Housing Benefits Investigation

northerntwo1

clarryd wrote: »

That is exactly what I was thinking. Why are you claiming benefits when you obviously don't need them?.

I am on benefits and live hand to mouth every fortnight, I do not live a lavish life either and never really have. I wish I could save £50 per week, this seems like a large portion of weekly benefits you are saving. If I were to save £50 per week I would have £50 to live on. Which in turn would have to pay gas, electric, water, food and everything else that you need for day to day living.

What is your wives secret, everyone would love to know how she budgets and saves £50 per week.

Have children they get a fair whack per child

fishybusiness

Plus we do not know if DLA is paid, or child maintenance for a child from a previous relationship.

Neither are included in the benefit calcs, becomes much easier to put money aside. All it needs is maintenance for one child to come in and looking at OP's income, they could reasonably save money for a rainy day.

If rent is close to Local Housing Allowance, very little in top ups will be paid.

Add to that, maybe run the family car though the company, even if company makes a loss, and that is money saved from the household income pot.......

LocoLoco

FBaby wrote: »

LocoLoco, I totally agree that it is totally reasonable to have an emergency fund as part of anyone's budget, on benefits or not.

My comment is in direct relation to recent posts which made it sound that the cuts would mean that most families would struggle to afford to feed, house and heat the family because they are already totally stretched and there are no cuts left to be made at all. Yet posts like yours are showing that if you live frugally, there are some cuts that can be made before you find yourself becoming vulnerable.

Of course everyone is different, so some families might indeed really struggle whilst others will hardly see the difference, but I don't believe that as a whole, the cuts will have the disaster effect many posters have made it sound like after they were announced, they will just have to adjust to living more frugally.

But equally, FBaby, my rent and council tax are covered in full by benefits, I don't have debts to pay off and my day to day travel expenses are reasonably low because our long journeys only tend to be (a) infrequent and (b) often to hospital/medical appointments which means I can claim the cost of the travel. For families who are paying back debts, paying towards their rent and council tax and those who are travelling for work, for example, may well be completely stretched already and will only be able to cut further by cutting back on food and heat. Equally they may be alright at the minute but the landlord could put the rent up, they could be made redundant, someone could become ill, a couple can break up, the car could give up the ghost; people have no control over these sorts of events and all can have a catastrophic event on a household budget, not to mention being difficult to deal with emotionally. The cuts have already had a disasterous effect on so many people; evictions are up, the number of families in B and B type accommodation is already at the 100,000 mark, I believe, and expected to rise, the number of rough sleepers has gone up. Many people have had their support and services removed or reduced, so people who were managing because of respite care or in home carers are now having to fund it themselves or go without.

I think part of the problem is that people seem to think that benefits is the only thing that's been cut, and it isn't. Councils have had their funding slashed by around 40% in some areas, that has a huge knock on effect on the facilities that can be provided, meaning that people either have to pay for it privately, go further to access it or do without it, which in turn can have a very damaging effect on health and restrict people's ability to take on paid employment. Carers save the economy an estimated £119 billion a year, yet the only way I can manage is to live frugally and I do wonder why people think that is perfectly acceptable when we save the economy such a large sum. Many people are in the same situation as me, forced to give up work because the care their family members need isn't provided by the state and then having to live very carefully to get by on the money that they have coming in - and the situation we're in at the moment is best case scenario, many people are in far more difficult situations already and it's going to get a lot worse. So I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that the next round of cuts aren't going to matter; I think we're already well into disaster and I think it's going to get a lot worse

FBaby

The OP failed to to declare an increase in income

That was only in the last year, he said he had managed to save in the last 5 years.

Plus we do not know if DLA is paid, or child maintenance for a child from a previous relationship.

Don't want to even think of DLA as the idea that parents could be saving this money which is given (and not taken into consideration for the purpose of benefits) for a very specific purpose is sickning. Unfortuantely, I do think that in a number of cases (not all Thank God) it is spent in a very different way than what it is intended for.

If rent is close to Local Housing Allowance, very little in top ups will be paid.

I consider renting a property that is abuove the LH allowance to be a luxury. You can't rent in a very nice area, having to top up £500 a month for that luxury and then cry that you struggling because you don't get enough benefits.

Add to that, maybe run the family car though the company, even if company makes a loss, and that is money saved from the household income pot......

Of course, but again, I think many families own a car as a luxury rather than a need. I live in a town with excellent transport links, yet all the people I know who rely on tax credits own a car, and in a number of cases two.

