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?