Who really gets £500+ weekly state benefits?

[vivizone]

I find this shit so hard to believe. Reading the media, you would think this was a common figure on life on benefits.

Yesterday and today's Metro newspaper - people writing in saying they agree with the cap of £500 and why should people be sat on their arse and be rewarded by £500 per week. . Why should they earn £200 per week working and people are getting £500 a week doing nothing.

Seriously, who gets this £500 per week that is being peddled out of the media? I spent 7 months out of work after redundancy and I could not live on the pittance I received for me and my children. I do not know how people do it. I really don't. I had a decent redundancy package and that was the only way I could make it.

How many people do you know (forget the newspaper stories) that are RECEIVING £500 or more every week? I thought so.

How come if life is/was that cushy on benefits, not enough people are/were packing in their jobs to join a life of riley?

We have been had. Life on benefits is HARD and DEMORALISING. I have tried it and I can tell you you get PEANUTS.

The reason why stories run on people living in million dollar homes/getting thousands a week in benefits is because it is RARE. It is SO rare, that it gets reported on.

Rhonda, its called the discretionary housing fund and it has always also been used to top up rent payments that hb rules didn't allow.

However

It's short term,each award lasts 3 months there are rules as to how often a person can apply,it takes into account income that would normally be protected but does not take into account out going essential payments,its first come first served not done on need.

I dont really care if opeople want to be on benefits,it doesnt drain the taxpayers money as much as you would think,there are other things like someone else said.i guess it depends where you live but i couldnt live on 500 a week.i feel sorry for them.

They need to devise a way of working out who is genuinely vulnerable and who is just unwilling.

The assumption that the majority is 'unwilling' causes thousands of injustices, Outraged, and is incredibly wearing on the genuinely vulnerable. We're already seeing a steady trickle of related suicides; the charities are predicting floods of them when all the new policies are enacted.

I'm a very minor example in the scheme of things, but the help I receive is being rapidly eroded. I have depression and CFS/ME. To many, these are indistinguishable from shirking or having the wrong attitude. When I told the ATOS assessor about some of my symptoms, she said "I've never heard of that" and marked me as having no problems. New guidelines for councils are being written in haste: they list specific issues, which unfortunately will be used as parameters to determine whether a client is vulnerable. When vulnerability is defined by a ten-point list, most people in genuine need of consideration will appear to be 'just unwilling'.

'It was pointed out to government when the bedroom 'tax' was dreamed up that it would stop foster carers taking in children - because they need a spare bedroom, foster children can't share. So if they are between foster children when it's assessed, they will be penalised. The Lords amended the legislation to prevent foster parents being hit, but the govt. reversed it. Yet another sign that they are acting out of spite against social tenants, not out of any real principle or reasonable policy.'

Not to mention, the greatest percentage of under-occupiers, pensioners, are entirely exempted.

Thats the one sock!

I've doubled checked what you said because I was going to email the Dow reform manager who spoke to us a rocket about giving us misleading information, again I don't know if this is Scotland only but here it's completely at the local authorities will to decide who gets it , how long for and how much. (just checked Scottish gov info)

Sothe three month three times is your local councils decision, which is something that perhaps COUlD be influenced more easily??

My typing is shocking

The awards being the way they are are because claimants cannot depend on them as its a discretionary fund,when its gone its gone.and it's time limited. Most DHF payments are usually only for a few weeks or a one off payment and its always been like that.

Did you not have the fund in Scotland before?

For Interest only this may amuse you
www.insidehousing.co.uk/finance/councils-stockpile-benefits-war-chest/6523175.article

And DHF user manual

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/discretionary-housing-payments-guide-draft.pdf

We're subject to the 'bedroom tax'.
Despite our medical needs for a room for each of our children being considered sufficient by the local authority for us to be housed appropriately we are now going to see a drop in our housing benefit of 14%. Got the letter this week.

If we didn't care for our children ourselves, so employed a live out carer, or we didn't have our own children but fostered, we wouldn't face this cut.

I've had to engage a solicitor paid for by legal aid to challenge our local authority on this.

Money saving... Mm yeah.

Apparently we did have it sock but Scottish las have been using it mostly for disabled adaptations. My involvement in housing is all through housing associations and for extra funding for disabled adaptations they apply to a Scottish government fund so I hadnt come across it before.

As a thread derail (sorry) I spent yesterday morning with a room of panicked job seekers trying desperately to help them navigate their way around the new universal job search system on gov.uk. It wasn't working properly and some of them were in melt down in case they got sanctioned.

