Cable Forum - The state benefits system mega-thread.

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - The state benefits system mega-thread. (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33692770)

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Deducting it from Housing Benefit is just a mechanism for deducting money from their total. Simpler than having to work out deductions from across benefits X, Y, Z etc. They are expected to make up the difference from the rest of the benefits they are getting.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35862568)

That's right, Housing Benefit will be the first benefit to be cut if their total exceeds the reduced benefit cap. If they are still over the cap, other benefits may be reduced.

The idea of letting them keep 50p a week is to give them a token entitlement to Housing Benefit so that they will be eligible to apply to their local authority to claim a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) to make up some or all of the shortfall.

It's unlikely that local authorities will be able to help as their DHP budget has been slashed by 1/3 and is being used a lot to cushion the most needy from the effects of the Bedroom Tax.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

The benefit cap is the policy I have little issue with, its not like they set it at 5k, its set at a pretty high number.

Quote:

If you are a couple or have children your benefit cap is currently £500 per week. The limit for single people with no children is £350 per week.

From 7th November 2016 the benefit cap is going to be reduced and will be set at a different level depending on whether you live inside or outside London:

£442.31 a week if you are a couple or have children and live in London
£384.62 a week if you are a couple or have children and live outside London
£296.35 a week if you are a single person and live in London
£257.69 a week if you are a single person and live outside London

However the danger is, that this is a figure that will be reduced year on year and then become a problem, thats where my concern is, but not at the current figures.

In regards to DHP it is extremely hard to successfully claim on that, generally when an applicant claims DHP, the council will do an assessment if it is cheaper to rehouse them after becoming homeless or to help them via DHP and they will typically follow the cheapest path, note tho when they are asessing the cost of rehousing it makes assumptions on this sort of process.

1 - many homeless claims will be treated as intentionally homeless and as such the council doesnt have to house them so basically no cost.
2 - council's expect people to follow what they consider proper process if DHP is "not" rewarded, meaning, staying in their current property until they are evicted by court order. This is a process that can take months, and as such those months have no cost to the council.
3 - if rehousing, it doesnt necessarily mean the person gets a council flat/house, they may get housed somewhere like a hostel.

Based on the above and the current laws in the country I speculate that single people with no children will be more likely to be turned down for DHP as they are cheaper to rehouse and have less protection in law.

Also the affordability/financial checks are much more thorough. As an example if one claims housing benefit, its generally enough to provide details of your main bank statements, proof of income and ID. For DHP, they will likely want details of "all" your banks, debts, credit cards, catalogue accounts, insurance schemes and more. They will likely decide for you what you can cut back on, and base any award on that if given. Also as an example someone claiming housing benefit whilst paying for the top sky TV package the council doesnt care, but if you try to claim you need help with housing costs asking for DHP whilst paying sky £100 month for TV, that wont be ignored.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35862905)

The benefit cap is the policy I have little issue with, its not like they set it at 5k, its set at a pretty high number.

However the danger is, that this is a figure that will be reduced year on year and then become a problem, thats where my concern is, but not at the current figures.

In regards to DHP it is extremely hard to successfully claim on that, generally when an applicant claims DHP, the council will do an assessment if it is cheaper to rehouse them after becoming homeless or to help them via DHP and they will typically follow the cheapest path, note tho when they are asessing the cost of rehousing it makes assumptions on this sort of process.

1 - many homeless claims will be treated as intentionally homeless and as such the council doesnt have to house them so basically no cost.
2 - council's expect people to follow what they consider proper process if DHP is "not" rewarded, meaning, staying in their current property until they are evicted by court order. This is a process that can take months, and as such those months have no cost to the council.
3 - if rehousing, it doesnt necessarily mean the person gets a council flat/house, they may get housed somewhere like a hostel.

Based on the above and the current laws in the country I speculate that single people with no children will be more likely to be turned down for DHP as they are cheaper to rehouse and have less protection in law.

Also the affordability/financial checks are much more thorough. As an example if one claims housing benefit, its generally enough to provide details of your main bank statements, proof of income and ID. For DHP, they will likely want details of "all" your banks, debts, credit cards, catalogue accounts, insurance schemes and more. They will likely decide for you what you can cut back on, and base any award on that if given. Also as an example someone claiming housing benefit whilst paying for the top sky TV package the council doesnt care, but if you try to claim you need help with housing costs asking for DHP whilst paying sky £100 month for TV, that wont be ignored.

