Housing benefit help please?

Shelldean

Own_My_Own wrote: »

It's from 2013. And it's any type of training.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm

rises to 17 in sept 2013, and 18 in 2015.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/education_after_16/

Own_My_Own

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

really? I thought it was 17yr from sept 2013, and 18 yrs from 2015, but I am happy to be corrected on that.

However the question remains the same - if this includes training and apprenticeships, does this still mean that the parent will lose benefits because the young person is then a non-dependent (despite the law requiring them to remain in education or training) or will the child be expected to work for nothing because of the raised school leaving age?

It is staggered. But really what are they going to achieve in one year. I would expect most courses are 2 years. Unless they drop out.

Dunroamin

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

really? I thought it was 17yr from sept 2013, and 18 yrs from 2015, but I am happy to be corrected on that.

However the question remains the same - if this includes training and apprenticeships, does this still mean that the parent will lose benefits because the young person is then a non-dependent (despite the law requiring them to remain in education or training) or will the child be expected to work for nothing because of the raised school leaving age?

But the "child" won't be working for nothing if s/he's doing an apprenticeship or a job with training.

zzzLazyDaisy

Dunroamin wrote: »

But the "child" won't be working for nothing if s/he's doing an apprenticeship or a job with training.

Well yes, that is my question. Since the new regime has not come in yet, how do we know? At the moment NMW for under 18's in work is almost double that for apprentices. Once the minimum age for leaving education changes, will the NMW for that age group change as well... or even disappear altogether? I don't think we know enough about how this is going to pan out to answer these questions.

princessdon

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Well yes, that is my question. Since the new regime has not come in yet, how do we know? At the moment NMW for under 18's in work is almost double that for apprentices. Once the minimum age for leaving education changes, will the NMW for that age group change as well... or even disappear altogether? I don't think we know enough about how this is going to pan out to answer these questions.

That's what we asked last year, is it education (child benefits) or employment and eligible for WTC. We were told it would be answered, I'll send some emails this week to see if anyone knows where I work, but its our last week. 10 weeks off work looming!

dktreesea

Shelldean wrote: »

Can i just say i wasnt asking for more or replacement benefits.... I just wanted confirmation that it was correct that despite the govt wamting to reduce unemployment and promoting apprenticeships that we would be actually worse off with him accepting this apprenticeship.
However i have since realised that unless i give all accurate figures no one can agree nor disagree with my calculations. And i'd rather not put all our personal finances on a public forum.

It's just one of those things - an anomoly. If your son had gone to college instead, your benefits for him would have continued up until he was 20 if he stayed in FT education, and up in Scotland he would have been able to get EMA up to 18 (I'm not sure if EMA still exists in England?) and then a bursary from 18 onwards.

I know the money for children gets paid to parents, but it isn't really their income; it's money provided for their child. So when you say you'll be worse off, while this is literally true, that money is still there; it's just that now your son is earning it.

If all the money you received from the government before was spent on him, so not just his food, but his share of the electricity, council tax, rent, his clothes etc, and he still wants you to manage that expenditure for him, then why shouldn't he cover the full shortfall? After all, that's what it costs him to live.

From what you said in your original post, he's getting £100 a week and the money you got from the government for him, i.e. that you are losing , is £73 a week? If that's genuinely what it costs him to live, then that's what it costs. That should then be his board, surely? He's working. He still needs to support himself, even if it is within your household.

Just because working people are young, it doesn't then follow, if they are still living at home, that all their money is somehow their pocket money and that their living costs should be subsidised by the rest of the family just because they are young, regardless of how the parents receive their income.

skintmacflint

Shelldean wrote: »

Can i just say i wasnt asking for more or replacement benefits.... I just wanted confirmation that it was correct that despite the govt wamting to reduce unemployment and promoting apprenticeships that we would be actually worse off with him accepting this apprenticeship.
.

Depends on how you look at it. In a family where 2 parents work, due to their income they might not be eligible for the same amount of child tax credits you're receiving.. So in different circumstances some families may be better off with a son taking on an apprenticeship.

Also your son's apprenticehsip should at the end of it, give him the skills to go on and find better paid work . Which has got to be a good thing for your son surely. So short term loss for long term gain.

zzzLazyDaisy

dktreesea wrote: »

From what you said in your original post, he's getting £100 a week and the money you got from the government for him, i.e. that you are losing , is £73 a week? If that's genuinely what it costs him to live, then that's what it costs. That should then be his board, surely? He's working. He still needs to support himself, even if it is within your household.

