Homeless Dept (Enfield) Video

princeofpounds

Deanna, you write an interesting post.

The part I always struggle with is this:

If I am forced to move out of this area.., (which couldn't be predicted as suffering the high rent rises when I moved here) our world will fall apart.

Most people in employment also have to make sub-optimal choices about where they move to. People don't get to access the state schools and other services they want. They have to move away from family.

People grumble about it, but hardly anyone complains in the way that benefit recipients often do (or at least the media 'speaking' on their behalf - I know it's a different thing). They are seen as real life choices forced by practical events.

I couldn't afford to live where my parents lived at the outset. I suppose I had more choices, because I was earning a wage. I wasn't going to have to contemplate moving to a birmingham slum. But the difference was merely one of degree.

So where is the boundary that makes forcing choices on people right/fair?

Should benefit recipients expect housing to be given to them in their street? their parish? their county or borough? their region?

It's a genuine question. I do understand that moving due to limited means is very disruptive. I can see that it doesn't help anyone to ship all benefits claimants to tower blocks on the edge of glasgow just because land is cheap. But asking working people to subsidise those living in places that they will NEVER be able to afford is a strange type of charity.

jjlandlord

booksurr wrote: »

unemployment benefit drops after 6 months, why should HB continue forever resulting in those who won't work through choice being able to live in housing that the average working person could never afford.

Unemployment benefit is to help while the person looks for a new job. This is a situation is (or should) by definition be temporary.

Housing benefit is to help pay the rent for those would cannot really afford it. This is a situation that is usually not temporary.

Saying that HB payments should be time limited implies that:
- Anyone can magically get a good increase in income,
- there are alternative housing available (probably paid by the taxpayer all the same, e.g. council housing) or it is OK to let people live on the street.

Saying that they could just move to a location where rents are cheaper misses the point:
Where rents are really cheap it is difficult to find a job.

There's a balance.

booksurr

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

There is no time-limit on jobseekers allowance! .

yes there is -
You can only get contribution-based JSA for 182 days

booksurr

jjlandlord wrote: »

Unemployment benefit is to help while the person looks for a new job. This is a situation is (or should) by definition be temporary.

Housing benefit is to help pay the rent for those would cannot really afford it. This is a situation that is usually not temporary.

Saying that HB payments should be time limited implies that:
- Anyone can magically get a good increase in income,
- there are alternative housing available (probably paid by the taxpayer all the same, e.g. council housing) or it is OK to let people live on the street.

Saying that they could just move to a location where rents are cheaper misses the point:
Where rents are really cheap it is difficult to find a job.

There's a balance.

you miss the point, I am comparing people who have to make a decision about where they can live because that is all they can afford versus those who are not forced to make a choice because they rely on taxpayer subsidy

putting a time limit on the subsidy would force people to make a choice that others do not have the luxury of being able to delay because they can't afford it in the first place

perhaps you should drop your rents and take over from the taxpayer as the source of subsidy?

needabed

In Africa 3 generations of a family live in one mud hut and walk miles for water. They also need to grow their own food, get little in terms of handouts and almost no health care.

Some benefit claimants have this attitude that the property isn't theirs so why should they bother looking after it. They just endlessly complain to the landlord and council. Good to see they have their priorities straight - the latest iPhone, sky tv and new clothes every month...

BitterAndTwisted

booksurr wrote: »

yes there is ( a time-limit on jobseekers allowance)

You can only get contribution-based JSA for 182 days

Well, quite, and then once that runs out a person can claim income-based JSA. Which is precisely the same amount per week as contribs-based. The only difference between the two is whether you have savings over a certain amount.

45002

theartfullodger wrote: »

Indeed dean:

This largely started with Thatcher's selling off of council houses for discount to bribe the bribed to vote Tory.

Dave's Localism Act 2011 further means that if someone is homeless and the council have offered an at-least-12-months private AST that tenant rejects the the council has "fulfilled it's housing duty" and need provide no further housing or advice.

All reminds me of Gerrymandering by that Dame Shirley Porter and Con

:mad::mad: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/westminster-scandal-housing-policy-was-disgraceful-gerrymandering-1346450.html

bouicca21

I take it that some people on this thread would condemn the actions of the Good Samaritan, on the grounds that the traveller should have foreseen the dangers and prepared for them.

jamie11

bouicca21 wrote: »

I take it that some people on this thread would condemn the actions of the Good Samaritan, on the grounds that the traveller should have foreseen the dangers and prepared for them.

There is such a thing as travel insurance you know.
Oh! wait...............

Hoof_Hearted

I think we need to look after those that have fallen into misfortune. However, if you are contributing nothing through working, you just cannot choose where to live. You just have to take, with gratitude, what is offered, even if it means moving to another town. This is the consequence of not being able to stand on your own two feet.