The council should care, all sorts of wrong !

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

They dont care because on a HB claim the only criteria to check is income and assets. What you spend has no bearing.

However for DHP what you spend is also important as they looking at everything on that as someone at that point is claiming the normal system is insufficient so obviously it needs to be proven the person is in genuine hardship.

For HB I think its fine to not look at outgoings, there needs to be freedom given to people and trust in how they spend their money, remember as well many working people can and do claim HB.

DHP is an entirely different beast tho.

I am editing tho to say one thing, what you spend 'does' have a bearing if they looking at someone who previously had enough savings to not qualify and no longer does, as then they looking at deprivation of assets.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35862905)

The benefit cap is the policy I have little issue with, its not like they set it at 5k, its set at a pretty high number.

However the danger is, that this is a figure that will be reduced year on year and then become a problem, thats where my concern is, but not at the current figures.

In regards to DHP it is extremely hard to successfully claim on that, generally when an applicant claims DHP, the council will do an assessment if it is cheaper to rehouse them after becoming homeless or to help them via DHP and they will typically follow the cheapest path, note tho when they are asessing the cost of rehousing it makes assumptions on this sort of process.

1 - many homeless claims will be treated as intentionally homeless and as such the council doesnt have to house them so basically no cost.
2 - council's expect people to follow what they consider proper process if DHP is "not" rewarded, meaning, staying in their current property until they are evicted by court order. This is a process that can take months, and as such those months have no cost to the council.
3 - if rehousing, it doesnt necessarily mean the person gets a council flat/house, they may get housed somewhere like a hostel.

Based on the above and the current laws in the country I speculate that single people with no children will be more likely to be turned down for DHP as they are cheaper to rehouse and have less protection in law.

Also the affordability/financial checks are much more thorough. As an example if one claims housing benefit, its generally enough to provide details of your main bank statements, proof of income and ID. For DHP, they will likely want details of "all" your banks, debts, credit cards, catalogue accounts, insurance schemes and more. They will likely decide for you what you can cut back on, and base any award on that if given. Also as an example someone claiming housing benefit whilst paying for the top sky TV package the council doesnt care, but if you try to claim you need help with housing costs asking for DHP whilst paying sky £100 month for TV, that wont be ignored.

I too have some sympathy for limiting the amount that claimants can claim from the system.

During the consultation about benefit reforms, we recommended limiting the amount that could be claimed for extra children.

The Government ignored the recommendation made by us and others and instead opted for an overall benefit cap.

The problem with this is that the cap is mostly exceeded by claimants because the cost of their rent and therefore their Housing Benefit has rocketed.

On 15/1/89 the Thatcher Government deregulated rents by abolishing 'Fair Rents' in favour of the market setting an appropriate level. She even accepted that this would result in an increased cost for the Housing Benefit scheme.

Due to the housing shortage, rents have spiralled out of all proportion.

Rent controls have not been put in place, but limits have been imposed on the Housing Benefit payable.

The Government is paying more, tenants are having to subsidise their rent out of money meant for essential day to day living expenses, whilst landlords get richer and richer.

In all these programmes on TV that say X person gets £250 a week to live on, leading people to think that they live the life of Riley at the taxpayers expense, it is usually the case that the vast amount of money quoted is actually Housing Benefit that the tenant never sees.

This new benefit cap is predicted to lead to massive evictions, whilst local authorities have had their DHP budget cut by 1/3. Much of this is already earmarked to try and keep disabled people in their (often adapted at public expense) homes due to the Bedroom Tax.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35863047)

I too have some sympathy for limiting the amount that claimants can claim from the system.

During the consultation about benefit reforms, we recommended limiting the amount that could be claimed for extra children.

The Government ignored the recommendation made by us and others and instead opted for an overall benefit cap.

The problem with this is that the cap is mostly exceeded by claimants because the cost of their rent and therefore their Housing Benefit has rocketed.

