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

Georgiegirl256

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whilst pleased that Nanny has got a new flat, I think it is a little disingenuous of her to say that she could not afford the rent on the other one.

She could afford the rent. What she couldn't afford was the rent and two gym memberships.

Exactly. I bet she's wishing she never wrote that "you're paying for my gym membership" post!

geoffken

Well as it is not rasist etc then as Naanytone bragged about her gym membership then perhaps it might be interesting to see what a hardship she had in mometary terms.
You would think she was the only person who had ever gone blind in the history of the universe.

clemmatis

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I see that now you've pointed it out, my apologies for not reading it properly, but my comments still stand though, some people DO have to CHOOSE between wether or not to eat or to heat their home. But anyhow, that's a whole other topic!

Oh I agree -- it's scandalous. But I think it is a separate topic even though the postcode lottery for council-organised/provided care (including direct payments) could have that kind of impact.

(My council tries to avoid assessing for care, tries to assess -- negatively -- by phone, arranges care only in "critical" cases, and then means-tests for everything. And that was so even before recent cuts.)

Georgiegirl256

clemmatis wrote: »

Oh I agree -- it's scandalous. But I think it is a separate topic even though the postcode lottery for council-organised/provided care (including direct payments) could have that kind of impact.

(My council tries to avoid assessing for care, tries to assess -- negatively -- by phone, arranges care only in "critical" cases, and then means-tests for everything. And that was so even before recent cuts.)

Yeah, like I said, a whole other topic.

Dogger69

clemmatis wrote: »

Oh I agree -- it's scandalous. But I think it is a separate topic even though the postcode lottery for council-organised/provided care (including direct payments) could have that kind of impact.

(My council tries to avoid assessing for care, tries to assess -- negatively -- by phone, arranges care only in "critical" cases, and then means-tests for everything. And that was so even before recent cuts.)

This is nothing to do with the postcode lottery, this is a case of 'he who shouts loudest'. I know an OT in nannytone's area and the funding situation is no better than anywhere else. In fact, given the high level of poverty in NE Derbys, their money needs to stretch even further.

Interesting episode of Secret Millionaire on at the moment, showing just how much blind people can do if they really want to.

clemmatis

mazza111 wrote: »

Starting to thanks, started my antibiotics yesterday. Only way is up now

Antibiotics always make me feel horrible. Luckily I've rarely had to take them, as I had, anyway, a strong immune system.

You could be right, I could be wrong Just goes to show how 2 human brains can interpret things totally differently

It's really interesting, isn't it?

Think it hit most places last month, but the Scottish Government took the hit on it for the first year. But hey, it's only fair, we had an extra year of the poll tax J/K before people start going on about it's merits!!!

The Welsh Assembly refused to take the hit. It's too busy doing things like appointing a Welsh Language Commissioner who announces that all NHS services/therapies must be provided in Welsh for anybody who wants that. Never mind the long waits even to be assessed for suitability for CBT, it must be provided -- ha! -- in Welsh too; and Welsh speaking doctors and carers must be provided. (She seems to have dialled it back a bit, thank goodness, since her call for all public services and all utility companies in all areas of Wales to be legally bound to provide for people to use Welsh was rejected.)

-- I bet you had the best poll tax riots!:D

clemmatis

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Yeah, like I said, a whole other topic.

I was agreeing with you. My apologies for not making that clear, I'm still sleepy, after a bad night.

clemmatis

Dogger69 wrote: »

Interesting episode of Secret Millionaire on at the moment, showing just how much blind people can do if they really want to.

I know what some blind people can do. I've known totally blind social workers and solicitors, and lecturers; and one such social worker was not born blind. Also I know of blind call centre workers. And we all know of a blind cabinet minister. I know -- for reasons unrelated to blindness -- about the software they use.

Equally, we all know of a famous physicist with a motor neuron disease related to ALS who's almost totally paralysed, who still works. And there was a well known historian with ALS who worked until not long before his untimely death. And I've known two successful professors with MS, and a couple of high-achieving people with cerebral palsy.

But -- and I think they'd probably all agree -- there's more to it than "if they really want to". I know you haven't really suggested otherwise; I was thinking more of posters here and elsewhere who say "disabled people can work, look at Stephen Hawking" or "if Oscar Pistorius can run in the Olympics, ...".

Dogger69 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with the postcode lottery, this is a case of 'he who shouts loudest'. I know an OT in nannytone's area and the funding situation is no better than anywhere else. In fact, given the high level of poverty in NE Derbys, their money needs to stretch even further.

I don't know anything about North East Derbyshire Council. I simply know direct payment provision and social care provision in general varies greatly by council area. Some councils will only approve the cheapest care agency, for example, and some provide far more social care and means-test less.

Preferential treatment within a council area -- and that certainly occurs, by luck or for more nefarious reasons, certainly happens. (Yes, I'm opposed to it, though not much can be done about luck!)

Morlock

It seems that what nannytone has done is no different to the homeswapper scheme where tenants can swap properties. The tenant in the one bedroom was asked if he was willing to swap his tenancy for a two bedroom (nannytone's flat), which he did. How is that any different from the homeswapper scheme where other tenants could also be accused of 'jumping the queue'?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morlock wrote: »

It seems that what nannytone has done is no different to the homeswapper scheme where tenants can swap properties. The tenant in the one bedroom was asked if he was willing to swap his tenancy for a two bedroom (nannytone's flat), which he did. How is that any different from the homeswapper scheme where other tenants could also be accused of 'jumping the queue'?

Because the Homeswapper scheme will only match swappers to properties suitable to meet their needs, in line with the allocations policy. So a single person would not have been able to swap with someone in a 2 bed as they would be under-occupying (regardless of who pays the rent). That's why, in Nannys area, singles cannot bid on 2 beds.

Nanny has decided that her need for £14 a week is sooooooo great, that she has bypassed this process altogether and those in need of SH are no better off as her former property is still under-occupied. Net gain to those on the waiting list, the massive HB bill and the fair treatment of all = NIL!