Under Occupation
- 15 January 2013 19:02210217Surely this is rather schoolboy arithmetic, simply dividing one number with another. Written out across a chalk-board and scribbled out in some jotter is all very well in the classroom context, but is entirely wrong in the context of people's lives.
Further, it is despicable to baldly set a particular type of resident against the generality of residents, in the fashion of boxing-tramps, for some general amusement.
That some properties where housing benefit is claimed are also particularly adapted to suit the resident is not novel and can come as no sort of surprise to those with the sums to do.
If there is tax to be fiddled, all sorts of advanced mathematics are the order of the day, but where the disabled are concerned they are assumed to be hewn from special mineral that readily yields blood when squeezed to the nth degree.
In the history of rationing and the habit of lifeboat allocation it is well known that all people do not present with the same requirements.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
17 March 2013 20:30220788http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294693/Housing-benefit-cap-Mother-demands-rehoused-exclusive-suburb-forced-2MILLION-home.html
This story beggers belief even though it is in the Mail.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
17 March 2013 20:32220789yes as its the mail wonder how much truth in itALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 18 March 2013 07:13220803Why do you so instantly dismiss this report because it is in the Daily Mail ? They report this kind of disgraceful activity quite often, because it needs exposing - before you ask, no I'm not a Mail reader.
I hope that Westminister City Council investigate fully and drop all her benefits; whether her husband lives with her or not, he is responsible for her and the kids.
This is not a case of genuine hardship. She should learn to live in the real world, she's just playing the system.
Roger - 18 March 2013 08:30220810"just playing the system"
As I recall there was a story about how Dave bought a house priced at the limit of the sum allowable for full assistance from the public purse.
Francis Maud too moved up the street to larger premises, from a house owned by his wife to one that also just makes the expense publicly fundable.
Funnily enough such things are said to involve "nothing illegal", they just don't make much of a splash in the Mail.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
18 March 2013 09:23220825I hope this thread will not get descend into party politics and get sidestepped from the issue that this woman thinks it right that she should be housed in luxury housing paid for by tax payers.
I do not read the Mail and yes it is a rag but that does not mean the story should be dismissed, I got the link from another forum where the bedroom tax is being discussed without tit for tat bickering as political squabbles are frowned upon there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 18 March 2013 11:38220844Tom, it is in the nature of politics that those who have what it takes to get to the top of the pile are never those with the right qualities for the job. Time and again we realise that those whom we previously supported have feet of clay. Not confined to the Tories though, nor to parliament.
Stories such as this should be treated with care.I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson - 18 March 2013 11:45220845Tom Austin wrote:"just playing the system"
Francis Maud too moved up the street to larger premises, from a house owned by his wife to one that also just makes the expense publicly fundable.
Funnily enough such things are said to involve "nothing illegal", they just don't make much of a splash in the Mail.
You set yourself up for this one Tom -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180682/Tory-MP-Francis-Maudes-luxury-gym-24-hour-concierge-service.html - 18 March 2013 13:06220863So, I was right all along Ray.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
- 18 March 2013 13:10220864all in it together i see.
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
19 March 2013 07:17220944Conservative westminster council it wasALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 20 March 2013 08:56221147Think: Window Tax!!!!
"Unnecessary to go to the bother of bricking up the spare bedroom - just remove the door (Letters, 19 March). There seem to be no regulations about the size of the living room.
Brenda Banks
Teignmouth, Devon"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/mar/19/car-tests-corby-kirchner-falklandsIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 20 March 2013 09:42221154technically she is right.
- 20 March 2013 09:46221156Certainly Howard, if you can't beat the Tax Dodgers...you can join them.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
- 3 April 2013 21:21223555extract from www.gov
From April 2013 there will be new rules in Housing Benefit for working-age people living in social housing. Housing Benefit will no longer pay for bedrooms that they decide you do not need.
For some people, offering out a spare room to a lodger may be a sensible option. This would mean that Housing Benefit would no longer consider the room to be spare.
In addition to this, the first £20 of weekly income from a lodger is ignored and won't affect your benefits. If you receive more than £20 a week in rent, the extra cash is likely to affect your benefits - although overall you should still be better off. Your local authority or an advice organisation will be able to advise you on the effects additional income will have on your benefit.
Homeowners and tenants who let furnished accommodation and take in a lodger are exempt from paying tax on rental income of up to £4,250 a year - and because it's tax free, it also won't affect the amount that you receive in Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit either.
In simple language.
Genuine disabled person with her carer and a sibling living in a 3 bedroom council house will now have to find £29 extra per week for rent and rates.
If the carer sleeps in the spare room on ocasions, this is not accepted as bedroom being occupied.they still deem it as not needed.
Neither is it accepted, if the other 3 siblings in the family, who regularly come to stay, with grandchildren for the weekend or sometimes longer. They still deem it as a spare bedroom.
But we are allowed to give the spare bedroom to a stranger.
Well not quite give it, we can charge them £20 per week.
If we charge more than that, we definitly will, not "likely" lose other benefits.
So I will be either £9 per week short or lose whatever I end up charging this stranger, per week, from our benefits, so please tell me how
" overall I should still be better off"?
Home owners however, will now be " exempt from paying tax on rental income of up to £4,250 a year - and because it's tax free, it also won't affect the amount that you receive in Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit either"
I have said many times before that the benefits system needs sorting out and I am absolutley for anything that encourage's and help's people back into work but this has nothing to do with either of those.
This is shameless."My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum" - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
3 April 2013 21:24223556Well said GARYALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
3 April 2013 21:45223565Gary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
3 April 2013 22:03223572see jan we can agreeALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 3 April 2013 22:05223574Yes we can all agree that this is unfair; but which of us is going to do something about it?I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
3 April 2013 22:09223580I'm sure, Gary is already like many othersALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS