Warnings over cap on housing benefit (From The Northern Echo)
Send us your pictures, video, news and views by texting NORTHERN ECHO to 80360 or email us
Explosion in homelessness and poverty charities warn
10:32am Monday 28th June 2010 in News
FAMILIES claiming housing benefit will be evicted if their private landlord charges more than £55 a week in parts of the region, under a crackdown.
Charities have warned the unprecedented squeeze – slashing the cap on payments by 40 per cent – will lead to an explosion in homelessness and poverty.
But the Government has insisted families on housing benefit (HB) must be forced into cheaper properties, in order to cut the £21bn annual bill and persuade them to look for work.
Ministers admit that tens of thousands of people will be forced to move home suddenly.
They will be given no more than four months to find alternative accommodation.
A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesman said: “Hard-working individuals and families will no longer have to subsidise people living in properties they themselves could not afford.”
The clampdown, revealed in George Osborne’s “tax and axe” Budget, will dramatically cut the maximum payment of local housing allowance, which is claimed by tenants in private accommodation.
Instead of being set at the median rent in the area concerned – about 50 per cent of the highest figure charged – the cap will be cut to 30 per cent, from October next year.
An analysis by The Northern Echo has revealed big reductions in HB across the region, using the example of the cap for a typical two-bedroom home.
Across County Durham, the new cap will be about £55.23 (down £36.82), just below the maximum in Darlington (£58.69 – down £39.12), across Teesside (£62.14 – down £41.42) and Sunderland (£65.59 – down £43.73).
The new rules will also have a big impact in North Yorkshire, cutting the caps in Harrogate (£82.16 – down £54.77), Richmond and Hambleton (£69.04 – down £46.03) and York (£73.40 – down £58.93).
The shake-up also has implications for landlords, who must choose whether to accept a 40 per cent cut in rent payments or evict tenants on housing benefit.
Crisis, the national charity for homeless people, condemned the changes, saying: “These cuts to housing benefit will lead to serious hardship and homelessness.”
And Liz Phelps, a Citizens Advice housing officer, said: “It is very crude, short-term thinking.
“It will cut the DWP budget, but it will explode the homelessness budget. We will see a lot more rent arrears, a lot more debt and acute poverty – and then more homelessness.”
But Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said: “You meet many people who say ‘This is not fair. I am working hard, this family next door has no intention of working, they are living on housing benefit’.”
The Budget document also claims the changes will be a powerful incentive to find work, by removing “excessively generous payments that trap benefit claimants in poverty”.
Under a separate measure, people who have claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than 12 months will find their housing benefit cut by ten per cent.
And payments will also be reduced when HB is pegged to increases in the Consumer Prices Index inflation measure, instead of Retail Prices Index – which is typically one per cent higher.
A further change will force couples and lone parents out of their council and housing association homes when their children move out, unless they can top up their HB themselves.
Rules that allow parents to stay in family-sized accommodation for life will be scrapped by 2013, after 500,000 people were found to be living in “under-used property”.
Comments(64)
Izitme?
says...
12:34pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Wages for an unskilled majority are low(if they can find a job)and rents generally take a high proportion of such a wage ,plus Council Tax etc. ;let alone the agents(before persons even get a tenancy) requirement of a deposit, "bond", plus legal fees for forms etc. which believe me, can add up to over £1000 easily.Who amongst poorest families has such savings?. So Housing Benefit/Council is forever paying for rented B&B accomodation or high private rents.....out of the public purse.....for many who obviously cannot find or afford to work.Landlords are businessmen and not there to be charitable this is true.
Question..how much is a "fair" "high"or "subsidised"rent ? I guess the answer is relative !Perhaps the new Govt. are trying to break this cycle. Needs a more informed and wholistic approach though..anyone agree ?
bustybev
says...
12:45pm Mon 28 Jun 10
my2penceworth
says...
1:42pm Mon 28 Jun 10
It's time we got tougher and made those who can work, flipping well do so.
Just my 2pence worth.
stevegg
says...
2:07pm Mon 28 Jun 10
bhoy
says...
2:31pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Deb1971
says...
2:51pm Mon 28 Jun 10
bustybev
says...
3:09pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Super steve
says...
3:50pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Why should my taxes be given to subsidise rents?
Housing benefits should only be payable for 6 months at at time, in any given 5 year period, and only AFTER the claiment has paid in for at least 5 years.
Th ordinary hard working tax payer has a hard enmough time as it is now without ever more of his taxes being used to subsidise other people.
J.Moffatt
says...
3:56pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Dante
says...
4:03pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Are we to see shanty towns spring up all over the place. This is the UK, not South Africa or India.
I'm not saying this just to have a go at you, but it's very easy to say that tax payer's money should be used but how would YOU solve the problem.
I too get annoyed when I read about Westminster council paying out 4000 quid a week for an immigrant family to move into a 3 million quid house but what are we to do with the ordinary people who need welfare and housing benefit.
You know, the Germans had a real practical solution for people they didn't want or like, but everyone else thought it was a bit over the top and punished them for it.
So what is your solution?
Or is it just not your problem.
entitled opinion
says...
4:18pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Ian James
says...
4:27pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Lynn55
says...
4:30pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Lynn55
says...
4:38pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Lynn55
says...
4:53pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Lynn55
says...
4:56pm Mon 28 Jun 10
solar thermal kid
says...
6:55pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Dante
says...
7:56pm Mon 28 Jun 10
I agree with what you say, everyone knows that there are estates where this happens, and that we have far to many non productive immigrants etc etc. BUT, there are ways of tackling things different to the Tory way of always hit it with a bloody big stick.
These people are not out of work because there is an abundance of jobs, or that they are too highly qualified for the work available. They are in this position, because over the last 40 years, successive governments failure to address any situation other than that which suited their own cause.
Now then without being partisan to any political party, let's just analise what the Condem party is going to do, with the cuts to benefits and housing benefit.
The Sun readers and Jon Gaunt, have been up in arms because some, but to them, all on benefits are taking the p***. Let's not forget how the benefit culture strated.
In this area, one political party, concluded that we didn't need our mines or steel works, industries that had provided work for thousands, and young men knew when the left school they would start work where their fathers did, the brighter ones went to uni or became tradesmen. However, because of political dogma and the idea that everyone could become a window cleaner or a gate fixer or, some other service provider, thousands upon thousands were thrown out of work, ON TO BENEFITS without any hope of employment for generations.
That as we know is history and for those who don't agree with the foregoing, it doesn't matter, the fact is we have millions on benefits.
These millions are afterall, human beings, and like all human beings, they will do anything to survive. Therefore if the Neocons and rabid haters of all things welfare, have their way as the new Condem want you to, these human beings will do anything to survive. we see that now with junkies, they become deserate when the need a fix and mug and kill for a few pounds to buy their next fix.
can you imagine what a man will do to provide for his wife and children when he has no home and little income. Desperate people do desperete things to survive.
steve is partialy right when he asks "why should tax payers pay for people to live in houses paid for by the government"?
Well let's think about the alternative to not funding these people.
Steve and Dave Lacey could go out one night only to return home to find it full of squatters, homeless people who have been thrown out of their homes because the landlord is now not receiving the housing benefit from us tax payers. Unless the law changes, and the police (armed as it will have to be) can smash in and evict them, then Steve and DL won't have a home, and even if the law was changed, their houses would be ruined evicting these people, desperate people do desperate things.
How many of you wish to be mugged by homeless people?
Don't rely on the police, afterall, we are going to loose 35000.
This may all seem a fantacy, this is afterll the UK, not some third world country in Africa, but what does it take to make a third world country.........simp
ly poverty, and one section of society to become desperate.
AND, you know Steve, I fought in many parts of the world, mainly the Third World and the thing I saw was this, It won't be Cameron or Osbourne or Clegg who is muuged and maybe killed, nor their houses and families who find squatters in them and defiled, the shortage of police won't affect them, but only me and you.
You all reading this may think this extreme, but ask yourselves, what would you do to protect and provide for your family if you find yourselves evicted along with thousands of others?
Belive me, I have seen what people are capable of when their families are in danger, homeless and hungry..............
Oh but I forgot, this is the UK and we don't do things like the Bosnians or Rwandans, Serbs or Chechnians.
As I said, it may seem extreme, but even Thatcher was not as extreme as the measures this government is wanting to employ.......instead of cutting the police by 35000, I'd be increasing it by 3500000 before I introduced the other measures.
Just stop and think for a few moments where this, creating wwholesale homlessness (we've heard from landlords) can lead.
monsterlets
says...
9:41pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Duke of Aycliffe
says...
10:01pm Mon 28 Jun 10
Some greedy landlords can charge whatever rent they want, once the benefits takers get a job.
Why should I pay for big losers in my street who don't work & won't work & they're quite proud of it, calling their benefits their wages.
The Tories are only doing what Labour never dared to do, & what the majority of working people think. It's simple common sense economics, we can no longer afford so many spongers.
As for the predicted so called explosion of desperate families, TOUGH! Everyone has to tighten their belts, why should long term dole wallah's be exempt. The day was always going to come when this had happen.
Dean M
says...
11:20pm Mon 28 Jun 10
"..without being partisan to any political party, let's just analise what the Condem party is going to do"
.
Non-partisan term there, of course.
.
Did you really mean to say 3,500,000 extra police? How on earth would this be paid for?
.
Fair enough point about desperate people doing desperate things to support their families, and even Mrs T, as you say, did not dump on people so that they were out on the streets, starving - the benefits culture grew during her time, it wasn't attacked.
.
I personally don't think this government will allow such a scenario to occur either. My own view - and landlords may well disagree - is that the government think they can squeeze them into accepting lower rents from the system than they currently do. If landlords evict, what will they do with their properties? I don't see queues of private tenants or buyers lined up waiting to take them on.
.
It's a gamble. No-one wants to see (well, I don't) families in genuine hardship being thrown out on the street, in a civilised society. The criteria used to judge genuine hardship is the key, and these should be tough but fair and reasonable.
.
And the taxpayer 'funds' all sorts of people; doctors, nurses, armed forces, police - all of whom have fared well in numbers and salary terms in recent years, and continuing to fund them is part of the current problem (hence their pay freeze). These people are essential, but to what extent? Are they really worth so much more than hard working people in the private sector such as factory workers, shop workers, rail workers etc? Worth more perhaps, but so much more? Doctors on £250k per year - and I don't hear any talk of cutting doctors.
billysaid
says...
12:32am Tue 29 Jun 10
Honest Taxpayer
says...
7:23am Tue 29 Jun 10
Why should people on benefits, unless in exceptional circumstances be able to live in a similar house to the one I have to pay nearly £800 mortgage per month on. Where is the incentive to earn a living and provide a good ethical role model for our children? Everyone has hardship in their lives at some point and I wouldn't wish that one anyone, but nothing in life is free and finally the government is going to make people realise that.
Honest Taxpayer
says...
7:23am Tue 29 Jun 10
Why should people on benefits, unless in exceptional circumstances be able to live in a similar house to the one I have to pay nearly £800 mortgage per month on. Where is the incentive to earn a living and provide a good ethical role model for our children? Everyone has hardship in their lives at some point and I wouldn't wish that one anyone, but nothing in life is free and finally the government is going to make people realise that.
teapot2004
says...
11:27am Tue 29 Jun 10
Oldharleyman
says...
1:09pm Tue 29 Jun 10
J.Moffatt
says...
2:50pm Tue 29 Jun 10
AllanFraser
says...
4:31pm Tue 29 Jun 10
A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesman said: “Hard-working individuals and families will no longer have to subsidise people living in properties they themselves could not afford.” How can anyone argue against that statement? I think that housing benefit should be phased out completely, with genuine cases, the disabled and pensioners etc, receiving more benefit. People who do not work would then have to stay with family, friends etc until they find a job.
billysaid
says...
6:00pm Tue 29 Jun 10
Oldharleyman wrote:you have not gained much in your working life have you. and if a rent is £350 a month say,,then what difference does it make if its a detached or semi ?,,i live in detached to but its not on your small pidgeon box estate. you need to work harder to get yourself into a decent house on a decent estste. fact.
I own my detached home on a small private estate. The house next door is detached and I jobless family live in there and have been for a couple of years. Do the Social need to put these people in detached accomodation? As for Billysad, he is the board troll and waffles on about one thing only yawwn
CTRILEY
says...
6:27pm Tue 29 Jun 10
I pay £61 a week for a one bedroom flat, which means that this plan thousands of unemployed people within Spennymoor who are claiming housing benefit would find themselves made homeless. When multiplied out by the numbers nationally will mean hundreds of thousands, if not more, people becoming homeless simply for being unemployed. This will cause the destruction of families and communities; children being separated from their families and brought either by relatives or placed into care
(with people like you complaining that you taxes are being wasted on these children); other children will be living on the streets, some ending up in prostitution; it will create shanty towns; it’ll mean the very people this nation will need won’t be available to take up the jobs when they start to reappear; children will be forced to the many will turn to crime or into arms of extremist groups. I saw it all in the 80’s which is why I’ve never voted Tory. I don’t support this plan, because I’ve a conscious, I can't say the same about some of you?
Dante
says...
7:09pm Tue 29 Jun 10
Whast alwys amases me, is that these are working class people who think that Cameron and Osbourne are doing them a favour.
I well understand how they feel about going to work and seeing people who have never worked in generations, seeming to benefit by it.
There are youths where I have contacts, who sit about on street corners, selling drugs, taking drugs and drinking Fosters. Make these ones work for their benefits, are our streets so clear of littler that they couldn't do this?
However, I would ask this when these people complain about their taxes being spent............do they like their taxes wasted on Trident, or a war in Iraq and Afgan, that simply was set in operation to cosy up to the Amis, or sending foreign aid to countries who squander it or as in the case of India, have their own foreign aid program and a space program, or China that is putting more and more of our industies out of business with cheap labour?
I'm not saying that many people abuse the welfare system, but if we stopped wasting money on Quangos, (which are usually jobs for the boys....anyone here ever been approached to sit on a quango?) and useless weapons sytems and foreign aid etc, our national debt would not look anywhere near as bad........BUT this governemt wants to appear popular by vilifying certain groups of the community, they are even asking certain groups where to make cuts....why? so it won't be their fault when the disabled and disadvantaged are hung out to dry.........they will simply say "that's what YOU told us you wanted" Most of us want them to punish the Banks, even get OUR money back from them, BUT have they asked us that? you bet you granny's backside they haven't.
Izitme?
says...
7:55pm Tue 29 Jun 10
Logical point that landlords would be better accepting lower rent than having empty property and NO rent. Already there`s lots of empty properties around. But will they do that ?If not what next, trailer parks like USA ? Root of problem is much more complicated,i.e. I guess property values soaring faster than average wage at lower end of wage scale? and those Bankers...pushed up lending etc. raking in interest.
Where are all these jobs anyway that people are turning down ?Have some of the "ranters" on here not noticed, we no longer have a manufacturing base with jobs for all,starting as labourers if no skills, as used to be ?The 21st century is all so-called Service industries, care workers,retail and call centres etc. People have always needed housing they can afford ,never been quite like this before.Pre-war there were bad slums and low rents, then later replaced by subsidised council housing, now we have a mix of ownership and various other rented for a profit not really subsidised by councils any more...a mess !
I repeat What is a reasonable rent? some rents do seem a little over the top,(!) so who is cashing in ?We all know who is paying at end of the day for majority of unwaged homes.
Previous Govts. let this get out of hand so as we are living in a greed culture where few accept a modest lifestyle Also laziness, debt, or being a moron is no longer shameful.
Whole system needs a revamp,not sure Cameron &Co are tackling it from richest downwards...but its true there are a lot taking advantage and having big families who never work (won`t or can`t for whatever reasons) Myself, had to claim benefits in 1980`s as a widow but always found jobs eventually though not all great jobs .Have rented and had mortgages at various times.
Would have been ashamed to slob around in pyjamas!! watching big telly , poor example to children for starters !Mine all have jobs now but do struggle to pay rents on flats themselves. PS. I am not a Daily Mail reader absolutely not.
LeeC
says...
8:12pm Tue 29 Jun 10
Duke of Aycliffe
says...
9:52pm Tue 29 Jun 10
It's usually these people/families who are the troublemakers on housing estates. Most of us will have seen this breed of family in our town centres or hanging around.
Dean M
says...
9:54pm Tue 29 Jun 10
"....the numbers nationally will mean hundreds of thousands, if not more, people becoming homeless simply for being unemployed. This will cause the destruction of families and communities; children being separated from their families and brought up either by relatives or placed into care; other children will be living on the streets, some ending up in prostitution; it will create shanty towns; children will be forced to turn to crime or into arms of extremist groups. I saw it all in the 80’s which is why I’ve never voted Tory."
.
Did you live in the UK during the 1980s CTR? Come on, I think you and Dante attend the same school of slight exaggeration!
.
I'd like an honest landlord to come on here and tell me if my line of thinking is off the mark. My thinking is; house values have dropped sharply over the last couple of years and there is little money to be made in buying and selling houses at present; investing money in banks or building societies is just as bad an option with such low interest rates in the market; property rental values have remained reasonably steady during the recession, so if you are a landlord with guaranteed income from H.B. this would appear to be the most profitable option by far. The Tories realise this and have decided to make them suffer too.
.
I'm happy to be proven wrong...
Izitme?
says...
12:30am Wed 30 Jun 10
Hopefully everything will find its own level and landlords will see that a guaranteed even if lower rent from H.B. sources will be their best option.
It would be silly to have good housing lying empty but end up with more B&B`s or worse, just because nobody could afford the very high rents above H.B.caps . We have to have some faith in common sense and perhaps even try to have faith in the politicians or at least give them a chance.Cannot go on as it is.
Izitme?
says...
12:30am Wed 30 Jun 10
Hopefully everything will find its own level and landlords will see that a guaranteed even if lower rent from H.B. sources will be their best option.
It would be silly to have good housing lying empty but end up with more B&B`s or worse, just because nobody could afford the very high rents above H.B.caps . We have to have some faith in common sense and perhaps even try to have faith in the politicians or at least give them a chance.Cannot go on as it is.
Oldharleyman
says...
8:08am Wed 30 Jun 10
billysaid wrote:You really must think we're all as stupid as you, and to be brutally honest, no-one takes any real notice of what little you have to say.
Oldharleyman wrote: I own my detached home on a small private estate. The house next door is detached and I jobless family live in there and have been for a couple of years. Do the Social need to put these people in detached accomodation? As for Billysad, he is the board troll and waffles on about one thing only yawwnyou have not gained much in your working life have you. and if a rent is £350 a month say,,then what difference does it make if its a detached or semi ?,,i live in detached to but its not on your small pidgeon box estate. you need to work harder to get yourself into a decent house on a decent estste. fact.
Dante
says...
8:25am Wed 30 Jun 10
Dean, have you forgotten the Toxteth riots, the Poll tax riots, the Brixton Riots?
They were localised, tell me why, when millions of people loose benefits of one kind or another, won't the same things happen?
As per usual, thr rightwing of society simply use the big stick method.
It has now emerged that a further 1.3 million jobs will be lost. So then, where are the jobs for those whom the goverment is determined to remove from Incapacity benefit? This fact alone proves to me, that it has nothing to do with getting people into work, but simply a vitriolic hatered for anything welfare.
A better approach would have been, to get everyone on Job seekers allowance into work, THEN as more jobs are created by the wealth and expanssion these workers would create, THEN find work that the disabled and long term sick may be able to do without any detriment to their condition. During this proccess, you will find "lead swingers" and they could be made to do normal work.
The trouble is with a dragnet approach, is that too many innocents get caught up in the frenzy.
In the 80's a soldier in my command, went home on compassionate leave, his father had died. It transpired that his father, a miner, had been on the sick for a long time with heart problems, but under one of the frequent "get them of the sick and back to work" campaigns, the DHSS assesment doctor who was under contract to get people into work, signed this man off. He died at work some 4 months later from a heart attack, even though the Coal Board doctor had placed him on light word duties.
The man under my command had been as right wing as any in his views, but fromthat day on became a comfirmed socialist and left the military.
It galls many to think that these MPs, bang on about getting people into work, when they have yet to do a real day's work themselves.
There are one or two ex army officers some of whom saw service in conflicts but there again, most ex officers know little about ordinary people and have always been used to people doing what they are told and of course sacrificing some for the good of the majority, hardly a recipe for compassion.
As I said, I don't like to see gangs of youths wasted when they could be learning to be usefull members of society, and that is where you aim
first......youth and vitality, long term unempolyed, then if there is any vacancies left, find suitable work, perhaps part-time, for the sick and disabled............
...but don't make them scapegoats for the sins of the bankers and 30 years of government mis-management.
billysaid
says...
11:38am Wed 30 Jun 10
Honest Taxpayer wrote:i have to pay nearly £800 mortgage a month. no you dont,you chose to pay that when you bought house. you should have got a cheaper house. you must try to live within your means in future.
What a ridiculous comment, billysaid! You are announcing that you will turn to crime if your benefits are cut? What a good example you must set to your family! Why should people on benefits, unless in exceptional circumstances be able to live in a similar house to the one I have to pay nearly £800 mortgage per month on. Where is the incentive to earn a living and provide a good ethical role model for our children? Everyone has hardship in their lives at some point and I wouldn't wish that one anyone, but nothing in life is free and finally the government is going to make people realise that.
Izitme?
says...
12:14pm Wed 30 Jun 10
Dante wrote:Well said Dante.
"Did you live in the UK during the 1980s CTR? Come on, I think you and Dante attend the same school of slight exaggeration!" Dean, have you forgotten the Toxteth riots, the Poll tax riots, the Brixton Riots? They were localised, tell me why, when millions of people loose benefits of one kind or another, won't the same things happen? As per usual, thr rightwing of society simply use the big stick method. It has now emerged that a further 1.3 million jobs will be lost. So then, where are the jobs for those whom the goverment is determined to remove from Incapacity benefit? This fact alone proves to me, that it has nothing to do with getting people into work, but simply a vitriolic hatered for anything welfare. A better approach would have been, to get everyone on Job seekers allowance into work, THEN as more jobs are created by the wealth and expanssion these workers would create, THEN find work that the disabled and long term sick may be able to do without any detriment to their condition. During this proccess, you will find "lead swingers" and they could be made to do normal work. The trouble is with a dragnet approach, is that too many innocents get caught up in the frenzy. In the 80's a soldier in my command, went home on compassionate leave, his father had died. It transpired that his father, a miner, had been on the sick for a long time with heart problems, but under one of the frequent "get them of the sick and back to work" campaigns, the DHSS assesment doctor who was under contract to get people into work, signed this man off. He died at work some 4 months later from a heart attack, even though the Coal Board doctor had placed him on light word duties. The man under my command had been as right wing as any in his views, but fromthat day on became a comfirmed socialist and left the military. It galls many to think that these MPs, bang on about getting people into work, when they have yet to do a real day's work themselves. There are one or two ex army officers some of whom saw service in conflicts but there again, most ex officers know little about ordinary people and have always been used to people doing what they are told and of course sacrificing some for the good of the majority, hardly a recipe for compassion. As I said, I don't like to see gangs of youths wasted when they could be learning to be usefull members of society, and that is where you aim first......youth and vitality, long term unempolyed, then if there is any vacancies left, find suitable work, perhaps part-time, for the sick and disabled............ ...but don't make them scapegoats for the sins of the bankers and 30 years of government mis-management.
Common sense really. Not as common as the word implies.
Government tend to go for easy target/what they think looks good on paper...or in the papers...not effective, not compassionate, will not of course work in practise.Especially as workless numbers are about to increase some more. A few "hits" on bankers etc.and company tax fraud would save much more revenue with less personal hardship...?But they don`t want to upset them do they.
sarahd
says...
12:42pm Wed 30 Jun 10
Not so much as putting a low cap on hb but in giving people realistic amounts.If these people claiming housing benefit want a big house,let them buy one.If the tax payer is going to pay then they should get enough to get a roof over their heads.
Most claiments think that because they have 5 children then they should be put in, or given hb for, a 4/5 bedroom property.I know this from experience and someone actually telling me she should be given a bigger council house.
I have 3 children and a 3 bed house(bought) so 2 of mine have to share and when i was growing up there was me and 2 siblings in the same bedroom as my parents could only afford to buy a 2 bed house.
These people(lifetime scroungers)should be made to get smaller properties and not think it is their god given right to a huge house that hard working tax payers can't afford
Dante
says...
