1,400 people in East Lancashire seek advice on new 'bedroom tax' charges

NEARLY 1,400 households across East Lancashire have been given urgent advice on preparing for the introduction of the controversial ‘bedroom tax’.

Government penalties for the under-occupation of social housing are set to be introduced from April 1.

And it is estimated that some working age tenants on housing benefit will have to find at least an extra £12 per week.

Currently there are more than 1,000 tenants in Twin Valley Homes, in Blackburn and Darwen, and a further 380 Housing Pendle properties, which stand to be affected by the move. Tenants have been visited by housing officers from both organisations, which are each part of the Together Housing Group.

Discussions have been ongoing on whether tenants opt to remain in their homes or consider moving to a smaller property, as a result of the changes.

The subject has also been extensively covered in tenant newsletters, leaflets and website pieces, as well as direct mailshots.

People still anxious to find out more are urged to call 01254 269000 for Twin Valley queries, and 01282 873700 for Housing Pendle.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:13am Mon 11 Feb 13

Excluded again says...

Who would ever have believed that a British government would bring in a law telling people where they could sleep in their own homes? Only people on low incomes of course.
Who would ever have believed that a British government would bring in a law telling people where they could sleep in their own homes? Only people on low incomes of course. Excluded again

10:24am Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Tax second homes, not second bedrooms.
Tax second homes, not second bedrooms. happycyclist

10:37am Mon 11 Feb 13

midas says...

Excluded again wrote:
Who would ever have believed that a British government would bring in a law telling people where they could sleep in their own homes? Only people on low incomes of course.
But they aren't their own homes! In the majority of cases they are FREE houses that are given to people and paid for by others!
.
If you want to live in a big house with a spare room, then pay for it.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: Who would ever have believed that a British government would bring in a law telling people where they could sleep in their own homes? Only people on low incomes of course.[/p][/quote]But they aren't their own homes! In the majority of cases they are FREE houses that are given to people and paid for by others! . If you want to live in a big house with a spare room, then pay for it. midas

10:45am Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Why stop there though, eh? Why not force everyone on benefits to sleep in a tent in a field, and also charge them to use the communal washroom?

Private landlords, who have been making £billions from Housing Benefit over the years, should be footing this bill, not the very poorest and most vulnerable in society.
Why stop there though, eh? Why not force everyone on benefits to sleep in a tent in a field, and also charge them to use the communal washroom? Private landlords, who have been making £billions from Housing Benefit over the years, should be footing this bill, not the very poorest and most vulnerable in society. happycyclist

10:57am Mon 11 Feb 13

Mr Purple says...

happycyclist wrote:
Why stop there though, eh? Why not force everyone on benefits to sleep in a tent in a field, and also charge them to use the communal washroom?

Private landlords, who have been making £billions from Housing Benefit over the years, should be footing this bill, not the very poorest and most vulnerable in society.
I wouldn't force them to sleep in a tent, I would force them to contribute to society, rather than sponging from it. Private landlords are not the issue, rather the lazy people that are living in accomodation paid for by the hard work and endevour of others.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why stop there though, eh? Why not force everyone on benefits to sleep in a tent in a field, and also charge them to use the communal washroom? Private landlords, who have been making £billions from Housing Benefit over the years, should be footing this bill, not the very poorest and most vulnerable in society.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't force them to sleep in a tent, I would force them to contribute to society, rather than sponging from it. Private landlords are not the issue, rather the lazy people that are living in accomodation paid for by the hard work and endevour of others. Mr Purple

11:54am Mon 11 Feb 13

jimpy0 says...

are there 1000+ properties available for those that wish to downsize - NO - so many will be stuck, forced to pay the difference until a move can be facilitated which may take years - yet HA's continue to build 3+4 bed properties on buy to let terms. TVH has just taken delivery of 500 portaloo's for temporary housing.
are there 1000+ properties available for those that wish to downsize - NO - so many will be stuck, forced to pay the difference until a move can be facilitated which may take years - yet HA's continue to build 3+4 bed properties on buy to let terms. TVH has just taken delivery of 500 portaloo's for temporary housing. jimpy0

12:21pm Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Mr Purple wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Why stop there though, eh? Why not force everyone on benefits to sleep in a tent in a field, and also charge them to use the communal washroom?

Private landlords, who have been making £billions from Housing Benefit over the years, should be footing this bill, not the very poorest and most vulnerable in society.
I wouldn't force them to sleep in a tent, I would force them to contribute to society, rather than sponging from it. Private landlords are not the issue, rather the lazy people that are living in accomodation paid for by the hard work and endevour of others.
But there isn't an option to do £14-worth of community work to cover the cost of the bedroom tax. If there were, you might have a point.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Purple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why stop there though, eh? Why not force everyone on benefits to sleep in a tent in a field, and also charge them to use the communal washroom? Private landlords, who have been making £billions from Housing Benefit over the years, should be footing this bill, not the very poorest and most vulnerable in society.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't force them to sleep in a tent, I would force them to contribute to society, rather than sponging from it. Private landlords are not the issue, rather the lazy people that are living in accomodation paid for by the hard work and endevour of others.[/p][/quote]But there isn't an option to do £14-worth of community work to cover the cost of the bedroom tax. If there were, you might have a point. happycyclist

12:45pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Wishingwell says...