LocoLoco

fishybusiness wrote: »

Plus we do not know if DLA is paid, or child maintenance for a child from a previous relationship.

Neither are included in the benefit calcs, becomes much easier to put money aside. All it needs is maintenance for one child to come in and looking at OP's income, they could reasonably save money for a rainy day.

If rent is close to Local Housing Allowance, very little in top ups will be paid.

Add to that, maybe run the family car though the company, even if company makes a loss, and that is money saved from the household income pot.......

That's a good point re child maintenance, FishyBusiness, my son's father didn't start paying until about four years ago (my son's 13) so I've been putting it all into a savings account for him for when he's older; as we hadn't had it before I was used to living without it so it can build up that way.

HappyMJ

FBaby wrote: »

Of course, but again, I think many families own a car as a luxury rather than a need. I live in a town with excellent transport links, yet all the people I know who rely on tax credits own a car, and in a number of cases two.

Transport is a need and with 3 children a car is usually cheaper and a lot more convenient that using public transport. I'd say it's an essential expense.

FBaby

For families who are paying back debts, paying towards their rent and council tax and those who are travelling for work, for example, may well be completely stretched already and will only be able to cut further by cutting back on food and heat.

I think I responded to that above, but all the above are not things that families should rely on benefits to pay for. Debts was their choice, additional rent and council tax the same. Car to work, a necessity if no adequate public transport, but I think this would form the minority of families owing cars. So yes, if they keep the above, they might struggle, but instead, they could now start to look at moving to a cheaper area/lower rent and give up their car if not a necessity before the cuts come into place just like many who are able to save currently have already done.

Equally they may be alright at the minute but the landlord could put the rent up, they could be made redundant, someone could become ill, a couple can break up, the car could give up the ghost; people have no control over these sorts of events and all can have a catastrophic event on a household budget, not to mention being difficult to deal with emotionally.

But all this can affect people who are just earning above entitlement to tax credits. They somehow have to cope despite being no better off, some actually worse off (especially those paying childcare).

I think part of the problem is that people seem to think that benefits is the only thing that's been cut, and it isn't.

Indeed, but as above, that doesn't affect only those relying on tax credits.

Carers save the economy an estimated £119 billion

That's only assuming that if CA wasn't paid, the person cared for would need to be in social care. Many mothers receiving CA would be SAHM even if their child didn't have a disability, many would be able to provide the care around a job. CA is the least monitored benefit of all. All you have to do to claim is say you look after someone in receipt of middle rate DLA/PIP.

Any cuts are scary, no one likes to have to face to give up something getting nothing in return, so of course people are going to rumble, but there is a difference between moaning about something we don't like and claiming that it will be leaving most people affected in poverty.

FBaby

HappyMJ wrote: »

Transport is a need and with 3 children a car is usually cheaper and a lot more convenient that using public transport. I'd say it's an essential expense.

Not it isn't a need, it's practical. I don't know where you get that a car is cheaper when you taken into account all the costs, especially if you do get your children to walk when it is possible and most places, public transport is free under a certain age, and then half price.

But it is much easier to convince oneself that a convenience is a essential need.

LocoLoco

FBaby wrote: »

I think I responded to that above, but all the above are not things that families should rely on benefits to pay for. Debts was their choice, additional rent and council tax the same. Car to work, a necessity if no adequate public transport, but I think this would form the minority of families owing cars. So yes, if they keep the above, they might struggle, but instead, they could now start to look at moving to a cheaper area/lower rent and give up their car if not a necessity before the cuts come into place just like many who are able to save currently have already done.



But all this can affect people who are just earning above entitlement to tax credits. They somehow have to cope despite being no better off, some actually worse off (especially those paying childcare).

Indeed, but as above, that doesn't affect only those relying on tax credits.

That's only assuming that if CA wasn't paid, the person cared for would need to be in social care. Many mothers receiving CA would be SAHM even if their child didn't have a disability, many would be able to provide the care around a job. CA is the least monitored benefit of all. All you have to do to claim is say you look after someone in receipt of middle rate DLA/PIP.

Any cuts are scary, no one likes to have to face to give up something getting nothing in return, so of course people are going to rumble, but there is a difference between moaning about something we don't like and claiming that it will be leaving most people affected in poverty.

I'm not going to go through every point you just made but your lack of knowledge and awareness regarding the care of disabled children is astonishing.

Loz01

If you've saved 13 thousand pounds from your benefits do you actually need them??