decrease in housing benefit.

[dpick]

A friend's daughter has asked me to post this. She has been the tenant of a two bedroom house paying total rent of £100 a week (small terraced house) she was receiving £78.70 housing benefit until 26 January 2012 when her partner who she claimed for assaulted her after she found he had cleared their bank account.

 

He was remanded then imprisoned due to revocation of a suspended sentence.

 

She has now found that while her benefit Incapacity benefit with Income support topup has been cut to approx £95 a week her housing benefit has also be decreased to £55 a week due to something to do with required bedrooms?

 

How does this so called government expect someone to survive when after rent, gas and light have been paid she has approx. £30 left to last a week.

 

dpick

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think there are grounds for appeal, as this reduction

made in this way has not even given her a chance to

find cheaper accomodation which is a joke these day anyway,

also i cannot see why her income support should be cut unless

she was in a joint claim with the ''partner''.

[dpick]

Hi Brig yes she was in a joint claim with her partner. She was making the claim for both cannot go into details but he could not make a claim on his own, they are both educationally below par but appeared to manage until his problem with gamblerling came to light.

 

dpick

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi dpick, imo there are grounds for appeal

for hardship given the information the educational

problems make this more unfair as no consideration

of her ability to cope have been taken.

 

Brig.

[ErikaPNP]

I don't think that there are grounds for appeal as such (certainly nothing in your post that indicates to me there are grounds) because what they have done is apply the LHA to her new circumstances which they simply must do. Unless she has a case for being entitled to the two bedroom then an appeal would be entirely fruitless.

 

However, there are grounds to request a Discretionary Housing Payment as a top up to the rent with a view to giving her more time to source suitably alternative accomodation. She can do this and still appeal if she so wishes but whatever she chooses to do, she definately should apply for the DHP. If the appeal fails (likely unless she has a clear entitlement to a 2 bed) then she will be left between a rock and a hard place. If she applies for a DHP she at least stands a good chance of getting a top up for the remaining rent.

 

Her IS reduction will be due to the fact that she no longer has a partner - she would have been receiving an amount for both of them previously. The amount you have quoted that she now gets is correct for a single person.

[id6052]

If a single person under 35 is occupying a property on their own, the maximum housing benefit is restricted to the rate for a room in a shared house i.e. £55 per week.

 

There is no right of appeal to the council or tribunal service against the rate as this is not set by the council. The only way to challenge the rate would be by Judicial Review, however I believe this has been attempted in the past by anti-poverty groups who were unsuccessful.

 

She may be able to apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment from her local council, however as the name indicates, these payments are totally discretionary.

 

The best advice is to get a lodger or joint tenant to share rental costs.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thanks Erika, Is there nothing more than a discreationery

award, given the learning difficulties??

[ErikaPNP]

Although there is some extra assistance available for some people with disability, having a disability in itself is not sufficient to qualify for a higher LHA rate, Brigadier.

 

Unless she requires someone who doesn't normally live with her to provide necessary overnight care, is aged under 22 and has recently left care or receives SDP then she doesn't qualify for a higher LHA rate. Unless she falls under one of those criterias she will only be entitled to the shared room rate of LHA (assuming she is under 35).

 

A DHP is the only alternative and although as another member pointed out it is discretionary, it is the only option she really has if she doesn't fit the required criteria. They do not have to pay the DHP but hopefully they will.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Seems an injustice to me when certain

groups are being afforded obscene amounts

of benefits.

I have reason to contact Lord David Freud

minister for Welfare Reform at the DWP on other

matters I will raise this as an aside.

[id6052]

Although there is some extra assistance available for some people with disability, having a disability in itself is not sufficient to qualify for a higher LHA rate, Brigadier.

 

Unless she requires someone who doesn't normally live with her to provide necessary overnight care, is aged under 22 and has recently left care or receives SDP then she doesn't qualify for a higher LHA rate. Unless she falls under one of those criterias she will only be entitled to the shared room rate of LHA (assuming she is under 35).

 

If she is aged 25 to 34, and has previously been in homeless hostel or is an ex-offender, she may also be protected from the shared room rate. However these categories have additional conditions.

Edited February 20, 2012 by id6052

[Life-Goes-On]

>If she is aged 25 to 34, and has previously been in homeless hostel or is an ex-offender, she may also be protected from the shared room rate.

 

More rights for an attacker than a victim, it's a messed up system.

[dpick]

Hi just had some further info(possible wrong info) The young lady in question started her claim for income support and housing benefit in March 2011, under the regs in force at that time. New regs came into force April 2011. I believe that her change in circumstances should not be treated as a new claim and therefore she should still be under the same regs as at the time of her claim.