People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.
People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us. Wishingwell

12:53pm Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Wishingwell wrote:
People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.
I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.
[quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.[/p][/quote]I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain. happycyclist

1:00pm Mon 11 Feb 13

caballo says...

Another ill conceived one by Dave, they don't understand the mentality of the people this is aimed at. They'll simply pop another sprog out and hey presto no empty bedroom. Then rather than receiving a couple of quid for empty bedroom tax, we'll be lashing out a load more for an urchins up-bringing.
Another ill conceived one by Dave, they don't understand the mentality of the people this is aimed at. They'll simply pop another sprog out and hey presto no empty bedroom. Then rather than receiving a couple of quid for empty bedroom tax, we'll be lashing out a load more for an urchins up-bringing. caballo

1:13pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Wishingwell says...

happycyclist wrote:
Wishingwell wrote:
People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.
I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.
If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen.
1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain".
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.[/p][/quote]I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.[/p][/quote]If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen. 1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain". Wishingwell

1:31pm Mon 11 Feb 13

doctor1970 says...

The best way to deal with all taxes is ban all taxes. Paying tax should be abolished.
The best way to deal with all taxes is ban all taxes. Paying tax should be abolished. doctor1970

1:33pm Mon 11 Feb 13

jimpy0 says...

god forbid you take in a lodger of the opposite sex, you may be accused of co-habiting, money stopped while an investigation takes place - if you do take in a lodger you will need permission from your landlord and also set an agreement in law to stop said lodger taking over your property via squatters rights and other spurious routes. - i'll take a 17 year old swedish nympho please
god forbid you take in a lodger of the opposite sex, you may be accused of co-habiting, money stopped while an investigation takes place - if you do take in a lodger you will need permission from your landlord and also set an agreement in law to stop said lodger taking over your property via squatters rights and other spurious routes. - i'll take a 17 year old swedish nympho please jimpy0

1:57pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Excluded again says...

midas wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
Who would ever have believed that a British government would bring in a law telling people where they could sleep in their own homes? Only people on low incomes of course.
But they aren't their own homes! In the majority of cases they are FREE houses that are given to people and paid for by others!
.
If you want to live in a big house with a spare room, then pay for it.
If you rent your home, then it is still your home. Most people who will be hit by the bedroom tax are working or pensioners who are no longer working - just on a low enough income to need help with their housing costs.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: Who would ever have believed that a British government would bring in a law telling people where they could sleep in their own homes? Only people on low incomes of course.[/p][/quote]But they aren't their own homes! In the majority of cases they are FREE houses that are given to people and paid for by others! . If you want to live in a big house with a spare room, then pay for it.[/p][/quote]If you rent your home, then it is still your home. Most people who will be hit by the bedroom tax are working or pensioners who are no longer working - just on a low enough income to need help with their housing costs. Excluded again

2:15pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Excluded again says...

Wishingwell wrote:
People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.
If you have young kids that is not exactly an attractive option. Who is going to carry out the CRB checks on lodgers?
[quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.[/p][/quote]If you have young kids that is not exactly an attractive option. Who is going to carry out the CRB checks on lodgers? Excluded again

2:44pm Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Wishingwell wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Wishingwell wrote:
People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.
I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.
If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen.
1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain".
Who are you going to put in the spare 700 homes?
[quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.[/p][/quote]I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.[/p][/quote]If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen. 1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain".[/p][/quote]Who are you going to put in the spare 700 homes? happycyclist

2:53pm Mon 11 Feb 13

HarryBosch says...

This government are out of control attacking very many vulnerable people on benefits. I'm talking about the genuine claimants. With bedroom tax and working age council tax top up's now, the introduction of the universal credit were housing/council tax benefit is paid to claimants instead of to landlord's. Along with the austerity measures being imposed we can guess whats gonna happen. Rents are not gonna be paid, council tax isn't gonna be paid and then what? Pointless sending in the bailiffs against people who haven't got anything to levy, the landlord's an councils are gonna have less money coming in, people are probably gonna end up on the streets, there's inevitably gonna be a breakdown in social order. When that happens who's gonna police it? The police whose numbers have been cut? Don't think so. I just wonder what problems this government is storing up for itself.
This government are out of control attacking very many vulnerable people on benefits. I'm talking about the genuine claimants. With bedroom tax and working age council tax top up's now, the introduction of the universal credit were housing/council tax benefit is paid to claimants instead of to landlord's. Along with the austerity measures being imposed we can guess whats gonna happen. Rents are not gonna be paid, council tax isn't gonna be paid and then what? Pointless sending in the bailiffs against people who haven't got anything to levy, the landlord's an councils are gonna have less money coming in, people are probably gonna end up on the streets, there's inevitably gonna be a breakdown in social order. When that happens who's gonna police it? The police whose numbers have been cut? Don't think so. I just wonder what problems this government is storing up for itself. HarryBosch

3:03pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Wishingwell says...

happycyclist wrote:
Wishingwell wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Wishingwell wrote:
People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.
I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.
If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen.
1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain".
Who are you going to put in the spare 700 homes?
People can be taken out of the worst private sector housing and it can be demolished. It is well passed its use by date and can never be as energy efficient as new homes despite all the tick box bull 5hit in the EPC ratings.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.[/p][/quote]I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.[/p][/quote]If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen. 1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain".[/p][/quote]Who are you going to put in the spare 700 homes?[/p][/quote]People can be taken out of the worst private sector housing and it can be demolished. It is well passed its use by date and can never be as energy efficient as new homes despite all the tick box bull 5hit in the EPC ratings. Wishingwell