On 15/1/89 the Thatcher Government deregulated rents by abolishing 'Fair Rents' in favour of the market setting an appropriate level. She even accepted that this would result in an increased cost for the Housing Benefit scheme.

Due to the housing shortage, rents have spiralled out of all proportion.

Rent controls have not been put in place, but limits have been imposed on the Housing Benefit payable.

The Government is paying more, tenants are having to subsidise their rent out of money meant for essential day to day living expenses, whilst landlords get richer and richer.

In all these programmes on TV that say X person gets £250 a week to live on, leading people to think that they live the life of Riley at the taxpayers expense, it is usually the case that the vast amount of money quoted is actually Housing Benefit that the tenant never sees.

This new benefit cap is predicted to lead to massive evictions, whilst local authorities have had their DHP budget cut by 1/3. Much of this is already earmarked to try and keep disabled people in their (often adapted at public expense) homes due to the Bedroom Tax.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7482

Quote:

The cap, which works by reducing housing benefit awards, was set at £500 per week (except for childless single people, for whom it is £350), and those receiving Working Tax Credit and some claiming disability benefits are exempt. These choices mean that the cap does not affect many people and that the overall fiscal consequences are small. About 27,000 families (less than 1% of working-age families receiving housing benefit) were being capped once the policy was fully rolled out in late 2013, with their benefit income reduced by a total of about £100 million per year. Essentially all the families who receive enough benefit income for the cap to be binding have a large number of children or high rents (and often both).

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Expenditure on Housing Benefit shot up after 2008 with the introduction of the over generous Local Housing Allowance system.

Quote:

2007 £14.8bn
2009 £20bn
2010 £21.4bn
2011 £22.8bn
...
2013 £24.2bn
2016 forecast £24.1bn

From DWP report of 2009.

Quote:

7. In addition, the implementation of the Local Housing Allowance has raised problems with
high rents in some areas. The way in which rates are set has meant that customers in some
areas have benefited more than others. In some areas, Housing Benefit can support
customers to live in accommodation that many people in work cannot afford. This makes
it harder for customers to come off Housing Benefit when they move into work.
Furthermore, including high rents when setting Local Housing Allowance rates has driven
up benefit levels and has contributed to the annual Housing Benefit budget rising more
than it otherwise would have done.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Some figures here showing what will happen after 7 November 2016:

https://speye.wordpress.com/2016/01/...g-for-dummies/

Supported housing & hostels look to be among the main losers from the lowering of the benefit cap:

The two main ways to avoid the benefit cap are to move to cheaper accomodation (usually by leaving the capital for those in London) or to take a part time job over 16 hours a week (there are different rules for those who have been migrated over to Universal Credit).

All very well if a person is able to do this.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Theresa May faces Tory backlash over planned cuts to in-work benefits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...iversal-credit

Quote:

Conservative backbenchers, including the former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, are preparing to campaign against £3bn of planned cuts to in-work benefits, in a fresh sign of the pressure Theresa May faces from within her own party.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35865025)

Theresa May faces Tory backlash over planned cuts to in-work benefits.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...iversal-credit

Yes, further cuts to bereavement benefits, ESA and Working Tax Credits are due in April 2017.

A lot of people are still under the mistaken impression that Cameron backed down over planned cuts to Working Tax Credit, however, these related to further planned cuts.

These original cuts are still due to go ahead, whilst most benefits lose value due to inflation as they are frozen until at least 2020.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Work capability assessment overhaul for disabled to be announced on Monday.

Quote:

The scheme that assesses claimants of disability benefits faces a major overhaul, following claims by a charity that it is "fundamentally flawed".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37810701

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:

...they are unable to have a job but are capable of making some effort to find employment.

So "unable" but "able" at the same time?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35866567)

So "unable" but "able" at the same time?

And the full text is

Quote:

The work-related activity group means officials have decided a claimant's disability or health condition currently means they are unable to have a job but are capable of making some effort to find employment.

The word 'currently' makes the difference....

For instance, one of my team leaders has Lupus - at times, she is not capable of working, but most of the time she is; we cater for this, and work together to mitigate the impact of her condition.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.

I can read that 2 ways unfortunately. And the devil is in the detail with the Cons.