Denied access to Universal Credit because of where I live

NeilCr

As the person who made the comment about you being the only one looking forward to UC - it was a bit tongue in cheek and, probably, I should have added a smilie!

I think there is a genuine fear of the unknown and an underlying feeling that anything new in the benefits system isn't going to be good

I am going to reserve judgement - we are a single person only area and I haven't come across many folk actually on UC. I like to see how things work in practice before coming to a conclusion

Starsphinx

NeilCr wrote: »

As the person who made the comment about you being the only one looking forward to UC - it was a bit tongue in cheek and, probably, I should have added a smilie!

I think there is a genuine fear of the unknown and an underlying feeling that anything new in the benefits system isn't going to be good

I am going to reserve judgement - we are a single person only area and I haven't come across many folk actually on UC. I like to see how things work in practice before coming to a conclusion

I have had similar on many occasions - there is no voice tone when typing lol.

I do agree with you about the fear of the unknown and I do understand that how something is supposed to work and has the potential to work can be very different from how they actually work. UC has the potential to be a much better fairer system and remove frankly ridiculous barriers to work the current system has (the 16 or is it now 24 hour rule, trying to take short temporary work having to stop and start claims etc) but it can no doubt be put into practice in a way that makes everything worse.

The thing that annoys me most is the pressure groups crying about how it will make people homeless because they will be responsible for paying their own rent - well sorry but millions of people working on low wages manage to pay their rent so why should people not working struggle? I also know from personal experience that under the current system you get people terrified to take work because they are convinced they wont be able to manage their money and will lose their home. The system of paying rent direct to the landlord just encourages learned helplessness and magnifies the difference between working and being on benefits making it seem a huge step to those who have been out of work longterm. I do get that there are those with certain specific conditions for whom paying the rent and budgeting is a major challenge but there are the support services (many years ago I worked in social care).

pmlindyloo

There is nothing to suggest that being on UC would stop any hassle as regards your OH working/stopping working/starting working. Certainly at the moment such hassle would bound to occur as the system is so new for cases like yours.

Since you say that you are OK for three quarters of the time is it possible for you and your OH to do 24 hrs between you and claim working tax credits? Or could your husband work full time doing nights when someone was at home to look after you when you are poorly?

I don't know how your illness affects you. Does your illness fluctuate on a weekly/monthly basis?

If you are convinced that neither you nor your OH can work then a couple of things to mention.

I am presuming that both you and your OH are on the ESA claim. Although there is a £20 a week disregard for income from a lodger, if you provide breakfast for them they become a boarder. Then there is a £20 disregard and a further disregard of half of the remainder.

You should do some juggling with figures to see what is reasonable to charge your niece. You would then be better off by £20 plus half the remainder.

Personally I do not think that your adult sons should be paying less than what they are now. They are obviously earning a decent wage and, as someone said, it will be much more expensive to live elsewhere.

They are not actually paying your rent. They are not liable for your rent. You are paying the rent from what they are giving you for their living expenses.

How you work this out is up to you. Personally I think your suggested £50 a week is far too low to cover rent/utilities etc but then I don't know whether they give you extra money for utilities/food etc.

I can understand how you are viewing it but I honestly don't think UC would be any less hassle with what you are proposing.

Starsphinx

pmlindyloo wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that being on UC would stop any hassle as regards your OH working/stopping working/starting working. Certainly at the moment such hassle would bound to occur as the system is so new for cases like yours.

Since you say that you are OK for three quarters of the time is it possible for you and your OH to do 24 hrs between you and claim working tax credits? Or could your husband work full time doing nights when someone was at home to look after you when you are poorly?

I don't know how your illness affects you. Does your illness fluctuate on a weekly/monthly basis?

If you are convinced that neither you nor your OH can work then a couple of things to mention.

I am presuming that both you and your OH are on the ESA claim. Although there is a £20 a week disregard for income from a lodger, if you provide breakfast for them they become a boarder. Then there is a £20 disregard and a further disregard of half of the remainder.

You should do some juggling with figures to see what is reasonable to charge your niece. You would then be better off by £20 plus half the remainder.

Personally I do not think that your adult sons should be paying less than what they are now. They are obviously earning a decent wage and, as someone said, it will be much more expensive to live elsewhere.

They are not actually paying your rent. They are not liable for your rent. You are paying the rent from what they are giving you for their living expenses.

How you work this out is up to you. Personally I think your suggested £50 a week is far too low to cover rent/utilities etc but then I don't know whether they give you extra money for utilities/food etc.

I can understand how you are viewing it but I honestly don't think UC would be any less hassle with what you are proposing.

It is not that I am fully OK 3/4 of the time it is that I do not need care/supervision 3/4 of the time - I am able to do basic tasks, unlikely to fall or get stuck, and can be trusted not to give my bank details to that lovely african prince who keeps phoning :rotfl:. My actual ability to "work" is much more limited although I have got into photography and do have some pictures for sale on microstock sites and may at some point in the future be able to look at selling direct as art pieces. Unfortunately there is no predictable pattern to my condition although it is safe to say if I "over do" things (which can be as simple as a week being what others consider "normally active) I am going to suffer (I have fibromyalgia mainly)

As I understand it with UC the big difference is there is no 16/24 hour rule forcing you to end the claim and declared adjustments work in real time instead of taking 6 to 8 weeks. So at the moment if work is less than 16 hours it is declared the DWP spend some time calculating the necessary deductions (using god knows what formula because I have never been able to work out the figures the same way) which are then removed from the payment usually 6 to 8 weeks after the work. If work hours are more than 16 the claim has to be ended (but joy of joys now you cannot get working tax credits unless you work 24 hours) If that work ends after a couple of weeks you have to make a new claim and the DWP stopped the thing of going straight onto former rates if a sick person made a new claim within 12 months of ending one so you are looking at a 13 weeks being assessed during which time more work may have been possible. The end result is an unholy mess of payments underpayments and over payments and maybe the google tax accountants could work out what was going on but I cannot.

With UC on the other hand you declare the work and the computer makes the deductions using an understandable formula eg £100 earned ignore £56 deduct 75% of £44 so deduct £33 (I know those are not exact figures they are just an example) and the deduction is made from that months benefit not the next months. It does not matter if the hours are more or less than 16 - if you earn enough to reduce the UC to zero one month that does not automatically end the claim so the following months hours can be much less and you will get the benefit paid when it should be.

It is not so much a case of the amounts being better it is a case of knowing when the deductions and payments are going to be made, and how much they are going to be. It allows budgeting which the current system does not.

I did ask about the breakfast-boarder thing and was told that was not the case that the limit was £20 and that was it no matter what. Originally I was going to provide both breakfast and evening meal but was told I would still only be able to keep £20. Everyone does know living somewhere else would cost more - and I am not after making money from family it is a case of charging a nominal amount to cover costs while allowing them to save for deposits etc so they can get their own place which would be much more difficult for them in the open market - that is one reason for my nieces rent being so low as well I am just annoyed that the system looks on direct family differently from those who could be total strangers.

mattcanary

Starsphinx wrote: »

Put quite simply because long experience tells me that if do such a thing it will result in DWP "mistakes" which will mean either the benefit I am entitled to not getting paid and/or them deciding there has been an overpayment meaning I am further in debt. It is the same reason my OH does not take odd work which we would declare.

I know someone said earlier I seem to be the only person wanting UC but I honestly cannot understand why this. Having been unemployed when I was much younger and tried to take and declare agency work thus experiencing the complete disaster that system is and having seen the economy change to much more temporary and part time jobs the idea of a benefit that can be updated in real time and which does not require stopping and starting claims with all the attendant delays is brilliant. To have a system where benefit is on a gradient meaning the more earned the more kept should have everyones support.

I do not understand half the objections to it and suspect many of the problems with it have been because of groups trying to get it stopped completely rather than looking at it and pointing out specific problems and then trying to help remove the problem while supporting the whole.

I'm on Universal Credit, and for me, so far it has been better than Job Seekers Allowance.

I have had three weeks full time work in the last six weeks. I have stayed on Universal Credit - which is a vast improvement on JSA.

The jobcentre staff have treated me with respect as well. There seems to be far less ticking of boxes and bureaucracy gone mad.

Of course, most parts of the country have not yet moved over to Universal Credit - let alone for those people claiming disability benefits.

Starsphinx

mattcanary wrote: »

I'm on Universal Credit, and for me, so far it has been better than Job Seekers Allowance.

I have had three weeks full time work in the last six weeks. I have stayed on Universal Credit - which is a vast improvement on JSA.

The jobcentre staff have treated me with respect as well. There seems to be far less ticking of boxes and bureaucracy gone mad.

Of course, most parts of the country have not yet moved over to Universal Credit - let alone for those people claiming disability benefits.

That is so good to hear. I admit most of my experience with the fixed benefits like JSA is from 20 odd years ago when my then husband was scratching around for agency work one shift at a time but we learned then the system just could not cope with varying work patterns and acted to put people off doing small temporary jobs. One of the things universal credit was designed to do was correct this and make it so whatever work is done being it short term and temporary or long term does make the claimant better off and does make work pay. Your post suggest that it is going to work.

xylophone

If your husband worked nights, as suggested above, would your "lodgers" be willing and able to support you in an emergency and would it be possible for him to fit in his own sleep time round any care needs that might arise during the day?

Starsphinx

My lodger is actually a care worker - but often has sleep in shifts so is not always here. My health intrudes too much on my childrens lives as it is without asking them to limit their social choices - I want them to feel free to stay over a mates house or book a festival camp the same way I was without having to think who is going to watch mum. My OH (not husband as was only stupid enough to get married once lol ) has tried night work before and it did not work well.

Icequeen99

Starsphinx wrote: »

My lodger is actually a care worker - but often has sleep in shifts so is not always here. My health intrudes too much on my childrens lives as it is without asking them to limit their social choices - I want them to feel free to stay over a mates house or book a festival camp the same way I was without having to think who is going to watch mum. My OH (not husband as was only stupid enough to get married once lol ) has tried night work before and it did not work well.

How many bedrooms do you have? will you not be caught by the UC rules which would not affect you on HB (i posted a link above)

IQ

Starsphinx

I have 3 bedrooms - and a 17 year old sharing a bedroom with a 20 year old (the 20 year old working). My eldest son when he stays sleeps on the sofa in the front room but housing benefit still count him. Under occupancy is not my problem lol