3:28pm Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

HarryBosch wrote:
This government are out of control attacking very many vulnerable people on benefits. I'm talking about the genuine claimants. With bedroom tax and working age council tax top up's now, the introduction of the universal credit were housing/council tax benefit is paid to claimants instead of to landlord's. Along with the austerity measures being imposed we can guess whats gonna happen. Rents are not gonna be paid, council tax isn't gonna be paid and then what? Pointless sending in the bailiffs against people who haven't got anything to levy, the landlord's an councils are gonna have less money coming in, people are probably gonna end up on the streets, there's inevitably gonna be a breakdown in social order. When that happens who's gonna police it? The police whose numbers have been cut? Don't think so. I just wonder what problems this government is storing up for itself.
Good post.
[quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: This government are out of control attacking very many vulnerable people on benefits. I'm talking about the genuine claimants. With bedroom tax and working age council tax top up's now, the introduction of the universal credit were housing/council tax benefit is paid to claimants instead of to landlord's. Along with the austerity measures being imposed we can guess whats gonna happen. Rents are not gonna be paid, council tax isn't gonna be paid and then what? Pointless sending in the bailiffs against people who haven't got anything to levy, the landlord's an councils are gonna have less money coming in, people are probably gonna end up on the streets, there's inevitably gonna be a breakdown in social order. When that happens who's gonna police it? The police whose numbers have been cut? Don't think so. I just wonder what problems this government is storing up for itself.[/p][/quote]Good post. happycyclist

4:15pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Major Tom says...

They should evict them, payment or not. As for the disabled being allowed to stay then it's a further case of discrimination against the able all over again. Anybody with more rooms than they need to sleep in (a carer can sleep on a settee or a blow up bed) should either downsize or prepare for eviction. Austerity is for everybody, not just the able bodied.
They should evict them, payment or not. As for the disabled being allowed to stay then it's a further case of discrimination against the able all over again. Anybody with more rooms than they need to sleep in (a carer can sleep on a settee or a blow up bed) should either downsize or prepare for eviction. Austerity is for everybody, not just the able bodied. Major Tom

4:29pm Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?
Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation? happycyclist

5:12pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Good call says...

HarryBosch wrote:
This government are out of control attacking very many vulnerable people on benefits. I'm talking about the genuine claimants. With bedroom tax and working age council tax top up's now, the introduction of the universal credit were housing/council tax benefit is paid to claimants instead of to landlord's. Along with the austerity measures being imposed we can guess whats gonna happen. Rents are not gonna be paid, council tax isn't gonna be paid and then what? Pointless sending in the bailiffs against people who haven't got anything to levy, the landlord's an councils are gonna have less money coming in, people are probably gonna end up on the streets, there's inevitably gonna be a breakdown in social order. When that happens who's gonna police it? The police whose numbers have been cut? Don't think so. I just wonder what problems this government is storing up for itself.
If the **** hits the fan again, i believe the government will use the civil contingencies act to bring troops onto the streets.
[quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: This government are out of control attacking very many vulnerable people on benefits. I'm talking about the genuine claimants. With bedroom tax and working age council tax top up's now, the introduction of the universal credit were housing/council tax benefit is paid to claimants instead of to landlord's. Along with the austerity measures being imposed we can guess whats gonna happen. Rents are not gonna be paid, council tax isn't gonna be paid and then what? Pointless sending in the bailiffs against people who haven't got anything to levy, the landlord's an councils are gonna have less money coming in, people are probably gonna end up on the streets, there's inevitably gonna be a breakdown in social order. When that happens who's gonna police it? The police whose numbers have been cut? Don't think so. I just wonder what problems this government is storing up for itself.[/p][/quote]If the **** hits the fan again, i believe the government will use the civil contingencies act to bring troops onto the streets. Good call

5:33pm Mon 11 Feb 13

HarryBosch says...

happycyclist wrote:
Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?
It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?[/p][/quote]It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies. HarryBosch

5:52pm Mon 11 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?
It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.
Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?
[quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?[/p][/quote]It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.[/p][/quote]Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way? happycyclist

8:05pm Mon 11 Feb 13

jack daniels says...

Major Tom wrote:
They should evict them, payment or not. As for the disabled being allowed to stay then it's a further case of discrimination against the able all over again. Anybody with more rooms than they need to sleep in (a carer can sleep on a settee or a blow up bed) should either downsize or prepare for eviction. Austerity is for everybody, not just the able bodied.
This is wind-up right???

Nobody is this thick are they?
[quote][p][bold]Major Tom[/bold] wrote: They should evict them, payment or not. As for the disabled being allowed to stay then it's a further case of discrimination against the able all over again. Anybody with more rooms than they need to sleep in (a carer can sleep on a settee or a blow up bed) should either downsize or prepare for eviction. Austerity is for everybody, not just the able bodied.[/p][/quote]This is wind-up right??? Nobody is this thick are they? jack daniels

8:15pm Mon 11 Feb 13

jack daniels says...

Wishingwell wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Wishingwell wrote:
People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.
I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.
If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen.
1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain".
So what you are saying is that people on benefits are not entitled to the privacy of their own home if they have a house with a spare room?