The whole thing is a f*ing shambles.

Outraged a lot of employers who employ part time workers expect those workers to keep themselves available just IN CASE they are needed to do overtime.
Therefore making it harder to get another part time job to fit around those unreasonable requirements.

What i meant was that some employers employing a part time worker who eg works Monday to Wednesday will then expect that part time worker to keep themselves available for Thursday and Friday JUST IN CASE they are needed.

They should refuse the signup agreement - not the commitment, that's obligatory - but the online shambles is a data protection issue. There's a statement they can use; try The Void for a copy (I linked above).

I'm very sorry you're having to go through this, Glitter.

Don't people understand? This is about the complete dismantlement of the welfare system. People should think about what this means ... not 'benefit scroungers', but the assumption we all grew up with, that when things go wrong for us there will be medical assistance; food; housing; safety; education.

Beveridge & co created our social security system when the deficit was far greater than it is now, post-war. It generated national prosperity. Budget is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is purely ideological: winner takes all.

yes darkesteyes. my Dsis is on a 24 hour contract but always works 40 hours. she has never once done only 24 hours in a week in 18 months of that job. she lives with my parents so doesn't claim any benefits but if she were claiming would she be expected to be available to attend intervies and JSA interviews?

I don't know if you all know this bit too..,

When you make a claim and it is accepted you may not get a penny for 35 days. That's one month in arrears plus 5 days for the bacs transfer.

In Thr meantime you can ask for an advance (no details on how much you can get for that) but the ENTiRE amount of the advance will be taken out of your first months payment when it does arrive, you can have only one advance.

Anyone else think that's opening the door to payday loan/providential type/cheque advance companies to take massive advantage of even more vulnerable people?

Exactly Rock. So she never knows whether those hours are guranteed. Therefore she never knows whether or not she will get those wages from those extra hours.
What with things like this and workfare creating unemployment (see my Shoe Zone thread) is it any wonder people arent spending. They need to be sure they are going to be paid the extra money first. So for that they need to be SURE they are going to get the extra hours. FFS this isnt even maths really. Its simple common sense!

Glitter, you can apply directly to the la to consider the disturbance involved with night time care needs. You do not need to pay anybody to do this you can do it yourself or use cab there is nothing a solisiter can do that you can't unless you are intending on high court action.

There is already a case that has been heard found in favour of the claimants but being appealed that means at the moment the LA would have to reinstate your 14% if the medical need would create a significant disturbance to the none disabled child that would be expected to share the room.

To do it you need.
A letter from your gp confirming the disability and the need for night time care and confirming that this would disturb the other child more nights than not and that its not in his/ her medical interests.

A statement from yourself saying that your none disabled child would suffer detriment by constant broken sleep.

It's only if they turn down an initial request and a appeal that you need to pay out for more intense help.

The medical need sleep deprivation would mean that your current hb payments remain the same and would not be sorted using the DHF but by normal hb.

And incidentally I'm currently sat on my sofa with copies of bedroom tax guidance sheets from over 80% of la's and so far they all say under the heading who will be affected

Foster carers because foster children are not counted as part of the household for housing benefit purposes.

So if you fostered your kids it wouldn't help

I don't have a non disabled child. They're all disabled.
The impact on them to share would be that they would encounter violence, sleep deprivation... they would self harm because of the stress they are under sharing with someone who has a completely different form of sensory processing disorder to themselves - all the things we went through when we lived in our too small house before April this year.

I read that disabled adults or children aren't going to be affected by any of these new rules. Seems from what I've read here that isn't right. but I read that nobody on DLA is going to be affected.

I think that's by the benefits cap Vivienne. The housing benefit changes are separate.

Not affected by benefits cap, but we are affected by the housing benefit reform and also by the cut to the disabled child premium of tax credits when it goes to universal credit.

So the three I have on DLA are 'not affected' to the tune of £3-400 a month when this comes in.

Then you will be fine. They don't have to be none disabled to be covered by the rule

From what I have read those on DLA will not be affected by the benefit cap but will be affected by the bedroom tax if they are in social housing.

Still waiting for my local councillor to get back to me on it tbh.
So it's a GP letter? Shelter didn't know how to help me and neither does a councillor for my local authority. Was told by Shelter to get a solicitor hence why I did.

But couldn't a doctor sign a letter saying your children couldn't share a room because of their special needs. Am I misunderstanding or is it due to room sharing that the new rules affect. I thought councils have the power to use their discretion or common sense in special cases. Not that councils have common sense!