To see benefits as a safety net, not handouts?

[ForGreyStork]

It’s the way benefits are talked about. To me, they’re part of a social security system -a safety net that people may need at different points in life, rather than “gifts” or handouts.
I also wonder whether increasing conditions and restrictions risk undermining that safety net over time.

AIBU?

As c
It stands there is an assessment process for a person to undertske to see if they meet the criteria set by PIP if they dont they wont be eligible
If a oerson feels the asssement is wrong , there is slso an appeals system.

Can I point out that autism is a disability? Although I do think if you say you (general you) have autism and it doesn't affect you then I am sceptical if you actually have it. My son is still not speaking much at four and I will eat my hat if he doesn't get a diagnosis. Currently waiting on a DLA decision. Maybe you should apply again?

As others have said, benefits are awarded based on need not diagnosis. Class doesn’t remotely come into it!

We have just had my son’s LCWRA decision overturned at Mandatory Reconsideration stage. I complained about the assessment immediately after it took place because the assessor clearly had no idea what he was talking about and had preconceived ideas about my son that were completely incorrect. There was also someone on here who claimed to be an assessor who made up a wonderful little story in her head about my son being perfectly fine to work, and who also didn’t have a clue. We got the decision overturned because we had proof of my son’s needs and of the assessor talking bollocks.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't have to push themselves out of their comfort zones. We all have to do that from time to time. But where disabilities are concerned, people have differing thresholds beyond which they would struggle to actually hold down a job or be effective employees. Not suggesting that means people shouldn't try at all, merely that matching people with disabilities or conditions to jobs they can do isn't a straightforward matter.

They should build some social housing and rent it out at affordable rates.
That's the way to try and solve that.

The problem being an awful lot of people came across the channel today who'll get legal aid (thanks tax payers) to ensure they can have a free house.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days

Don't tell me they'll get a job. Our young people need jobs.

This country is broken.

Who should build social housing? Who is paying to build it? Those paying for people to live on benefits and subsidized housing are not a cash machine.

Agree about the entitlement issue and the illegal immigration. The country is broken.

Who is paying for this "some social housing"? It's very expensive and lists are ever growing because of the increase in private rentals and general COL. In my city so many professionals have been granted statutory homeless status because their landlords have given them notice and they either can't find or can't afford another property. If rents were capped and living wages were paid there would be much less reliance on UC top ups

You're being ridiculous if you are entitled to benefits you will get them why on earth do you think your class would prevent this

I don't recall having to say what class I was when applying for benefits 😆

You can't just 'fly off to Japan for 90 days' if on UC.

Why would an employer want to negotiate a higher wage with someone living rurally, when they could just hire someone who can drive (or more easily access public transport) for less. That makes no sense.

You don’t get more benefits because you’re already in the system? Everyone is entitled to the same thing, regardless whether they’re in the system or claiming for the first time.

What would having 15 siblings mean in terms of you getting/not getting benefits?

You wouldn’t be refused JSA for being able to work, that’s the point of JSA - it supports you while you look for work. If you weren’t fit got work, it would be a different benefit you could claim.

People claiming UC can have holidays, nothing to say they can’t. But if you leave the country for more than a month, your UC claim can be stopped. Obviously if they aren’t declaring that they’re committing benefit fraud. And if you know that to be the case, you can report them. Nobody supports fraud - but the framework doesn’t allow for what you’re describing.

Me either 🤣

So when people come to the UK as asylum seekers, they go through a long process, during which time they're given an allowance of £49.28 per person per week (reduced to £9.95 if they're housed somewhere food is provided, even if that food is inedible). If they're granted leave to remain they will be given 28 days notice to leave their home office accommodation. In practice, this is often much less because of the time it takes to receive the notice. They will then have to apply for Universal Credit (they won't have been allowed to work while waiting for their case to be heard) and look for private sector rented accommodation. They'll need to find a month's advance rent and deposit. Numbers of homeless migrants have shot up over recent years as the notice period for Home Office accommodation reduced.
In reality, there are no "free houses" for refugees. They have to navigate the same Kafkaesque system as other renters while struggling with language barriers, lack of familiarity with UK systems, UC expecting them to start looking for work instantly, oh and obviously all the trauma involved with being a refugee. Obviously legal aid is available (limited appointments with lawyers who don't know you and only have a short time to familiarise themselves with your case) because what would happen otherwise?

Yes this country is broken. It must be, to treat the vulnerable and destitute as it does.

BBC News - Number of homeless refugees in England soars, BBC has found - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9y3n43192o?app-referrer=deep-link

Exactly.

There needs to be further compulsory intervention up to the age of 25.
People shouldn’t be able to leave care until they’re 21. That would improve outcomes by 100% I’m convinced of it.

They need to speed up the process of granting or denying asylum. We can all agree on that.
However, actually asylum seekers are given a great deal of support to navigate the system
Which most people young or old Do Not get access to. Yes, they are expected to look for work and generally they’re keen to do so.
But again this huge amounts of support, you could argue our young people don’t need it because they’ve been able to at least access education whether they’ve taken advantage of it or not.
But it does still feel unfair

The process was sped up, the artwork for in my link explains that's one of the reasons behind increased homelessness among migrants.

Can you outline what the huge amounts of support looks like?

Well, in our local Council it involves somebody sitting with you to fill out the forms which is not entirely unreasonable as their English is generally very poor.
But we have indigenous population with very poor English as well that could do with help to navigate the system and that would not be available to them. No funding you see.

Yes you lose UC if you spend more than 30 days out of the country.

I work for a council and our service is based in community libraries as are many others. Across the council.service we offer help and advice with various aspects of life and also provide a base for citizens advice who can assist with form filling. That's available to everyone in the borough, no matter their origins.

What you describe doesn't sound like a "huge amount of support" - is there anything else on offer specifically to refugees and migrants?

I don't believe you have a masters in "statistical analysis. " Read the study. That would be a start

You may not consider it a huge amount of support, but it’s more than anybody else is going to get.

Being unemployed was pretty much a short term thing years ago. People working and paying NI did get earnings related unemployment benefits for a period, and there was some stigma attached to people (men) who weren't in regular work.

Our young family got unemployment benefit when DH’s job folded, that was over fifty years ago. It was hand to mouth, but it was galvanising! DH drove a van, worked on a building site, and built up self employment to a reasonable income. We had two DC, couldn’t risk having more we couldn’t afford. I got temporary work to fit round his hours, eventually going back to a permanent job. My friend’s DH worked 8-4.30 Mon to Fri, she worked evenings and Saturdays in a chippy. Another did some bar work. None of us had childcare apart from our DHs and occasionally each other.

I don’t remember any ‘top up’ benefits, there wasn’t even Child Benefit for the first child until 1979. So the alternative to not working for nuclear families like ours wasn’t appealing.

But as I've said, it's not more than anyone else is going to get. I have literal proof of this through my work.