View Single Post
Old 21-11-2019, 17:15   #2497
RichardCoulter
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,996
RichardCoulter has disabled reputation
Re: The state benefits system mega-thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
I'm pointing out facts.

Any major change to any of the Welfare systems by whichever government, has a "bedding down" period where rules are clarified.

EG People complain about somebody with a recently discovered tumour being denied ESA. The article pointed out that they were denied it because they had a partner who was working. They hadn't been assessed, never mind turned down. The article also stated that they had been awarded PIP anyway.

Whether the system should be changed where there is a partner, so they get some money(not the full ESA amount) is another matter. Labour had a lot of years to implement changes, and didn't.

On the "bedroom tax". Rules that have been in place for decades with the private rented sector, are suddenly complained about. Again, if they were that illegal or unfair, then Labour had plenty of opportunities to change things.

Eg Somebody dies whilst in the Jobcentre. It is claimed by somebody they had diabetes and had been found "fit for work". As my links showed, it doesn't by itself make you "unfit for work". Additionally, it was revealed he hadn't been found "fit for work", and had been attend the jobcentre for around a year.

Time after time, when a specific example is used, the truth is later on in the article. People too readily buy into the tone of the headline, without reading and comprehending the full article. My personal experience with the DWP is similar to that. They buy into the "headlines", and don't read and comprehend the whole application and evidence. The classic one, is where they phone you up to supposedly give a full verbal explanation of their decision, and don't explain a single point of anything. They just keep reiterating the line "we've looked at all the evidence". The legal purpose of the explanation is that it's meant to clearly demonstrate they have looked at all the major points raised, and explained their reasoning. The legal intention is that even if the claimant doesn't agree with it, they must understand it.

I suppose that in essence, is what I try to do in this thread.
Cameron said that the Bedroom Tax was introduced to free up under utilised council properties to house homeless families and not to save money (yeah, right).

In the main it has failed to meet this objective as most council properties were built to house families of various sizes and there simply isn't enough alternative accomodation designed for single people, yet these people are having their Housing Benefit/Universal Credit reduced. Even those ready and willing to move to smaller accomodation, but can't because none is available, are still penalised.

Many councils are finding it hard to let out properties which would attract a bedroom tax and they are lying empty, some have even demolished them to cut costs.

On top of the hardship imposed on people, it hasn't saved any money. Yes, it will have cut down on the benefits bill, but this has been outweighed by the extra cost of administration, appeals (many where the Government has lost), extra Discretionary Housing Payments etc.

One area where it is vastly more expensive is where a family cannot afford to top up their rent out of the (frozen since 2012) money that is meant to cover essential day to day living expenses. They get into arrears and are evicted, the same council then has a duty to find them emergency accomodation. This is usually a bed & breakfast costing hundreds of pounds a week, on top of the extra social costs of children having to travel miles to get to school or their parents actually having to give up work and claim extra benefits.

Private accommodation is much more diverse than the public sector, ranging from a room in a house to a detached house with a swimming pool. If someone chooses to move into an overlarge or expensive privately rented property, it could be argued that they should be expected to make up any shortfall. Previously, they wouldn't have known that their home would have had a reduction in the Housing Benefit payable for being above 'a reasonable market rent' or 'overlarge'*, so the Government introduced a system where they could get a decision about this before they accepted the tenancy. But would the landlord be prepared to wait, or would they simply let out the property to someone with the cash in their hand?

* Not all 'overlarge' private tenancies have their eligible rent reduced, as opposed to the arbitary Bedroom Tax imposed on council tenants. As a result of all the appeals and court cases arising, anyone currently paying the bedroom tax is advised to seek professional advice.

I suspect that your uncompromising stance on the benefit cuts is because you are a Tory supporter. It will be interesting to see if your position changes should we have a different party in Government in a few weeks.
RichardCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote