The distribution of benefit money

[harshbuttrue1980]

This isn't intended to be a benefit bashing thread - I'm not questioning the overall amount of money that people on benefits get, but how it is allocated. I live in the SE, and have an acquaintance who is single and on benefits. As a working single person, I live in Slough rather than London as I can't afford London, and I commute in to work every day. My one-bedroom flat costs around £700 a month.
My acquaintance lives in London because she prefers being near a tube. She isn't held back by budgets, and gets £1000 a month for her one bedroom flat in a decent part of outer London. Sounds cushy... HOWEVER, she only gets around £70 a week to actually live on - that's for food, travel, electricity and water. She struggles, and has had to resort to food banks. So not so cushy at all!!!
AIBU to think this is a bit crazy? Wouldn't it be better for her to get £1280 a month and to actually have the chance to budget and make choices like everyone else? At the moment, she chooses to live in an expensive area as there is no incentive not to do so. She has already said that she would choose a cheaper area if it meant that she didn't have to struggle every month to pay the electric bill.
It seems insane to me that someone is living in a much plusher flat than lots of working people, but can barely scrape by in other ways. Maybe people out of work could be given a flat rate and make their choices about how to spend it? Or am I missing something?

Clash, that's exactly what I meant! You've explained it much better than me.

Once, the cheapest 30% of properties in that area can still be way above what a working person can afford. I've just done a search, and found that, for Kensington and Chelsea for example, someone entitled to a one-bedroom flat (a single person over 35) is entitled to housing benefit of £1129.44. There are shedloads of working people who can't afford this so just can't afford to live in those areas. But then, as my first post said, these people get to live in fab areas, but can barely feed themselves or heat their homes.

I agree with the poster who said that high rents don't always mean the accommodation is nice - but this applies to working people too! If someone on benefits gets £1129.44 for their housing needs and a working person can only afford £700, then it stands to reason that the person on benefits is going to be living in less of a dump than the working person.

No-one over the age of 35 and entitled to LHA would be able to find a flat at £1129.44. They might have been able afford the high rent in Kensington & Chelsea once upon a time when they were in full-time work but once dependent on benefits it will only be a matter of time before they're homeless.

The next question then would be: how does someone on benefits actually find accommodation when benefits won't cover the rent? They won't. It will be friend's sofas or a park-bench.

If she's able-bodied with no childcare headaches, she'll find a job of some kind in London soon enough. It may not be the fancy job she thinks she deserves, but it'll be gainful employment nonetheless. I'm surprised she's got away with it for a year TBH. Unless there is more to it.

At the moment, she chooses to live in an expensive area as there is no incentive not to do so.

exactly.

Are you serious?? I'm almost splitting my sides here. THATS WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE!!!!!!!!!!

that's not what they are for. you can collect benefits forever. HB isn't meant to be a short term measure until you "get on your feet".

There's certainly quite a bit wrong with the benefits system, which is why reforms have begun and are likely to become even wider reaching. I think it must be very tough for people who work, but can only afford to rent, to see people who are unemployed living in more attractive locations (which may be more accessible for work too, ironically)

However, don't underestimate the long term disadvantages of being on benefits. It does nothing to secure your future- you are living hand to mouth at the mercy of govt policy changes and landlords' whims.

One of the reasons I work, full time and in a professional capacity, is so I can buy a home that is mine, in a place that suits me, not dependent on govt changes as to whether there is money in my bank account. And also, very importantly, so I can pay into a pension which will enable me to choose to stop work/ work part time at 55, without needing to radically alter my standard of living.

If you rely on benefits, you have far less control over your lifestyle and your future... it may seem in the short term that some people are living in a nicer property- but it isn't theirs and they could lose it any time. The OPs friend may seem to have a great place to live (albeit struggling to buy food and pay bills) but her future could well be somewhere pretty grotty to live and still struggling to pay for essentials

that's not what they are for. you can collect benefits forever. HB isn't meant to be a short term measure until you "get on your feet. That is EXACTLY what our benefits system was intended to be. Sadly too many people see it as a lifestyle choice.

