MPs debate Housing Benefit, 12 November c.1.45pm

MissMoneypenny

nannytone wrote: »

social hoyusing is being targeted, and people are facing hardship,

Social tenants were the last group to be "targetted" and they are still better off. Someone on benefits who has a bedroom allocation of 2 bedrooms in a private let, might have to top up their rent from other benefits. That doesn't happen with social tenants on benefits. Social tenants on benefits are only going to have to top up their rent if they have an extra bedroom/s over their allocation. Plus the social tenant has all the other benefits too i.e. security; getting their repairs carried out.

It would be much better if the UK adopted better housing laws as they could then end social housing and people could chose where they live (according to their budget) and move easily to other areas. The councils could then sell off all their council properties and put the money to better uses.

seven-day-weekend

zagfles wrote: »

Every union must allow you to opt out of the political fund, though they rarely advertise it and may even try to hide it. Ask them for a political opt-out form. Then your subs won't be spent on this type of rubbish.

Quite right. I did this when I was a member of Unison. None of my subs went to the Labour Party, nor any other party.

MissMoneypenny

Heycock wrote: »

Couldn't have put it better, though I've tried in the past.
but you may as well p**s into the wind as try to get anyone to take notice. You see, the little word "private" preceding tenant means you must be a rich, tory-voting, DM reading b*****d in the eyes of the bien pensants, the Guardian, the BBC, the labour party (who introduced LHA) and Unison.
You're not one of theirs you see. You may be on a low income, you may be on benefits, you may well be the partner carer of someone disabled(so you're expected to share one room under LHA), but as far as those aforementioned groups are concerned, you don't count. You're not invited to the party.
Even if you're in Unison, your membership fees are being used to fight "the bedroom tax" but they won't lift a finger to help reform LHA. Similar story if you're a paid up member of the labour party. The modern "labour" party is such a disgrace it isn't even embarrassed by it's hypocrisy.

Never has a party sh%t on their own voters, like New Labour has done.

They pushed up the rents with their LHA.

They brought in the Section21 so that private landlords can just threaten any vunerable tenants with removal if they dare to complain about the broken boiler/mould/leaks etc.

They removed free university education, by using the Scottish MPs to vote in favour of their policy. Usually the Scottish MPs went home early on a Friday, but stayed to vote in for England and Welsh students to pay for their university.

The schools are now overcrowded.

So much for Blair claiming his 3 priorities were "education, education, education".

Morglin

Heycock wrote: »

"Central funds"? You mean ratepayers? Including low paid private tenants and also low paid social tenants who may not be enjoying the largesse of housing benefit or council tax benefit because they fall just outside the earnings limits? Someone has got to pay. Central funds don't come off a magic money tree behind the Town Hall

Erm, I know! :whistle:

I pay Council Tax, and I know exactly what Central funds are.


All that's happening now I'd that councils, via the ratepayers, are having to pick up the slack from Government.

Lin

Morglin

Dunroamin wrote: »

Perhaps because most people have little sympathy for those people receiving such a high level of public support and wanting even more.

Two thirds of those getting Housing Benefit are actually working, so perhaps the problem here is short hours and/or low wages?

Lin:)

CACHAF

In our situation we had been living in our rented home for four years when our circumstances changed. My husband (who at that point had not been out of work since leaving school at 16 and was now 36) was made redundant and my grandma who was staying with us for the weekend so we could care for her had a massive heart attack at our house. We were living in a three bed house because we had a room for ourselves, one for my gran to come and stay regularly and one for my brother who we had guardianship of (he was 18 at this point but still living 'at home')

My grandma immediately became completely disabled and we had to move her in to our home permanantly. My brother decided to leave home (he was working full time and so could do that) She required round the clock care and we couldnt get any support as with my husband at home he was deemed able to care as well as myself (and he did) and so he was unable to look for work.

My gran lived another 16 months before dying very suddenly and thats when our problems started. Neither of us could get full time work again as we had been out of work for almost two years and no one would look at the gap for caring in a positive light. We decided that rather than sign on we would start our own cleaning business to keep us busy and give us something to put on our cv's. This we have done. We also both continue to look and actively seek full time work.

We currently work about 20 hours a week. That earns us the limit of £120. After we take expenses into account (business car insurance, fuel) we get about £100 to live on. Certain expenses are not disregarded for housing benefit and so these are included in our earnings. We cannot claim working tax credit as we dont work more than 30 hours. If we earn any more than we earn now it is deducted form our benefits at a rate of 65% for housing benefit and 20% for council tax relief.