6:50pm Wed 30 Jun 10
http://www.thisislon
don.co.uk/standard/a
rticle-23850937-fami
ly-worth-pound-1m-ja
iled-after-claiming-
pound-170000-in-bene
fits.do
These, corrupt landlords, claiming for people who don't live in the properties, Abu Hanza's family, who whilst he was spouting hatred, were claiming every benefit going.
These are the types to sort out first.
Dean M
says...
11:14pm Wed 30 Jun 10
"Dean, have you forgotten the Toxteth riots, the Poll tax riots, the Brixton Riots?
They were localised, tell me why, when millions of people loose benefits of one kind or another, won't the same things happen?
It has now emerged that a further 1.3 million jobs will be lost. So then, where are the jobs for those whom the goverment is determined to remove from Incapacity benefit? This fact alone proves to me, that it has nothing to do with getting people into work, but simply a vitriolic hatered for anything welfare.
.... most ex officers know little about ordinary people and have always been used to people doing what they are told and of course sacrificing some for the good of the majority, hardly a recipe for compassion."
.
There's a few holes in this, Dante - in my view. Firstly, weren't the Brixton and Toxteth riots more to do with racial harassment of these communities by the police rather than economic reasons? Poll tax - this was a divisive issue I agree, but many people agreed with the principle that payment for local services should be based on people, not houses. However, Heseltine saw this issue (on the back of these riots) as the ideal vehicle to remove Mrs T and he succeeded in that, and then had to follow up by removing this tax.
.
I don't see that millions of people are going to lose benefits in the way you imply. I still maintain that this H.B. policy is more a way of reducing state payments to landlords rather than reducing the weekly net income of claimants. We'll see.
.
As for the leak regarding the 1.3 million jobs to be lost. The Coalition claim that unemployment will fall over the lifetime of the Parliament - so I guess you read your paper, you make your choice.
.
I can't agree that targeting incapacity benefit claimants suggests a 'vitriolic hatred for anything welfare.' Surely only those who are genuinely incapacitated and unable to work should be able to claim this? It is reported that the number of claimants of this has exploded in recent years - surely it is reasonable for the government to ensure that the criteria for claiming this benefit is such that it ensures only genuine cases are paid?
.
I do agree, as an ex-22 year man, that many, if not most, Army officers do not really understand, or can relate to, ordinary working class people. However, I suppose you could argue that they don't really need to - they can leave this bit of management to those of us in the Sgts Mess!
Dante
says...
6:37am Thu 1 Jul 10
Oldharleyman
says...
10:40am Thu 1 Jul 10
Dante
says...
12:23pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Oldharleyman wrote:Report him then, don't come on here and whinge on about it.
Fantastic!! just seen the jobless neighbour working on "a job" what a great system we have!!!
That's the pronblem, you see someone wrking who shouldn't be and instead of reporting him you come and tell us all, giving people the idea that ALL jobless are fiddling.
If you reported him, and everyone else you saw breaking the law, we wouldn't have a problem.
Of course, he could be working quite leagally up to 16 hours a week depending which benefit he's on.
Oldharleyman
says...
1:35pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Dante wrote:You assume that I haven't reported him, why is that? Next time you open that cavernous gob please engage what you may have as a brain first please :)
Oldharleyman wrote: Fantastic!! just seen the jobless neighbour working on "a job" what a great system we have!!!Report him then, don't come on here and whinge on about it. That's the pronblem, you see someone wrking who shouldn't be and instead of reporting him you come and tell us all, giving people the idea that ALL jobless are fiddling. If you reported him, and everyone else you saw breaking the law, we wouldn't have a problem. Of course, he could be working quite leagally up to 16 hours a week depending which benefit he's on.
Dante
says...
1:45pm Thu 1 Jul 10
I'll tell you why you came on here, simply to try and add even more weight to an already misconception by your type, that everyone claiming benefits of one kind or another is on the fiddle.
I bet you even read the Sun.
What a bluddy masty country of people we have become, greedy, envious, even of those who are disabled because they get a Blue Badge.......back-bit
ing and back stabbing.......But that is the way governments control people, get them at each others throats.
Oldharleyman........
..you make me ashamed that I ever road a motorbike even if that is the common thing we have
j_ellybean
says...
2:52pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Dante
says...
4:07pm Thu 1 Jul 10
No, they only want you to believe that.
While they are cutting everyone's income, they are bleating on about how harsh the new checks on expenses are and how unfair they are.
I hope things work out for you.
Oldharleyman
says...
4:16pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Dante wrote:So I now have to justify any comments I make on these pages to you? Dante, you and one or two others on here really do seem to have an overinflated opinion of themselves and their opinions. I suspect thats because no one in the "real world" listens to you any more...please just get over yourself you pretentious pillock!