TV program last year

Mother from I believe Poland caught long distance bus from Poland to work for minimum wage in UK. She rented a room in a shared house. I expect her relatives or partner cared for her children. She made more money than living in her home country. This lady lived away from her family to help support her family.

Your young colleague with a degree cannot find work in London and is using food banks !

Guess which person I have more respect for ?

Is it a case of young colleague not wanting to do any type of job ?

' It doesn't seem right that people on benefits can live in better places than working people'
Thats benefits bashing.
Right to buy has caused most of these problems. Its now very difficult for people on benefits to move so what is you solution to the 'problem?'

Jelly, have you read the thread? My suggestion is that people on benefits get THE SAME money as they are getting already, but that they have the CHOICE about how to spend it. So my colleague's daughter would get the same amount of money as she gets at the moment. She could continue to live in London next to the tube and to struggle to pay for her food or electricity bill. OR she could choose to flat share/live in a cheaper area and not have to live hand to mouth. The same choices that people in work get. Plenty of people on benefits are totally genuine and seeking work, some are scroungers. I haven't met the person in question so I don't know which category she falls into.

I do know that, if I found myself on benefits, I would much prefer to get a choice about how to spend my money, and would choose the cheaper area rather than having an unheated house.

My suggestion is that people on benefits get THE SAME money as they are getting already, but that they have the CHOICE about how to spend it. So my colleague's daughter would get the same amount of money as she gets at the moment. She could continue to live in London next to the tube and to struggle to pay for her food or electricity bill no. What you are suggesting is nothing of the sort. She gets a higher amount of housing benefit to cover the fact that she lives in central London. If she were allowed to move but keep this amount of housings benefit she would be getting substantially MORE than anyone else in the country. JSA is for living expenses and it's the same countrywide. Why on earth should someone who lives in a more expensive property be able to move and 'keep the change' from the housing benefit after paying rent?

Just to clarify, everyone on JSA (income based) gets the same amount + their housing covered (benefit caps excepted) + their Council Tax paid (or almost all CT). They do get a choice - in how to balance their budget on £70 pw. I do wonder how she managed to get into the flat in the first place, since deposit + rent in advance would've been required.

I don't know how she got the flat - maybe her parents helped, or she was living with someone? Also, some housing associations don't ask for a deposit, and some charities can help. There is clearly a way that people on benefits can get housing, as most do. Which is fine with me - I'm questioning the wisdom of people going hungry while living in expensive flats, but do think that everyone is entitled to a roof over their heads (not necessarily in a posh area though).

As I wrote earlier, housing benefit rates in London are now set that they rarely cover the rent for any given area. I am still very surprised her housing benefit covers her full rent.

I lived in London ten years ago. I became physically ill and had to claim housing benefit. The housing benefit covered the rent. Looking at the same area now the current housing benefit rate would not cover the rent.

You gave the example of housing benefit in Kensington being £1239. A quick Google shows rent for a one bed flat in the area is minimum £1450. The housing benefit rates for London are now set that is it extremely difficult to rent in London on housing benefit.

I get where you're coming from OP, I have actually thought the same myself before. 2 things: (and apologies as out of head on pain killers atm)

1. I can actually see the government implementing this. They'd love it. And the people living in expensive areas would cash in and move to cheaper areas of the country. Of course, this would be fundamentally unfair on their new neighbours, as it would price out locals on low incomes as well as meaning people side by side living on benefits had radically different incomes. So the government would then just cut it back to the bare minimum, having successfully removed the poorest from the most desirable areas.

2. I think the problem, ultimately, is having just a little attempt at fairness. So we have decided collectively that people should have a home and a basic income for food and essentials, even if they are down on their luck/ill/disabled/whatever. Great! But everything else and all the systems and policies around that are run completely differently, generally increasing inequality. Which results in bizarre situations as you describe in your OP where things don't make sense. It should be fine that this person is getting help with the rent. What's bonkers is the rent compared to income and compared to different areas of the country, the fact that she should be able to get a job (idk if sh'es actually looking but we know it's hard to find work) that's suitable, the fact that property is an "investment" not merely a way of housing people... etc etc

It doesnt sound like she is on benefits to me. she may say she is, that doesnt mean she is. Its possible her parents own the flat.

As someone who looked for work for three years making up to 250 applications a week but didnt find anything other than the odd week i have sympathies. i am a graduate and highly experienced amd found it near impossible compared witg people whod worked 2 years in a min wage job. my degree was often hidden on my cv to tey and stop the 'overqualified' prejudice.

Employment seeking is not like a queue, nor like digging for a known prize, you can spend years coming second in every interview and look like you've made no effort. i know. its happened to me. you can work and work and wprk at it and still miss every boat. When i have work i am more productive than the average employee...which often gets me sacked. The world of work doesnt work quite the way it should, nor pay enough;, usually, to lift above poverty in any case.

This sort of thing makes my blood boil I work long hard shifts couldn't afford £1000 a month rent! your saying we should give her £1200 to budget how she feels fit to spend on what she wants? well she should wake up and join the real world but why should work and pay taxes so she can do sweet F/A .

Benefits are supposed to be a safety net. If your not working what gives you the right to decide where you live. Bring back the poor house then these lazy individuals would have the motivation to find work to pay for a roof over their head.

You've never even met this person OP?

I live in a cheap area. You can get a 1 bed flat round here for about £300 per month. If someone in my area received £1200 a month, plus the £70 a week JSA (so almost £1500 a month total) you could pay all your rent, bills and be left with about £1000 a month disposable income! You could live a pretty luxurious life on that as a single person with no ties.

I don't judge people on benefits at all, I was on benefits for 2 years when I first left my exH. But I don't think your idea would work. It would leave some people way better off than others.

Also it's not that easy to find somewhere to live when you get HB as many private landlords won't take it these days. There's not really an option of picking and choosing where you live. I took the first place I could find that would accept me.

a graduate and highly experienced ?

Maybe you should wok on your speeling?

How anyone can be unemployed in London is beyond me (excluding disability, obviously)

Housing costs in London are high because it's a raging employment hot spot. Why we would be paying people who aren't working to live in some of the most expensive property in the world boggles me. Completely different to subsidising essential workers who can't afford the ridiculous housing prices.

Benefits are supposed to be a safety net. If your not working what gives you the right to decide where you live. Bring back the poor house then these lazy individuals would have the motivation to find work to pay for a roof over their head.
Have we not managed to stop Daily Mail journos posting yet?

How anyone can be unemployed in London is beyond me (excluding disability, obviously)

Short term contracts, redundancy, companies going bust, almost zero employment rights until you've been somewhere for 2 years ...

Over 70% of unemployed people find another job within a year. It would be counterproductive to make them move away from where the jobs are.

The whole benefits system baffles and angers me at points - simply because my younger sister with 2DCs under 6 left her abusive ex and decided to get her life back on track by going to university, she worked hard to get the grades at college and got onto a dentistry degree course 4 years ago. She is a student in a career that will payback ££ in tax in future but she isn't entitled to any benefits unless she works 16hrs a week while studying, her entitlement to housing benefit is £90/mth (doesn't make a dent in the £700 rent for a 2bed ex council 3rd floor flat in expensive Scottish city) affected by the loan for living costs she had had to take out. She had to take out the loan because if she doesn't then she isn't entitled to help with childcare costs from the university. She couldn't get a council flat because we as her family helped her with somewhere to live while she got a job and saved for a deposit for a flat (apparently the fact she had a roof over her head meant she wasn't homeless and then the fact she got a job and saved a deposit meant she wasn't in a situation that gave her enough points to qualify for council housing anytime soon).

Anyway point of the rant is that if she stayed at home and worked min wage 16hrs a week she would have more financial help from benefits and probably would have a council property that would give her and her DCs more security (compared to the 3moves in the last 4years she's had).
BUT because she has decided to study and eventually pay back ££ in tax that means she gets less help. This has meant that she he had to take a year out of university to work and save money for her living costs so course that should take her 5years will most likely take 7 - makes me so so so mad that there doesn't seem to be any help/incentive for people like her that are trying to do better!!
Sorry for the long rant!

But thats not the fault of ppl working for minimum wage.