 

This info could be completely wrong but could someone like ErikaPNP who I know has a lot more knowledge of the regs etc could give me the truth of how this works.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

dpick

[id6052]

This is not a new claim, it is a change in circumstances, namely a change in household composition.

 

If she is aged under 35, then the change in household composition will mean that her HB reduces from self contained rate to shared rate.

[ErikaPNP]

id6052 is correct.

 

Claims made before 1st April 2011 are afforded protection for a limited period only (until the anniversary of the claim or for 9 months depending on the entitled rate) - however this is on the provision that there is no change to the household size which affects the size of dwelling that a person is entitled to.

 

Where there is a change in the size of the household (number of people living in the household) which affects the size of the dwelling the claimant is entitled to, the change will be applied from the date that the change took place.

 

I really think she should look into the DHP. It's by no means a guarantee because they do not have to award it - but it is worth a shot and appears to be the only shot she has until she finds more affordable accomodation.

 

You should be aware though that DHP if awarded will not be paid indefinately. For cases like these, I've only seen it awarded for short periods to enable the claimant a period of time to find more suitable accomodation, and if no suitable accomodation is sourced by the time they decide to stop the DHP there is no appeal process. I'm sorry I cannot be more positive but better you know the facts from the fiction and can act on them.

[dpick]

Thanks this is the info I wanted now I can tell her where she stands and what she can do/try to do.

 

dpick

[dpick]

Update on this story she has been told that she is getting full benefit until 22 June the will go on shared room rate housing benefit of £55 a week and have to pay £45 a week rent out of £97 a week benefit meaning that she will have to either go back home to live with her mother and step father who hates her or be homeless with no hope of getting her own one bedroom flat for another 9 years till she is above the shared room age limit.

 

This is our so called caring government.

 

dpick

[worried33]

If a single person under 35 is occupying a property on their own, the maximum housing benefit is restricted to the rate for a room in a shared house i.e. £55 per week.

 

There is no right of appeal to the council or tribunal service against the rate as this is not set by the council. The only way to challenge the rate would be by Judicial Review, however I believe this has been attempted in the past by anti-poverty groups who were unsuccessful.

 

She may be able to apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment from her local council, however as the name indicates, these payments are totally discretionary.

 

The best advice is to get a lodger or joint tenant to share rental costs.

 

A friend of mine who legally challenged a council on this actually won in court, they then backed down on further claims after losing in court multiple times. I plan to use the legal points he used in my own case when they try to cut my housing benefit. In short he won on the basis that the council cut benefit in the middle of a tenancy agreement and without adequate notification. Just because the government does something it doesnt mean its legal.

 

I would like to see also a challenge to this thing that a 35 year old for some reason is entitled more than a 34 year old simply because of age. If I am not mistaken age discrimination is supposed to be illegal.

 

Also if this lady was still with her partner am I right in assuming the state would say they entitled to a flat/house, even tho they would still be sharing a bedroom. Certianly a lot of unfairness on this new policy now.

[worried33]

Update on this story she has been told that she is getting full benefit until 22 June the will go on shared room rate housing benefit of £55 a week and have to pay £45 a week rent out of £97 a week benefit meaning that she will have to either go back home to live with her mother and step father who hates her or be homeless with no hope of getting her own one bedroom flat for another 9 years till she is above the shared room age limit.

 

This is our so called caring government.

 

dpick

 

Agreed disgusting situation, a bedsit is not adequate accomodation and shouldnt be officialy deemed as acceptable as somewhere to live.

[Nystagmite]

A couple, regardless of age is entitled to the one room rate. I do think it's ridiculous that a 34 year old is expected to house share. Yes, some may do that; but for some, that's a choice.

[daggersedge]

A couple, regardless of age is entitled to the one room rate. I do think it's ridiculous that a 34 year old is expected to house share. Yes, some may do that; but for some, that's a choice.

 

It's easy to be free with other people's money, isn't it? Taxpayers, that is, people in work, are footing the bill and there's only so much that they can afford.

 

The fact is that people who are living off of other people's money shouldn't have infinite choices. Given the high price of housing, people in work often have to house share. No-one takes up any campaign on their behalf, no, they are just told to get on with it. People who don't live on benefits have to make compromises all the time so that they can live within their circumstances, so why shouldn't it be the same for people on benefits?

[dpick]

It's easy to be free with other people's money, isn't it? Taxpayers, that is, people in work, are footing the bill and there's only so much that they can afford.