Then if you have reported him why come on here to whinge on? You've done what you were supposed to. I'll tell you why you came on here, simply to try and add even more weight to an already misconception by your type, that everyone claiming benefits of one kind or another is on the fiddle. I bet you even read the Sun. What a bluddy masty country of people we have become, greedy, envious, even of those who are disabled because they get a Blue Badge.......back-bit ing and back stabbing.......But that is the way governments control people, get them at each others throats. Oldharleyman........ ..you make me ashamed that I ever road a motorbike even if that is the common thing we have
Dean M
says...
6:34pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Oldharleyman wrote:Hey Burnsy,
Dante wrote:You assume that I haven't reported him, why is that? Next time you open that cavernous gob please engage what you may have as a brain first please :)Oldharleyman wrote: Fantastic!! just seen the jobless neighbour working on "a job" what a great system we have!!!Report him then, don't come on here and whinge on about it. That's the pronblem, you see someone wrking who shouldn't be and instead of reporting him you come and tell us all, giving people the idea that ALL jobless are fiddling. If you reported him, and everyone else you saw breaking the law, we wouldn't have a problem. Of course, he could be working quite leagally up to 16 hours a week depending which benefit he's on.
You just can't resist resorting to personal abuse whenever you are challenged, can you?
.
You really need to think about the 'grassing' and abusive sides of your nature - it is clearly apparent to many more than just me on here.
.
You may not care of course, but your contributions now appear to routinely be considered as ignorant.
Oldharleyman
says...
8:06pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Dean M wrote:I have said many many times, the opinion of yourself ( a wannabe nazi) dl and ns matter not to me now, nor ever will :)Dantes post is full of insults and digs but you chose to ignore that preferering yet another wasted dig at me, keep it up you're funny:)
Oldharleyman wrote:Hey Burnsy, You just can't resist resorting to personal abuse whenever you are challenged, can you? . You really need to think about the 'grassing' and abusive sides of your nature - it is clearly apparent to many more than just me on here. . You may not care of course, but your contributions now appear to routinely be considered as ignorant.Dante wrote:You assume that I haven't reported him, why is that? Next time you open that cavernous gob please engage what you may have as a brain first please :)Oldharleyman wrote: Fantastic!! just seen the jobless neighbour working on "a job" what a great system we have!!!Report him then, don't come on here and whinge on about it. That's the pronblem, you see someone wrking who shouldn't be and instead of reporting him you come and tell us all, giving people the idea that ALL jobless are fiddling. If you reported him, and everyone else you saw breaking the law, we wouldn't have a problem. Of course, he could be working quite leagally up to 16 hours a week depending which benefit he's on.
Oldharleyman
says...
8:11pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Oldharleyman
says...
9:00pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Nick Scott wrote:Wondered when she would turn up, I mean Nick never just enters a debate just to slag me off does he ( well apart from those two times)? what a joke!:)
Dean, colin is clearly somewhat rattled in the face of Dante's (as always) reasoned contributions, and your consice, military summing up of his hollow contributions. . Let's not bait him any more, it can't be good for his health. . Oh, and and to keep on topic, I reckon the cuts in HB are quite justified. Let's help the people that genuinely need it, and not those that don't. Even verysafedriver has scrounging neighbours he wants rid of, so no arguments there. . I'm sure there will be any time now though. ROFLMAO.
Oldharleyman
says...
9:05pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Oldharleyman wrote:"rattled in the face of Dante's (as always) reasoned contributions, and your consice, military summing up"
Nick Scott wrote: Dean, colin is clearly somewhat rattled in the face of Dante's (as always) reasoned contributions, and your consice, military summing up of his hollow contributions. . Let's not bait him any more, it can't be good for his health. . Oh, and and to keep on topic, I reckon the cuts in HB are quite justified. Let's help the people that genuinely need it, and not those that don't. Even verysafedriver has scrounging neighbours he wants rid of, so no arguments there. . I'm sure there will be any time now though. ROFLMAO.Wondered when she would turn up, I mean Nick never just enters a debate just to slag me off does he ( well apart from those two times)? what a joke!:)
Calling someone a "goon" is reasoned, ok Nick thats priceless, as for DM who still thinks he's in the army as a failed Officer jeeez ya couldnt make it up here goes nick gonna try it ROFLMFAO, now Nick did that look ok mate? lol
Yet again some pricelss contributions from the 3 stooges lol
Oldharleyman
says...
9:34pm Thu 1 Jul 10
Nick Scott wrote:First of all who is Colin? secondly DL called the Dr a "goon" he doesn't deny it, as for your point, I totally agree we should help people that need it and I think I make efforts to do that. I don't believe, however, that a family who's adults dont work (as opposed to cant work) do not NEED to be accomodated in Detached property as the rent in these properties in this area is always more than terraced or semi? I have and do still work hard to maintain my lifestyle and the jobless neighbours do nothing to enjoy the same environment.
colin, who called who a goon? I must have missed that. Anyway, my contribution to the debate is as stated that we should help people that need it, and not those that don't. Your thoughts please.
Dean M
says...
10:21pm Thu 1 Jul 10
"I don't believe, however, that a family who's adults dont work (as opposed to cant work) do not NEED to be accomodated in Detached property"
.
Make your mind up Burnsy, you implied earlier that such people did not need to be in detached property. Or are you just having your usual difficulty in stringing sentences together?
.
Oldharleyman also wrote: "Fantastic!! just seen the jobless neighbour working on "a job" what a great system we have!!!" and also "You assume that I haven't reported him, why is that?"
.
So were you just whingeing about him like Dante said, or did you grass him up, as you seemed to suggest?
You're all over the place.
.
And what would you know about being in the Army? You wouldn't have survived - working in a close-knit team of men is not a job for curtain twitchers and grasses.
BMD
says...
7:43am Fri 2 Jul 10
.
This benefit has been exploited and should only be available to people whom has at least 3 years employment history and for a limited period of 6 months.
torig
says...
7:55am Fri 2 Jul 10
From April 2011
LHA levels will be restricted to the four bedroom rate (£400) and the £15 “excess” payment will cease (excellent news)
The maximum payable will be restricted to the following per week (a limit on the shared rate has not been announced):
One bed £250
Two bed £290
Three bed £340
Four bed £400
An additional bedroom will be awarded for a non-resident carer in prescribed circumstances.
LHA is the Local Housing Allowance and every are in the UK is different, for example in London to rent a 4 bed house is probably way more than £400 per week but that is the cap now. Another example of LHA is for example I have 2 kids and due to their ages I only need a 2 bed house so even if I moved into a 3 bed house I would only get the LHA for a 2 bedroomed propery so it's not true that myself and my 2 kids could move into a 4 bed house and get the maximum LHA, my rent would be restricted based on the actual number of rooms I would need for my family.
From October 2011
LHA levels will be set at the 30th percentile of rents in the Broad Market Area and not at the median.
As a result, the previously announced change to remove the top 1% of rents in calculating the LHA level will be abandoned.
Non-dependant deductions will be increased by a higher amount than normal for a period of three years.
Other proposals
From 2013 LHA levels will be uprated taking into account the consumer price index rather than local rent changes.
From April 2013 Housing Benefit will be restricted for those living in the social sector; specifically for working age claimants living in property larger than their needs.
Working age customers in receipt of certain benefits (for instance Jobseekers Allowance) will receive full Housing Benefit for a maximum of one year. After that period, HB will be reduced by 10% and this will continue until they stop receiving state benefits for a period of time (yet to be decided). The timescale for introducing this policy is as yet unclear.
Discretionary Housing Payments will be increased by £10 million in 2011 and £40 million in 2012 to give local authorities more flexibility to help those facing particular hardship.
Incidentally you can obtain details of Darlington's current LHA by clicking http://www.darlingto
n.gov.uk/Housing/Hou
sing+Benefits/Local+
Housing+Allowance.ht
m These igures actually change every month. Apologies for those who know HB/ LHA inside out but thought I would tell you about all the proposed changes.
torig
says...
7:55am Fri 2 Jul 10
From April 2011
LHA levels will be restricted to the four bedroom rate (£400) and the £15 “excess” payment will cease (excellent news)
The maximum payable will be restricted to the following per week (a limit on the shared rate has not been announced):
One bed £250
Two bed £290
Three bed £340
Four bed £400
An additional bedroom will be awarded for a non-resident carer in prescribed circumstances.
LHA is the Local Housing Allowance and every are in the UK is different, for example in London to rent a 4 bed house is probably way more than £400 per week but that is the cap now. Another example of LHA is for example I have 2 kids and due to their ages I only need a 2 bed house so even if I moved into a 3 bed house I would only get the LHA for a 2 bedroomed propery so it's not true that myself and my 2 kids could move into a 4 bed house and get the maximum LHA, my rent would be restricted based on the actual number of rooms I would need for my family.
From October 2011
LHA levels will be set at the 30th percentile of rents in the Broad Market Area and not at the median.
As a result, the previously announced change to remove the top 1% of rents in calculating the LHA level will be abandoned.
Non-dependant deductions will be increased by a higher amount than normal for a period of three years.
Other proposals
From 2013 LHA levels will be uprated taking into account the consumer price index rather than local rent changes.
From April 2013 Housing Benefit will be restricted for those living in the social sector; specifically for working age claimants living in property larger than their needs.
Working age customers in receipt of certain benefits (for instance Jobseekers Allowance) will receive full Housing Benefit for a maximum of one year. After that period, HB will be reduced by 10% and this will continue until they stop receiving state benefits for a period of time (yet to be decided). The timescale for introducing this policy is as yet unclear.
Discretionary Housing Payments will be increased by £10 million in 2011 and £40 million in 2012 to give local authorities more flexibility to help those facing particular hardship.
Incidentally you can obtain details of Darlington's current LHA by clicking http://www.darlingto
n.gov.uk/Housing/Hou
sing+Benefits/Local+
Housing+Allowance.ht
m These figures actually change every month. Apologies for those who know HB/ LHA inside out but thought I would tell you about all the proposed changes.
torig
says...
7:59am Fri 2 Jul 10
bhoy says...
11:46am Mon 28 Jun 10