He does need to support himself, but realistically he is unlikely to be able to pay for travel to and from work and any clothes, tools, books etc that he is required to provide as part of his apprenticeship out of £27 a week - and that does not take into account personal items and leisure activities. A young person at school can earn extra money doing a p/t job in the evening or weekend to pay for these extras, but OP's son is already working 40 hrs a week. As OP has pointed out is not reasonable to expect him to take on additional work (and in fact many apprenticeship schemes contain a clause prohibiting second jobs).

To be honest, I do think some of the responses to OP's post have been unnecessarily critical. She came here to check that the revised calculation for her benefits as a result of her son leaving school is correct, and that she hasn't over-looked anything. That is the purpose of this board.

Whichever way you slice the pie, the reality is that OP's finances are going to be unexpectedly tighter following her son's decision to leave school sooner than expected. OP has accepted that the new figures are correct and is now looking at ways to address the shortfall.

Shelldean

dktreesea wrote: »

It's just one of those things - an anomoly. If your son had gone to college instead, your benefits for him would have continued up until he was 20 if he stayed in FT education, and up in Scotland he would have been able to get EMA up to 18 (I'm not sure if EMA still exists in England?) and then a bursary from 18 onwards. Nope no EMA in England

I know the money for children gets paid to parents, but it isn't really their income; it's money provided for their child. So when you say you'll be worse off, while this is literally true, that money is still there; it's just that now your son is earning it.

If all the money you received from the government before was spent on him, so not just his food, but his share of the electricity, council tax, rent, his clothes etc, and he still wants you to manage that expenditure for him, then why shouldn't he cover the full shortfall? After all, that's what it costs him to live.

From what you said in your original post, he's getting £100 a week and the money you got from the government for him, i.e. that you are losing , is £73 a week? If that's genuinely what it costs him to live, then that's what it costs. That should then be his board, surely? He's working. He still needs to support himself, even if it is within your household.

Just because working people are young, it doesn't then follow, if they are still living at home, that all their money is somehow their pocket money and that their living costs should be subsidised by the rest of the family just because they are young, regardless of how the parents receive their income.

Yes I agree, and tbh one fo his first comment to me was how much you going to want then Mum? We'd always agreed that I would only take what I 'lost' after all we'd been managing on that previously, when I ummed and arrhhed, after realising just how much of hs wage I'd need to cover the loss, he said if you need it take it. So he is a good lad, just me that feels mean.

skintmacflint wrote: »

Also your son's apprenticehsip should at the end of it, give him the skills to go on and find better paid work . Which has got to be a good thing for your son surely. So short term loss for long term gain.

totally agree this is how I am now thinking!!!

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

He does need to support himself, but realistically he is unlikely to be able to pay for travel to and from work and any clothes, tools, books etc that he is required to provide as part of his apprenticeship out of £27 a week - and that does not take into account personal items and leisure activities. A young person at school can earn extra money doing a p/t job in the evening or weekend to pay for these extras, but OP's son is already working 40 hrs a week. As OP has pointed out is not reasonable to expect him to take on additional work (and in fact many apprenticeship schemes contain a clause prohibiting second jobs).

To be honest, I do think some of the responses to OP's post have been unnecessarily critical. She came here to check that the revised calculation for her benefits as a result of her son leaving school is correct, and that she hasn't over-looked anything. That is the purpose of this board.

Whichever way you slice the pie, the reality is that OP's finances are going to be unexpectedly tighter following her son's decision to leave school sooner than expected. OP has accepted that the new figures are correct and is now looking at ways to address the shortfall.

Yes his travel once his 16+ oyster ceases in Sept, will be £14 either pay as you go or bus pass ( will try and encourage him to get a pass as then he can travel at wk ends at no extra cost)

We've had a chat and we agreed £50 a wk keep and we'll find the shortfall by juggling the debt repayments..Means we'll be paying longer but hopefully not too long and as skintmacflint said.... short term loss long term gain.

seven-day-weekend

Shelldean wrote: »

LazyDaisy

nope no false hope here all hope is gone LOL:rotfl:

I have resigned myself to the loss of the money, just seems damm unfair that we will be worse off because he has left school for the apprenticeship. Unless I take the majority of his wages he cant cover the shortfall.

Just wish he'd not been so impulsive in leaving school and given me a chance to prepare for this. Then again I wouldn't have been able to save, so I'd have just spent a longer time worrying.

Why is it unfair?

I'm not being nasty, but it is not unfair, he has chosen to go to work and therefore should pay at least some of his way out of his wages. That's what grown-ups have to do. (Edited to add, I see now that the OP and her son have now agreed that he pays £50 a week, that seems a reasonable figure ).

I think the main problem is the amount of money people get from the State for having children. They miss it when they no longer get it.

I'm glad he has got this apprenticeship, what a wonderful opportunity for him.