Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that a 23k benefits cap will drive some families in the SE

987 replies

Minifingers9 · 28/05/2015 11:14

... Into destitution?

I live in a pretty unappealing and comparatively cheap part of greater London but you can't get a 3 bedroom rental for under £1400 a month.
If we lost our jobs we wouldn't be able to live on 23k a year as a family of 5. Not when 15k of it was going on rent.
Why don't they have regional benefit caps?

OP posts:
fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 30/05/2015 06:38

Have had 3 years of serious neck pain from whiplash verified by consultant.

I don't get any benefits for it..but it exists. Wish people wouldn't throw it around as a spurious condition.

Ionacat · 30/05/2015 08:00

The reason the cap is unfair is that people on low incomes and benefits are being punished for governments failing to build enough social housing and selling off what they did have to make a proft. It disportionally hits London and interestingly Birmingham. And for the second time, if you are in a council property and/or paying housing benefit to a private landlord, you can't just upsticks and move to a cheaper area. It depends on housing being available (most of the time it isn't as there is a dire shortage.) You need a deposit for a private landlord, most people on benefits don't have savings and nor do they have the spare cash for moving costs. In order to get moved, people have to buid up arrears, get themselves evicted, present at the local council homeless and then hope suitable accomodation is available. In what world is that fair? You've fallen on hard times, we have no other accomodation, now acrue rental arrears, have the hassle and stress of going to court, being evicted to move into a B'n'B. (Which your benefits still might not cover.) I would agree with the benefits cap if something was done about making it much easier to move into cheaper properties. Or there was more social housing avaialble. Making families who already might be finding life tough go through court proceedings to move house is quite frankly inhumane. This cap applies to those on widowed paents and carers too

And for those you think benefits is an easy option, please read this on single mothers. These are the people you don't hear from on the front of the Daily Mail and Mirror but are actually more of a true reflection. Unfortunately this situation in the article below could so easily happen to anyone.
www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rebecca-omoniraoyekanmi/down-rabbit-hole-single-parenthood-in-austerity-britain

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 30/05/2015 08:07

Well said Iona.

Also..whoever threw autism into the debate about spurious conditions receiving DLA..I get DLA for DD who has autism. She needs 24 hour supervision day and night at 8, is still toilet training and needs help with every aspect of her life..feeding and dressing and bathing. I have to fill our an enormous form proving why she needs more care than the average 8 year old and back it up with reports from medical professionals. As does everyone who receives DLA for children with any disability. So "spurious" claims these are not. In fact as dawn said virtually no DLA claims are spurious. People who just pretend they have a bad back and get DLA for life are a myth. If they get it for depression they are seriously affected in their daily life due to depression.

TTWK · 30/05/2015 08:28

Have had 3 years of serious neck pain from whiplash verified by consultant.I don't get any benefits for it..but it exists. Wish people wouldn't throw it around as a spurious condition.

Using that to further the argument that every whiplash claim is genuine is as daft as claiming whiplash doesn't exist.

There is a middle ground between "whiplash is awful" and "every whiplash claim is false". And that is genuine whiplash is awful, but many people play on that fact to make up a whiplash claim where non exists.

TTWK · 30/05/2015 08:32

The reason the cap is unfair is that people on low incomes and benefits are being punished for governments failing to build enough social housing and selling off what they did have to make a profit.

Now amongst all the hysteria over disability etc, this is actually a very good point. And whilst is is mainly true, the fact is we are here now, and social housing is in short supply. You can't just ignore that fact to pay people on benefits to live in expensive areas. People not on benefits also suffer from a lack of social housing, but no one is funding them to live in expensive areas.

We can't have a welfare system that actually rewards those on benefits over those who aren't, even if they are on benefits for a genuine reason.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 30/05/2015 08:32

Well how do you know that?I'm sure people could easily say I was making it up if they didn't know the truth.

Eatupnow · 30/05/2015 09:09

I read that blog.

