Housing Benefit Cut because my child has joined the navy

Housing_Benefit_Officer

So has he been called up and deployed on operations?

Or is he a new recruit?

When he finishes training where will he live?

Has he left home for good - just returning while on leave?

tiffanybenson

He is a new recruit and will soon be 18. He will be away from home through his initial training and will only return home when he is on leave.

The house is 4 bed and we have all rooms occupied. My two sons shared up until son joined the navy.

Thanks for all advice to date.

Cate1976

How old & what genders are your children? Under LHA rules you're entitled to 1 bedroom for:

Each adult couple.
Any other adult 16 or older.
Any 2 children under 10.
Any 2 children of the same sex under 16.
Any other child.

Might be worth you reminding your council of the age & gender of each child.

Hope this helps.

Good on your Son for joining the forces.

tiffanybenson

Thank you all again for taking the time to reply to my post. I shall be taking a copy of the legislation with me and all other documents I need on my next visit to the offices. It would seem having read the legislation that the adviser was misinformed. Hopefully should have it sorted soon.

airliner

tiffanybenson wrote: »

Thank you all again for taking the time to reply to my post. I shall be taking a copy of the legislation with me and all other documents I need on my next visit to the offices. It would seem having read the legislation that the adviser was misinformed. Hopefully should have it sorted soon.

I really don't think that you can confidently state whether that adviser was misinformed or not. They may have been hasty in giving you an assertion that you will lose housing benefit, as it is complex area and open to interpretation, but they may actually turn out to be right.

Would you post the legislation you are referring to?

And all of the extra information that other forum members have asked you to provide.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Your son has left home and joined the navy and is living in barracks. Should he even be treated as part of your household now?

mountainofdebt

I'm sorry if you feel hard done by but what's the difference between your son working away from home for Joe Bloggs Ltd and working away as a member of the Armed Forces? (and yes I know I'm sticking my head above the parapet here)...

I hope I'm wrong but I get the feeling that politicians are tapping into the popularity game at the moment as far as our Armed Forces are concerned and this has alot to do with what is going on in Afghanistan.

cattermole

mountainofdebt wrote: »

I'm sorry if you feel hard done by but what's the difference between your son working away from home for Joe Bloggs Ltd and working away as a member of the Armed Forces? (and yes I know I'm sticking my head above the parapet here)...

I hope I'm wrong but I get the feeling that politicians are tapping into the popularity game at the moment as far as our Armed Forces are concerned and this has alot to do with what is going on in Afghanistan.

From what the OP has so far said (although this may not be the case) taking him out of the calculations completely is probably going to be the best option if all the rooms are already occupied anyway (as per LHA rules). So the exception rule for Forces (in certain circumstances) is of no real benefit in this particular case.

I got the impression that the OP was upset originally, because they were being asked for payslips, when the son had left home. Rather than anything else. Just my take on it.

One of the reasons the Fostering (which was always wrong in my view to not allow a room for a foster child) and the Armed Forces rule (in certain circumstances) was conceded was yes most certainly for political spin reasons, but it was also to cover up the PM's major mistake of stating severely disabled children were exempt in Parliament during one of the "bedroom tax" debates in a heated exchange with Ed. This was totally incorrect at the time he said it and Labour knew it, the opposite was true.

Over the next couple of days a lot of stuff went on and they announced re Fostering & Forces, it was good publicity and look how nice we are spin. Meanwhile behind the scenes they had to drop their appeal to the Supreme Court as they were actively trying to overturn the judgement that two severely disabled children should not have to share a bedroom under the sex/age rules. So yes in that sense I share your cynicism but I don't think Afghanistan had that much to do with why they did what they did at that moment in time. Bingo the mistake by the PM was nicely swept away, the country was appeased by Fostering & Forces concessions.

The clawed back some money from the Discretionary Housing budget to pay for it as well! So Peter was robbed to pay Paul.

Thats politics!! :mad:

mountainofdebt

cattermole wrote: »

Thats politics!! :mad:

too bl00dy true.

When I mentioned Afghanistan I was just referring to the fact that it seems that politicians seem to be basking in the public consciousness of what our Armed Forces are asked (or should that be told?) to do.