As we now no longer need a room for my brother (who is settled and has a partner and child now) and we dont need a room for my gran we only get LHA for one room which leaves us a shortfall of £42 a week. After all the stress of the last few years we do not want to move and even if we did, our rent is actually very low for the area and is lower than a one bed flat would be (We have had no rent rise in 6 years). Neither my husband or I have family close by and we are settled here in our community. Our work is here, our friends are here, we are part of a church and churches together group, WI, and other community groups and we are happy. If we did want to move we would need to pay for the estate agents fees, first months rent, bond, moving costs and so forth which is impossible to do. Those costs would far outweight any benefit of not having to pay £42 a week in rent so we are trapped.

As a result, the £100 we are left with a week has to have £42 for rent and £5 for council tax taken out of it before we even start having food, gas, electric, etc. £53 to live on for a week for two people means a very, very low standard of living which hasnt helped to relieve the depression and grief we still feel. We did receive discretionary housing payments for 3 months after my grans death to help us get back to work but this was done as a one off and it was made very clear in the letter from housing benefit that they were doing it to allow us to either move or get back to work full time and that we couldnt apply again.

We didnt deliberately choose a large house to get a higher standard of living on benefits, we have always rented privately and paid our own rent till now. We didnt deliberately choose to go onto benefits to avoid working, we have always worked till this redundancy and time as carers. We havent had children yet as we cannot afford them and so we havent had children to 'fill the rooms' and get more money and yet we have to live in poverty.

I know that tax and national insurance are not paid into so there is a personal pot there for you when you need it, but I wish it was. Over our working lives we have paid in constantly and now when we need help its just not there and I have no idea what to do.

LHA poverty amongst working people is very real and very scary and the shortfalls are for far larger amounts than in social housing. I agree with capping the amount that can be given for rent, you shouldnt be able to live in a house that couldnt be afforded out of 'normal' wages but the amounts set seem to be outdated and inaccurate.

LHA shortfalls need to be debated in parliament alongside the 'bedroom tax'

Sadly, I have no idea what the answer is, but there must be something. I am just too cold, hungry and low to work out what it is.

dodger1

CACHAF wrote: »

You also have far less options to move as you would need to find a private landlord willing to take on someone on housing benefit plus the costs of the estate agents fees, credit checks, first months rent in advance and deposit all of which are not required by social housing.
I agree to scrap the bedroom tax, but only if the bedroom tax on private tenants goes as well.

I'm in social housing (HA) and had to pay the first months rent in advance, no deposit or fees though.

Dunroamin

Morglin wrote: »

Two thirds of those getting Housing Benefit are actually working, so perhaps the problem here is short hours and/or low wages?

Lin:)

People who are working are not subject to the benefit cap so are outside the scope of the point I was making.

Your point is about a separate issue.

Heycock

CACHAF wrote: »

LHA poverty amongst working people is very real and very scary and the shortfalls are for far larger amounts than in social housing. I agree with capping the amount that can be given for rent, you shouldnt be able to live in a house that couldnt be afforded out of 'normal' wages but the amounts set seem to be outdated and inaccurate.

LHA shortfalls need to be debated in parliament alongside the 'bedroom tax'

Part of the problem is that when LHA was introduced by the last labour administration, local councils were allowed to work it out by very dubious statistical means. In essence they could set it at a rate charged for the very bottom end of the market...the properties in the worst state of repair with the worst landlords in the most rundown areas.

I can't speak for other authorities, but mine hasn't increased the LHA rates since their introduction. I'm fortunate in that my landlord is a good'un and bought the house as a long-term investment with a view to retiring here when he retires and has to give up his grace and favour home. In six years we've had no rent increase because he recognises the value of a good tenant who looks after the place. But other private tenants aren't so fortunate ..they've had big increases and the people you'd think would be standing up for them, aren't.

CACHAF

Heycock wrote: »

Part of the problem is that when LHA was introduced by the last labour administration, local councils were allowed to work it out by very dubious statistical means. In essence they could set it at a rate charged for the very bottom end of the market...the properties in the worst state of repair with the worst landlords in the most rundown areas.

I can't speak for other authorities, but mine hasn't increased the LHA rates since their introduction.

Our LHA actually went down recently plus the introduction of the council tax payments means we have to pay an extra £30 a month than 6 months ago. How on earth are they able to keep increasing the amount we have to pay and yet say the amount weneed to live on can stay the same? The maths just doesn't work.