 

The fact is that people who are living off of other people's money shouldn't have infinite choices. Given the high price of housing, people in work often have to house share. No-one takes up any campaign on their behalf, no, they are just told to get on with it. People who don't live on benefits have to make compromises all the time so that they can live within their circumstances, so why shouldn't it be the same for people on benefits?

 

 

I think you should read the full thread this is not about benefit scroungers or benefit cheats but a educationally challenged woman that has been assaulted by her partner that was in a protected work environment that this government has closed down and due to this governments benefit cuts now stands to lose her home because she is not now unable to find any protected form of employment in our area where unemployment for her age group for people with normal education standards now stands at 14.5%.

 

dpick

[worried33]

It's easy to be free with other people's money, isn't it? Taxpayers, that is, people in work, are footing the bill and there's only so much that they can afford.

 

The fact is that people who are living off of other people's money shouldn't have infinite choices. Given the high price of housing, people in work often have to house share. No-one takes up any campaign on their behalf, no, they are just told to get on with it. People who don't live on benefits have to make compromises all the time so that they can live within their circumstances, so why shouldn't it be the same for people on benefits?

 

house sharing with famiy/friends is a bit different to been made to live in a bedsit.

 

Also you making the assumption everyone claiming housing benefi doesnt work and never has worked, they may well have paid taxes in the past or still be paying taxes now so they are paying into or have paid intot he funds used for this.

 

With all that aside tho the projected savings for this single room rate change is minimal in terms of government expenditure but its something that will have a huge impact on the lives of those affected. Also I think the projected savings as small as they are wont be reached because people will be made homeless and homeless people cost a lot of money to put in b&b's etc.

 

Can you justify the age discrimination? or is it only your need for tax cuts that matters?

 

thanks.

[daggersedge]

I think you should read the full thread this is not about benefit scroungers or benefit cheats but a educationally challenged woman that has been assaulted by her partner that was in a protected work environment that this government has closed down and due to this governments benefit cuts now stands to lose her home because she is not now unable to find any protected form of employment in our area where unemployment for her age group for people with normal education standards now stands at 14.5%.

 

dpick

 

I didn't say a word about benefit scroungers or benefit cheats. I just said that taxpayers can't afford to provide people on benefits with inifinite choices. I also pointed out that taxpayers don't have infinite choices.

 

I might add, as well, that taxpayers don't benefit normally benefit from any form of protected work.

 

Why should those live off the money of taxpayers get more than the taxpayers themselves get?

[daggersedge]

house sharing with famiy/friends is a bit different to been made to live in a bedsit.

 

Also you making the assumption everyone claiming housing benefi doesnt work and never has worked, they may well have paid taxes in the past or still be paying taxes now so they are paying into or have paid intot he funds used for this.

 

With all that aside tho the projected savings for this single room rate change is minimal in terms of government expenditure but its something that will have a huge impact on the lives of those affected. Also I think the projected savings as small as they are wont be reached because people will be made homeless and homeless people cost a lot of money to put in b&b's etc.

 

Can you justify the age discrimination? or is it only your need for tax cuts that matters?

 

thanks.

 

Many working people have to live with family and friends. Many working people have to live in bedsits.

 

I never said that people claiming benefits have never paid taxes. I am saying, though, that they are being supported by current taxpayers. That's how the system works. Current taxpayers cannot really afford to pay what they are paying now, let alone pay for people on benefits to have infinite choices. Anyway, taxpayers don't have infinite choices. They have to make compromises. They have to put up with things not being as they would like them to be. Why should it be any different for people on benefits?

 

You make the assumption, by the way, that I am calling for a tax cut in the UK. I haven't said a thing about it. Indeed, it doesn't affect me as I moved to France a few years back. I don't pay for the original poster.

 

As for age discrimination, ha! I don't have to justify anything. I don't have to justify, for instance, your stance that people on benefits should have more choices than the people who are paying those benefits. I don't have to justify the fact that you appear to believe that taxpayers are an endless source of money and that it can be spent any way that pleases someone who holds out his hand and says 'need'.

 

I don't have to justify anything because I'm not asking for anything from the UK taxpayer. You are: you are asking for people who do not have infinite choices to pay with their own money for others to have them.

Edited May 24, 2012 by daggersedge
Added something I had forgotten to put in.

[down'n'out]

I am saying, though, that they are being supported by current taxpayers. That's how the system works.

Everyone is a taxpayer. Or, are you thinking only those working pay tax? (income tax)

 

Current taxpayers cannot really afford to pay what they are paying now, let alone pay for people on benefits to have infinite choices.

In most circumstances, there are no choices. For there to be a choice, there would need to be the single bedroom housing stock available.