greatest need (you mention the homeless in your OP) are protected?

But you're not really interested in those in need, are you? You're just interested in YOU in need. Only when YOU have what YOU want do you turn all pious about "the system". Seems like this "system" only applies to others, or when it serves your best advantage. Otherwise "the system" can go stuff itself.

It's beyond hypocrisy.

Jamie_Carter

nannytone wrote: »

would i them complain about others getting JSA? ESA? masternity allowance? SMI?.... the list could go on and on.
but the answer is no i wouldnt.... because the system is what a civilised nation is all about.
it looks after those in need.

You mean the system you are complaining about??

bloolagoon

nannytone wrote: »

over 30 years quiye a lot i would think.

but tax is always a percentage figure and so i paid the same percentage as others.

rgw sarcasm isnt a natural state of being for me. but the superior tone of some posters... just because they are taxpayers, really irks me
no doubt either they or members of their families benefitted from the tax i paid... but i wouldnt dream of telling them that they should change their whole life just because they happen to now be disabled.

why not put us all in institutions and feed us gruel?

Nanny though somewhat baited your attitude is disgusting. Considering in your own words you worked for min wage, got a little bit of housing benefit and child benefits any tax you paid didn't cover you at the time let alone anyone else.

I am genuinely pleased you downsized as after all that is what people have repeatedly asked you to do but what you are now displaying will hurt others more as people reading will assume all disabled have your attitude.

Georgiegirl256

nannytone wrote: »

just to say thanks again ...
some of you will know that i had to cancel my gyn membership because i couldnt afford it with the reduction in housing benefit.
so now i can afford it again... well yes.
but ive just been told that this is an acceptable expense for my direct payments.

so thankyou all for my gym membership too!

Comments like that is what gives people claiming disability benefit etc a bad name, people assume they are all scroungers, which we know is not the case, but you are really not helping matters with your high and mighty "I deserve it" attitude.

So it isn't the fact that you couldn't afford to have the reduction in HB, it's just the fact that you couldn't afford that AND still go to the gym, which lets face it, is a luxury (a lot of people CAN'T afford), and not a necessity.

mazza111

clemmatis wrote: »

I believe so. It's high in both countries, I think.

Yes, think we were on a par with London in how many were affected, but got a much smaller allocation of DHP if I read it correctly. Forgive me, I've been ill most of the weekend and can't remember where I read it.

That's the thing -- well, part of it. Asking social housing tenants --and private tenants where appropriate -- and owner occupiers to consider downsizing is fine, particularly if (means-tested) help is offered. Pushing people to move when they've lived somewhere for 20 years and had every reason to think they'd be able to stay there, where they've put down roots, where their children went to school, where perhaps their church is, is not fine. And yes, pushing disabled people to move from specially adapted houses is even worse.




She'd lived there a long time, and brought up her children there. She'd been offered a new property -- and some financial help -- but the new place was I believe some miles away and not near public transport. According to one account, though, she'd packed her belongings, ready to move. Then, I suppose, she just snapped. I read she walked into the lorry driver's path -- horrible for him, indeed.

Don't know if she had packed up her belongings ready to move, or to save the family a job. Guess we read that in different ways. Yes, tragic for all involved. People thinking it's only £20/week don't realise how much pressure having that £20/week can mean when you don't have it when living on benefits.

As nanny said, that's 20% of income for someone on ESA (WRAG) and an even bigger proportion for someone on JSA. Although the £20 she speaks of is for rent and CTB. The CTB hasn't hit up here yet thankfully

mazza111

Oh will u give it a rest about nanny's gym membership. She's been awarded DLA, if she chooses to spend that on a gym membership that's her business.

Personally I could think of better things, but it's not my award. It's her's, and her's to do with what she chooses.

Poppie68

Nannytone i find it very surprising that for months you have been constantly complaining about the reduction in HB and all along all you were really going to suffer was a lack of gym membership! Im sure alot of over claimants would kill to have so little to worry about after a reduction in their HB.

Im also sorry to say but after reading your recent posts it seems your true colours are coming out and you seem to be sticking your 2 fingers up at all other claimants disabled and otherwise, were as before you painted yourself as a bit of a champion standing side by side with other HB losers.

bloolagoon

mazza111 wrote: »

Oh will u give it a rest about nanny's gym membership. She's been awarded DLA, if she chooses to spend that on a gym membership that's her business.

Personally I could think of better things, but it's not my award. It's her's, and her's to do with what she chooses.

Read post 520 you will see why it's being mentioned again.

Georgiegirl256

mazza111 wrote: »

Oh will u give it a rest about nanny's gym membership. She's been awarded DLA, if she chooses to spend that on a gym membership that's her business.

Personally I could think of better things, but it's not my award. It's her's, and her's to do with what she chooses.

I didn't know it had been mentioned before, it was Post 511 that p****d me off! Not so much the gym membership as such, but the attitude with it, and the pleading poverty when gym memberships don't come cheap.

GlasweJen

All I can say is that it must be nice, being allowed to fund 2 gym memberships from direct payments when there are people who can't get money towards support to prepare and eat food on the same scheme.

I am sorry nanny but I am starting to wonder if you are a troll, I hope not but some things are really not stacking up with what you say.