Come on..there's common sense in regards to having one person rattling round a 4 bedroom home but your idea goes against all logic and respect for your fellow man (or woman).

Who would lodge in a home of a family with 3 young screaming kids just because there is a spare room?

Nobody.. and for those that would - you have to ask why??
[quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wishingwell[/bold] wrote: People who have a spare room need to get them selves a Lodger to share some of the cost. Why should the state provide spare bedrooms to those who choose not to afford their own home or find themselves a Partner. There is a lot of synergy to be had by sharing a home. In fact it just reflects the selfish, self-righteous attitudes of those in state housing paid for by the rest of us.[/p][/quote]I doubt there are 1,400 people looking for lodgings in E. Lancs. And it's not just 'state housing', but private housing with private landlords making a killing with Housing Benefit. There's a dearth of social (cheap) housing in this country, which is partly responsible for people staying on benefits because low paid jobs don't cover their outgoings and with nowhere cheaper to move to, they're stuck. It's called the benefits trap and is easy enough to understand if you have a brain.[/p][/quote]If I was on benefits I would do what I could to save money and if that means sharing housing costs with somebody then I would seek to make it happen. 1400 people could fit into less than 700 homes and they would have lesser bills to pay. Maybe I am missing something beside "a brain".[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that people on benefits are not entitled to the privacy of their own home if they have a house with a spare room? Come on..there's common sense in regards to having one person rattling round a 4 bedroom home but your idea goes against all logic and respect for your fellow man (or woman). Who would lodge in a home of a family with 3 young screaming kids just because there is a spare room? Nobody.. and for those that would - you have to ask why?? jack daniels

9:39pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Mothernature says...

There are some incorrect facts being spouted on here.
1. April 1st 2013 - Anyone of working age renting a social housing property will be subject to a charge of 14% of their eligible rent if they underoccupy by 1 bedroom, 2 or more underoccupied bedrooms will incur a charge of 25% of their eligible rent.
2. October 2013 onwards - pensioners will also be penalised if their partner is of working age. This is tied in with the introduction of Universal Credit.
3. Local Housing Allowance covers the private rented sector.

Current Local Housing Allowance rates are shown below :

Bolton and Bury BRMA

Shared Accommodation Rate: £46.15 per week
One Bedroom Rate: £80.77 per week
Two Bedrooms Rate: £98.08 per week
Three Bedrooms Rate: £114.23 per week
Four Bedrooms Rate: £155.77 per week

East Lancs BRMA

Shared Accommodation Rate: £53.50 per week
One Bedroom Rate: £77.31 per week
Two Bedrooms Rate: £90.00 per week
Three Bedrooms Rate: £103.85 per week
Four Bedrooms Rate: £138.46 per week

Further to the above, Housing Benefit will be calculated according to the Local Housing Allowance will be based on these ‘room rates’. Each customer will be assessed to establish the number of rooms they require depending on the number of people in the household, including non-dependants. To calculate the size criteria you need to count one bedroom for the following people :

Every adult couple (married or un-married);
Any other adult aged 16 or over;
Any 2 children under age 10;
Any 2 children of the same sex under the age of 16;
Any other child under 16;
A carer (who does not live with you) if you or your partner need overnight care.

Each person is only counted once in the first group they would come into.

Single tenants under the age of 35 will be entitled to the standard rate for a room in shared accommodation. This will be based on properties where the tenant has a room of their own, but shares all or some of the facilities (for example a living room, kitchen or bathroom). This is known as the shared accommodation rate.
There are some incorrect facts being spouted on here. 1. April 1st 2013 - Anyone of working age renting a social housing property will be subject to a charge of 14% of their eligible rent if they underoccupy by 1 bedroom, 2 or more underoccupied bedrooms will incur a charge of 25% of their eligible rent. 2. October 2013 onwards - pensioners will also be penalised if their partner is of working age. This is tied in with the introduction of Universal Credit. 3. Local Housing Allowance covers the private rented sector. Current Local Housing Allowance rates are shown below : Bolton and Bury BRMA Shared Accommodation Rate: £46.15 per week One Bedroom Rate: £80.77 per week Two Bedrooms Rate: £98.08 per week Three Bedrooms Rate: £114.23 per week Four Bedrooms Rate: £155.77 per week East Lancs BRMA Shared Accommodation Rate: £53.50 per week One Bedroom Rate: £77.31 per week Two Bedrooms Rate: £90.00 per week Three Bedrooms Rate: £103.85 per week Four Bedrooms Rate: £138.46 per week Further to the above, Housing Benefit will be calculated according to the Local Housing Allowance will be based on these ‘room rates’. Each customer will be assessed to establish the number of rooms they require depending on the number of people in the household, including non-dependants. To calculate the size criteria you need to count one bedroom for the following people : Every adult couple (married or un-married); Any other adult aged 16 or over; Any 2 children under age 10; Any 2 children of the same sex under the age of 16; Any other child under 16; A carer (who does not live with you) if you or your partner need overnight care. Each person is only counted once in the first group they would come into. Single tenants under the age of 35 will be entitled to the standard rate for a room in shared accommodation. This will be based on properties where the tenant has a room of their own, but shares all or some of the facilities (for example a living room, kitchen or bathroom). This is known as the shared accommodation rate. Mothernature

11:23pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Fire Fly says...

When first moving in...where the tenants given a choice re the number of bedrooms?? I doubt it.