The one thing that stuck out for me is that we now live in a society where a jobless, unmarried , homeless couple are not expected to be held accountable or responsible in any way for their actions and we, as the taxpayer, have to step in. And we, teh taxpayer, have - after 20 years - finally shouted, " no! "

Eatupnow · 30/05/2015 09:14

If there were never any fradulent disability claims - how is it that literally thousands of people , " on the sick" suddenly found a job when ATOs got going?

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 30/05/2015 09:17

A) DLA is not an out of work benefit , and you can work on it, it's not being 'on the sick' Hmm

B) I'm sure many people in genuine need of ESA were forced to take jobs np and really suffered because of ATOs mistakenly declaring them fit for work. ATOS is not a success story

tobysmum77 · 30/05/2015 09:18

Fanjo people are entitled to their opinions, they don't have to change them. Mn is powerful though for making people see other sides of the many stories.

Personally I think disability is a difficult one, and clearly there are people who need benefits if they are unable to work/ are caring for a disabled child. I also think though that there is terrible discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace which the law needs to be strengthened in relation to. Obviously this will not solve things for everyone but I imagine most people with disabilities want to work the same as anyone else.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 30/05/2015 09:18

Well if the taxpayer shouted no to housing homeless people then I despair for this country.

Eatupnow · 30/05/2015 09:22

Fanjo - they shoute dno to jobless, irresponsible people getting pregnant with no home and absolutely no means of supporting the poor little scrap they've created. Yet another child born into a miserable, grim little existance.

You get a job, a home, marriage/permanent relationship THEN think about a child. Except, why bother when the deep pockets of the taxpayer will sort you out.

tobysmum77 · 30/05/2015 09:23

I don't think they did. I think the reality is people didn't see how labour's policies would work.

Athenaviolet · 30/05/2015 09:23

eatupnow

What the hell does being 'unmarried' have to do with any of this?

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 30/05/2015 09:24

Sorry, but I really have nothing to say to that. Those views make me shudder

Binkybix · 30/05/2015 09:26

Fraud figures can surely only relate to detected fraud?

No - there is a description of DWP's methodology online if you're interested. I'm sure it's not 100% perfect and probably does miss some fraud but they certainly don't base the figures on the method you suggest.

Eatupnow · 30/05/2015 09:27

Shudder on Fanjo - I know this may come as a shock to you but outside Cuddlywuddlyeveryonepoorislovely MN - most of us think the same. Hence the new Govt.

tobysmum77 · 30/05/2015 09:27

But Fanjo in an ideal world that is how it should work surely? Confused

NinkyNonkers · 30/05/2015 09:30

Most? You have an odd idea of what that word means looking at the voting figures...

Romeyroo · 30/05/2015 09:31

This has just been a bit of an eye opener for me because I have just realised my household income after childcare, I work full time with two DC, puts me 'in poverty' as I have less than this cap to pay everything else (mortgage, car, bills etc)

That is a nonsense isn't it? i presume I am misunderstanding

Eatupnow · 30/05/2015 09:31

You know, in all this liberal everyone is fab world some of you inhabit, thousands of children are being born into a life of poverty , instability and chaos and the system, up until now, has actively encouraged the creation of children for whom life will be basically, completely shit.

Eatupnow · 30/05/2015 09:32

Rometroo - but surely you are not just poor but destitute ????

NinkyNonkers · 30/05/2015 09:33

And how are you suggesting these kids get fed while this all gets sorted? Or are they just a long term sacrifice? They exist, they need to be looked after.

NinkyNonkers · 30/05/2015 09:35

The point is Rometroo, to get that cap you would need to have a lot of kids and live in a very expensive area. So your outgoings would be different to 2 kids. 2 kids would get a lot less.

Athenaviolet · 30/05/2015 09:39

romeyroo

Yes, in the kindest possible way you have very much misunderstood the benefits cap. Smile

£23k is no one's disposable income. Most of it is paid direct to a private landlord. The benefit claimant never has it in their hands.

It isn't the same thing as the poverty line.