Petition - Stop paying those under 25 less Universal Credit,

DanUC

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/252845/sponsors/new?token=MTLwWieEm37PGCYMb4cH

I noticed this ‘flaw’ in the UC system:

“In a written question response to Neil Gray the MP for Airdrie and Shotts, the DWP said that the reason lone parents under 25 on Universal Credit receive less money than under the legacy system is because they have lower living costs. Can you tell me in what way it costs a 24 year old less to be a single parent than a 26 year old?”

I think it’s totally illogical for them to lower the standard allowance based on age alone and not individual circumstances. It is simply not fair for many younger individuals.

Blackpool_Saver

The truth is more likely to be that they want to put off very young people from having children as a means of getting money

[Deleted User]

I'm afraid such petitions rarely achieve anything, even if they did this government never listens to anybody about UC unless its the high court.

zagfles

The benefits system is full of age discrimination and it's nothing new. WTC isn't paid to single childless people under 25. Different HB entitlement dependant on age. Much higher applicable amount for pensioners. Student support for under 25's depends on parental income. Etc etc.

Usual SNP s**t stirring.

WhenIam64

The truth is more likely to be that they want to put off very young people from having children as a means of getting money

If this is true, and IMHO it is, then the answer will lie in some of the work being done by the behavioural experts at the DWP. The UC system is an exercise in social engineering.

Watch what happens to populations moving north (or west) when rents increase and housing element is capped.

fatbelly

Hasn't UC just carried forward the amounts that were in the legacy benefits?

For example the present rates of JSA/IS/ESA ae

•age under 25 - £57.90 per week
•age 25 or over - £73.10.

For UC it's

•age under 25 - £251.77 per month
•age 25 or over - £317.82

Isn't the rental side more of an issue? In my area the LHA cap is

• Shared Accommodation Rate: £67.09 per week
• One Bedroom Rate: £104.89 per week
• Two Bedrooms Rate: £132.32 per week

so an under 35 single person in a private rented 2-bed accom is capped at £67.09. Have a child and it's £132.32. If it's a plan to put off young people from having children, it's not a very good one, when you throw in:

• Child benefit £20.70 per week
• UC Child Element £277.08 per month

Nevertheless I tried to sign the petition and got

We’re checking this petition

5 people have already supported x’s petition.

We need to check it meets the petition standards before we publish it.

Please try again in a few days.

sportsarb

It is nothing new. For as long as I worked in the system it has always been this way.

Reality is that most under 25’s still live at home and so benefit totals reflect this. Also the same reason that two people living together don’t get two single rates and instead get a couple rate that amounts to less than two single rates would.

Ineededaname

Single people under 35 without children are absolutley screwed if they have to claim benefits. As mentioned above this is more about the housing. The shared room allowance is totally inadequate in most areas. Most the local housing allowances are a bit lower than the market, but the shared room allowance is substantially lower. In my area it's basically impossible to find something that cheap. The average room price is almost double. The situation is basically that benefits can cover the cost of rent, but leave them with virtually nothing to live on at all.

I understand the idea behind saying people should not move out of their parents if they can't afford to, but the world really isn't that simple. Also someone 34 years old is hardly a child, and may have been living independantly for 16 years! If they suddenly find themselves in trouble and need to claim, how is it right they are then also expected to move into some cheap crappy room somewhere, if it's even possible to find one in the first place. Why are they different to someone one year older?!

I think it's the most unjust and also one of the most damaging benefit policies at the moment but it get's no attention. Who cares about young, single, (usually) men, right?

Pollycat

To the OP:
A couple of points:

The status of your petition on the official website says:

We’re checking this petition

5 people have already supported Daniel Chaux’s petition.
We need to check it meets the petition standards before we publish it.
Please try again in a few days.

There is s specific board for petitions/campaigns here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=266

I suggest you wait until your petition has been checked and published and repost it there.

huckster

Perhaps a petition that said ' Government should be required to have independent reviews of current benefit rates and implement the findings of such reviews'.

The basic benefit rates appear to now be below what I think is the legal requirement, which is to allow people to afford the basics, food, heat, water, clothing etc.

it may be that those who qualify for extra help, with children, rent, health etc, have just enough to support themselves, but those on just the standard rate would struggle.

£57 or £73 a week is not that much. If you have to travel for interviews by bus, pay for basic living, the amount is arguably not enough to support someone while they try to get back into work.

Getting back into work as soon as possible is the key and Government benefits should support this. Perhaps paying a higher basic amount for the first 2 months of unemployment and then a reduced amount, would help people with costs of getting to interviews etc. Why not incentivise the unemployed with small extra amounts, if they provide evidence of having gone to interviews, gone on training courses.

And the other issue is that the cost of living varies a lot depending on where you live. If you live in a rural town or village, it can be difficult (no or little public transport) and expensive travelling to attend interviews. If you don't have a car, an employers might think you would struggle to get to work.

From what I have seen even within a 10 mile radius in any part of the country, is that where you live can make a big difference. Live close to where there are many work options and you should be ok. Live somewhere else with limited work options and you could have periods of struggle.