If yes & they simply wanted spare rooms, then fair enough tax them.

Otherwise I think its a shocking thing to do. This is still their home, maybe has been for many, many years. If they've raised a family there etc & the kids have moved out...providing they've been good tenants, why should they be made to move or pay extra.

It's nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul, not a solution.
When first moving in...where the tenants given a choice re the number of bedrooms?? I doubt it. If yes & they simply wanted spare rooms, then fair enough tax them. Otherwise I think its a shocking thing to do. This is still their home, maybe has been for many, many years. If they've raised a family there etc & the kids have moved out...providing they've been good tenants, why should they be made to move or pay extra. It's nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul, not a solution. Fire Fly

6:34am Tue 12 Feb 13

jack daniels says...

Fire Fly wrote:
When first moving in...where the tenants given a choice re the number of bedrooms?? I doubt it.

If yes & they simply wanted spare rooms, then fair enough tax them.

Otherwise I think its a shocking thing to do. This is still their home, maybe has been for many, many years. If they've raised a family there etc & the kids have moved out...providing they've been good tenants, why should they be made to move or pay extra.

It's nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul, not a solution.
If you get a house with twin valley, they will only give you enough rooms based on your circumstances. Obviously it's a tricky situation when your kids grow up and move out yet the house you live in is your home and the neighbours you have are like family.

Are we in so much trouble that we have to tear our communities apart? I don't think so. It's just the Tories doing what they do best - using the poor as the scape-goat.
[quote][p][bold]Fire Fly[/bold] wrote: When first moving in...where the tenants given a choice re the number of bedrooms?? I doubt it. If yes & they simply wanted spare rooms, then fair enough tax them. Otherwise I think its a shocking thing to do. This is still their home, maybe has been for many, many years. If they've raised a family there etc & the kids have moved out...providing they've been good tenants, why should they be made to move or pay extra. It's nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul, not a solution.[/p][/quote]If you get a house with twin valley, they will only give you enough rooms based on your circumstances. Obviously it's a tricky situation when your kids grow up and move out yet the house you live in is your home and the neighbours you have are like family. Are we in so much trouble that we have to tear our communities apart? I don't think so. It's just the Tories doing what they do best - using the poor as the scape-goat. jack daniels

8:43am Tue 12 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Thanks for that, Mothernature, but does that mean that someone who is currently claiming £90.00pw for a two-bed private rented accommodation will still receive full Housing Benefit, but someone in social housing on HB in a similar two-bed accommodation for the same rent will have to pay 14% of that £90?
Thanks for that, Mothernature, but does that mean that someone who is currently claiming £90.00pw for a two-bed private rented accommodation will still receive full Housing Benefit, but someone in social housing on HB in a similar two-bed accommodation for the same rent will have to pay 14% of that £90? happycyclist

10:07am Tue 12 Feb 13

HarryBosch says...

happycyclist wrote:
HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?
It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.
Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?
Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?[/p][/quote]It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.[/p][/quote]Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?[/p][/quote]Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you. HarryBosch

11:12am Tue 12 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?
It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.
Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?
Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you.
Harry, see my question above though. If that's the case, this seems incredibly unfair on those living in social/council housing.
[quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?[/p][/quote]It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.[/p][/quote]Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?[/p][/quote]Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you.[/p][/quote]Harry, see my question above though. If that's the case, this seems incredibly unfair on those living in social/council housing. happycyclist

1:02pm Tue 12 Feb 13

future seer says...

council tax
broadband line tax
warm food tax
bedroom tax

breathing tax sorry not yet see my point cuts and more cuts eveyday something is getting taxed or cut the taxpayer do you think the money
is going back to you no do you think you will pay less in tax no we should not be fighting each other but supporting people in real need
the bedroom tax is scaring people in real need think outside the box see the real picture we are not cattle or sheep
council tax broadband line tax warm food tax bedroom tax breathing tax sorry not yet see my point cuts and more cuts eveyday something is getting taxed or cut the taxpayer do you think the money is going back to you no do you think you will pay less in tax no we should not be fighting each other but supporting people in real need the bedroom tax is scaring people in real need think outside the box see the real picture we are not cattle or sheep future seer

1:10pm Tue 12 Feb 13

HarryBosch says...

happycyclist wrote:
HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?
It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.
Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?
Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you.
Harry, see my question above though. If that's the case, this seems incredibly unfair on those living in social/council housing.
It's really unfair for people living in social housing given that the majority of people who live in this type of housing are there out of financial need in the first place. So can you imagine a single person living in a two bedroom flat, on £75ish a week benefits who now has to pay the 14% bedroom tax and 20% council tax, so when the first payments become due and it's a choice between heating/eating and paying these extra costs - you can imagine what's going to happen. That's why I say I don't think the government know what trouble they are storing up for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?[/p][/quote]It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.[/p][/quote]Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?[/p][/quote]Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you.[/p][/quote]Harry, see my question above though. If that's the case, this seems incredibly unfair on those living in social/council housing.[/p][/quote]It's really unfair for people living in social housing given that the majority of people who live in this type of housing are there out of financial need in the first place. So can you imagine a single person living in a two bedroom flat, on £75ish a week benefits who now has to pay the 14% bedroom tax and 20% council tax, so when the first payments become due and it's a choice between heating/eating and paying these extra costs - you can imagine what's going to happen. That's why I say I don't think the government know what trouble they are storing up for themselves. HarryBosch

1:51pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Mothernature says...

Yes it does Happy. The whole idea of this bedroom tax for those in social housing who have the audacity to claim housing benefit even if they are working, is completely unjust. This is nothing to do with freeing up undeoccupied homes, it is a punishment for those needing to claim housing benefit. If it was to free up homes, then all people in social housing would be charged for having an extra bedroom/s, regardless of whether they are claiming H/B. As for the idiot that thinks it's okay for a carer to sleep on a sofa or campbed in a living room, you do realise that the majority of homes have gas fires in the living room. Gas safety regulations would not class a room with a mains gas fire as being safe to sleep in.
Yes it does Happy. The whole idea of this bedroom tax for those in social housing who have the audacity to claim housing benefit even if they are working, is completely unjust. This is nothing to do with freeing up undeoccupied homes, it is a punishment for those needing to claim housing benefit. If it was to free up homes, then all people in social housing would be charged for having an extra bedroom/s, regardless of whether they are claiming H/B. As for the idiot that thinks it's okay for a carer to sleep on a sofa or campbed in a living room, you do realise that the majority of homes have gas fires in the living room. Gas safety regulations would not class a room with a mains gas fire as being safe to sleep in. Mothernature

1:56pm Tue 12 Feb 13

future seer says...

Mothernature wrote:
Yes it does Happy. The whole idea of this bedroom tax for those in social housing who have the audacity to claim housing benefit even if they are working, is completely unjust. This is nothing to do with freeing up undeoccupied homes, it is a punishment for those needing to claim housing benefit. If it was to free up homes, then all people in social housing would be charged for having an extra bedroom/s, regardless of whether they are claiming H/B. As for the idiot that thinks it's okay for a carer to sleep on a sofa or campbed in a living room, you do realise that the majority of homes have gas fires in the living room. Gas safety regulations would not class a room with a mains gas fire as being safe to sleep in.
THUMBS UP
[quote][p][bold]Mothernature[/bold] wrote: Yes it does Happy. The whole idea of this bedroom tax for those in social housing who have the audacity to claim housing benefit even if they are working, is completely unjust. This is nothing to do with freeing up undeoccupied homes, it is a punishment for those needing to claim housing benefit. If it was to free up homes, then all people in social housing would be charged for having an extra bedroom/s, regardless of whether they are claiming H/B. As for the idiot that thinks it's okay for a carer to sleep on a sofa or campbed in a living room, you do realise that the majority of homes have gas fires in the living room. Gas safety regulations would not class a room with a mains gas fire as being safe to sleep in.[/p][/quote]THUMBS UP future seer

2:09pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Mothernature says...

HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
HarryBosch wrote:
happycyclist wrote:
Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?
It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.
Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?
Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you.
Harry, see my question above though. If that's the case, this seems incredibly unfair on those living in social/council housing.
It's really unfair for people living in social housing given that the majority of people who live in this type of housing are there out of financial need in the first place. So can you imagine a single person living in a two bedroom flat, on £75ish a week benefits who now has to pay the 14% bedroom tax and 20% council tax, so when the first payments become due and it's a choice between heating/eating and paying these extra costs - you can imagine what's going to happen. That's why I say I don't think the government know what trouble they are storing up for themselves.
HarryBosch, good post. JSA/ESA & IS for a single person over 25 will be £71.71 from mid-April. From 1st April, a single person in a 2 bedroomed social property (£80 a week rent) will pay £11.20 towards their rent & CT shortfall of around £2.50 if in Band A. That leaves £58.00 a week to pay the 3 main utilities (water, gas & electric), food, TV licence, bus fares to jobcentre, workfare provider or job interviews (as many times in a week as the jobcentre staff deem necessary).
[quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why does this not affect people who claim Housing Benefit but live in private-rented accommodation?[/p][/quote]It does hc.If someone is on benefits, living in private rented or housing association properties and is of working age then it applies.[/p][/quote]Just been trawling the internet and I'm led to believe that this is only for social/council housing, because some time ago there were rule changes for private tenants which put a ceiling on HB at a % of local rented housing. Perhaps someone in private rented could confirm either way?[/p][/quote]Just spoke to a friend who lives in private rented. It seems that for people living in private rented, their rent has already been assessed and reduced to their needs. Sorry hc if I inadvertently misled you.[/p][/quote]Harry, see my question above though. If that's the case, this seems incredibly unfair on those living in social/council housing.[/p][/quote]It's really unfair for people living in social housing given that the majority of people who live in this type of housing are there out of financial need in the first place. So can you imagine a single person living in a two bedroom flat, on £75ish a week benefits who now has to pay the 14% bedroom tax and 20% council tax, so when the first payments become due and it's a choice between heating/eating and paying these extra costs - you can imagine what's going to happen. That's why I say I don't think the government know what trouble they are storing up for themselves.[/p][/quote]HarryBosch, good post. JSA/ESA & IS for a single person over 25 will be £71.71 from mid-April. From 1st April, a single person in a 2 bedroomed social property (£80 a week rent) will pay £11.20 towards their rent & CT shortfall of around £2.50 if in Band A. That leaves £58.00 a week to pay the 3 main utilities (water, gas & electric), food, TV licence, bus fares to jobcentre, workfare provider or job interviews (as many times in a week as the jobcentre staff deem necessary). Mothernature

2:27pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Major Tom says...

@jack_daniels ___ No it's not a wind up! People on benefits have had it easy for years. Claiming for this and claiming for that. Free car, free housing, free everything. The government should check these peoples bank accounts, I bet there is at least a few grand in them, especially the ones of the 'pay to spit a kid out' trust fund generation. The ones claiming disability are largely found fit to work, even when they waste even more taxpayers money going to an appeal. @mothernature ___ Most social housing is in a far better condition than those in private rented. A large amount of social housing has full central heating. They're better insulated and more cosy than Buckingham Palace, so the gas fire argument doesn't really stand up. Also, most gas fires have a supply control so it can be turned off.
@jack_daniels ___ No it's not a wind up! People on benefits have had it easy for years. Claiming for this and claiming for that. Free car, free housing, free everything. The government should check these peoples bank accounts, I bet there is at least a few grand in them, especially the ones of the 'pay to spit a kid out' trust fund generation. The ones claiming disability are largely found fit to work, even when they waste even more taxpayers money going to an appeal. @mothernature ___ Most social housing is in a far better condition than those in private rented. A large amount of social housing has full central heating. They're better insulated and more cosy than Buckingham Palace, so the gas fire argument doesn't really stand up. Also, most gas fires have a supply control so it can be turned off. Major Tom

2:39pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Mothernature says...

Just to compound things even further, anyone claiming Income related JSA, Income related ESA, Income Support (including SMI). Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits & Housing Benefit, Universal Credit will replace these and be paid to the claimant on a calendar monthly basis in arrears. A single person claiming JSA is entitled £71.71 (£310.74 calendar monthly ) Rent of £80 (£346.67 calendar monthly) total calendar monthly payment reduced by £48.53 for 1 extra bedroom gives £608.88. Under Universal Credit, all claimants are responsible for paying the rent to their landlords. It is also the intention of the government, that all claims are to be made online. For people near to retirement or retired, you must be under the qualifying age for pension credit (this will be 61 years and 10 months in October 2013 – rising to 65 by 2018). Where one member of a couple reaches the qualifying age for pension credit and the other is of working age, they must continue to claim universal credit until both have reached pension credit qualifying age.
Just to compound things even further, anyone claiming Income related JSA, Income related ESA, Income Support (including SMI). Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits & Housing Benefit, Universal Credit will replace these and be paid to the claimant on a calendar monthly basis in arrears. A single person claiming JSA is entitled £71.71 (£310.74 calendar monthly ) Rent of £80 (£346.67 calendar monthly) total calendar monthly payment reduced by £48.53 for 1 extra bedroom gives £608.88. Under Universal Credit, all claimants are responsible for paying the rent to their landlords. It is also the intention of the government, that all claims are to be made online. For people near to retirement or retired, you must be under the qualifying age for pension credit (this will be 61 years and 10 months in October 2013 – rising to 65 by 2018). Where one member of a couple reaches the qualifying age for pension credit and the other is of working age, they must continue to claim universal credit until both have reached pension credit qualifying age. Mothernature

2:44pm Tue 12 Feb 13

HarryBosch says...

Major Tom wrote:
@jack_daniels ___ No it's not a wind up! People on benefits have had it easy for years. Claiming for this and claiming for that. Free car, free housing, free everything. The government should check these peoples bank accounts, I bet there is at least a few grand in them, especially the ones of the 'pay to spit a kid out' trust fund generation. The ones claiming disability are largely found fit to work, even when they waste even more taxpayers money going to an appeal. @mothernature ___ Most social housing is in a far better condition than those in private rented. A large amount of social housing has full central heating. They're better insulated and more cosy than Buckingham Palace, so the gas fire argument doesn't really stand up. Also, most gas fires have a supply control so it can be turned off.
You're a very small minded person Major Tom! I hope you live a long and healthy life but God forbid anything happens to you! I've worked all my life and paid into the system, tax and national insurance. But due to cruelty of circumstances I have been left severely disabled. Without the safety net of the benefits system where would I be? I am 55yrs old and will never work again. You need to stop listening to this government who are turning people against each other and think for yourself. The benefits system is a crucial part of a civilised society. What will happen to MT if on your way to work you are hit by a milkfloat or the victim of some other cruel twist of fate? How will you live? Where will you live? Who's gonna pay you're bills? BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
[quote][p][bold]Major Tom[/bold] wrote: @jack_daniels ___ No it's not a wind up! People on benefits have had it easy for years. Claiming for this and claiming for that. Free car, free housing, free everything. The government should check these peoples bank accounts, I bet there is at least a few grand in them, especially the ones of the 'pay to spit a kid out' trust fund generation. The ones claiming disability are largely found fit to work, even when they waste even more taxpayers money going to an appeal. @mothernature ___ Most social housing is in a far better condition than those in private rented. A large amount of social housing has full central heating. They're better insulated and more cosy than Buckingham Palace, so the gas fire argument doesn't really stand up. Also, most gas fires have a supply control so it can be turned off.[/p][/quote]You're a very small minded person Major Tom! I hope you live a long and healthy life but God forbid anything happens to you! I've worked all my life and paid into the system, tax and national insurance. But due to cruelty of circumstances I have been left severely disabled. Without the safety net of the benefits system where would I be? I am 55yrs old and will never work again. You need to stop listening to this government who are turning people against each other and think for yourself. The benefits system is a crucial part of a civilised society. What will happen to MT if on your way to work you are hit by a milkfloat or the victim of some other cruel twist of fate? How will you live? Where will you live? Who's gonna pay you're bills? BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR HarryBosch

2:54pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Mothernature says...

Major Tom wrote:
@jack_daniels ___ No it's not a wind up! People on benefits have had it easy for years. Claiming for this and claiming for that. Free car, free housing, free everything. The government should check these peoples bank accounts, I bet there is at least a few grand in them, especially the ones of the 'pay to spit a kid out' trust fund generation. The ones claiming disability are largely found fit to work, even when they waste even more taxpayers money going to an appeal. @mothernature ___ Most social housing is in a far better condition than those in private rented. A large amount of social housing has full central heating. They're better insulated and more cosy than Buckingham Palace, so the gas fire argument doesn't really stand up. Also, most gas fires have a supply control so it can be turned off.
By free car, do you mean the motobility scheme. I think you'll find that is a charitable group, that provides cars at a reduced rate. There is nothing free about them. I don't know what social housing you are basing your argument on, but I can assure you you're incorrect. The majority of the housing stock does have a gas fire in the living room and is not as you describe it. In fact private landlords are controlled when it comes to housing standards and the council has a great deal of power to make those landlords comply to set standards. Social housing landlords standards are a lot lower and the council do not have the power to legally force them to comply.
[quote][p][bold]Major Tom[/bold] wrote: @jack_daniels ___ No it's not a wind up! People on benefits have had it easy for years. Claiming for this and claiming for that. Free car, free housing, free everything. The government should check these peoples bank accounts, I bet there is at least a few grand in them, especially the ones of the 'pay to spit a kid out' trust fund generation. The ones claiming disability are largely found fit to work, even when they waste even more taxpayers money going to an appeal. @mothernature ___ Most social housing is in a far better condition than those in private rented. A large amount of social housing has full central heating. They're better insulated and more cosy than Buckingham Palace, so the gas fire argument doesn't really stand up. Also, most gas fires have a supply control so it can be turned off.[/p][/quote]By free car, do you mean the motobility scheme. I think you'll find that is a charitable group, that provides cars at a reduced rate. There is nothing free about them. I don't know what social housing you are basing your argument on, but I can assure you you're incorrect. The majority of the housing stock does have a gas fire in the living room and is not as you describe it. In fact private landlords are controlled when it comes to housing standards and the council has a great deal of power to make those landlords comply to set standards. Social housing landlords standards are a lot lower and the council do not have the power to legally force them to comply. Mothernature

9:59am Wed 13 Feb 13

happycyclist says...

Mothernature wrote:
Just to compound things even further, anyone claiming Income related JSA, Income related ESA, Income Support (including SMI). Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits & Housing Benefit, Universal Credit will replace these and be paid to the claimant on a calendar monthly basis in arrears. A single person claiming JSA is entitled £71.71 (£310.74 calendar monthly ) Rent of £80 (£346.67 calendar monthly) total calendar monthly payment reduced by £48.53 for 1 extra bedroom gives £608.88. Under Universal Credit, all claimants are responsible for paying the rent to their landlords. It is also the intention of the government, that all claims are to be made online. For people near to retirement or retired, you must be under the qualifying age for pension credit (this will be 61 years and 10 months in October 2013 – rising to 65 by 2018). Where one member of a couple reaches the qualifying age for pension credit and the other is of working age, they must continue to claim universal credit until both have reached pension credit qualifying age.
A MASSIVE obstacle for anyone looking to get work in a part-time capacity is the delay and inevitable screw-ups with any 'change of circumstance'. Anyone trying to take a part-time job for just a few quid extra would find themselves probably looking at a week or two without any money and needing medication. The system at the bottom is far too complicated. Ian Duncan Smith would have been command of a concentration camp in WW2 and would have loved his job. He's a sociopath.
[quote][p][bold]Mothernature[/bold] wrote: Just to compound things even further, anyone claiming Income related JSA, Income related ESA, Income Support (including SMI). Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits & Housing Benefit, Universal Credit will replace these and be paid to the claimant on a calendar monthly basis in arrears. A single person claiming JSA is entitled £71.71 (£310.74 calendar monthly ) Rent of £80 (£346.67 calendar monthly) total calendar monthly payment reduced by £48.53 for 1 extra bedroom gives £608.88. Under Universal Credit, all claimants are responsible for paying the rent to their landlords. It is also the intention of the government, that all claims are to be made online. For people near to retirement or retired, you must be under the qualifying age for pension credit (this will be 61 years and 10 months in October 2013 – rising to 65 by 2018). Where one member of a couple reaches the qualifying age for pension credit and the other is of working age, they must continue to claim universal credit until both have reached pension credit qualifying age.[/p][/quote]A MASSIVE obstacle for anyone looking to get work in a part-time capacity is the delay and inevitable screw-ups with any 'change of circumstance'. Anyone trying to take a part-time job for just a few quid extra would find themselves probably looking at a week or two without any money and needing medication. The system at the bottom is far too complicated. Ian Duncan Smith would have been command of a concentration camp in WW2 and would have loved his job. He's a sociopath. happycyclist

10:06am Sat 16 Feb 13

five says...

I wish people would learn a little more about this issue, two thirds of those affected are disabled. Google it!
I wish people would learn a little more about this issue, two thirds of those affected are disabled. Google it! five

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree