To be cheesed off with Universal Credit entry fees?

[MaturingCheeseball]

I know it’s been done before, but…

I thought I’d like to visit Chatsworth House with (teenage) dd. The cost is £33 each PLUS parking at £7.50. So £73.50.

Then I saw the universal credit/pension credit/pip etc price. THREE POUNDS. And free parking! So £6.00 for two adults (age 17+).

I do not have 12 times as much money as someone on these benefits. I doubt many people do. I’m not begrudging the disadvantaged a day out, but come on! The price differential is ludicrous.

When I saw the £73 price I just decided we couldn’t go, and so be it. But upon seeing the potential for a £6 entry, it made me feel mugged off.

Why when you could be on a high income and on PIP, or is that your point? It makes more sense to have it for UC than for PIP?

It's no different to showing a boarding pass or something on your phone.

They can if partner earns the amount needed.

I have thanked a poster. Thank you for your snide and unpleasant contribution.

Of course it is, I think you’ve totally missed my point.

So for example Chester zoo do £1 tickets for people on UC so family of 4 £4 for my family of 4 to go £119. Surely it would be better somewhere in the middle. So £10 for UC £20 for not! So double the price rather than 29 times the price!!

i don’t think anyone begrudges lower income getting discount but it does feel like others are then paying for it with inflated prices

I’m not complaining about other people receiving concessionary tickets. I’m not complaining about paying tax.

It is this attitude that will see Reform win at the next General Election. God help us all then.
It is NOT “spite” or “jealousy”. Can’t you read the room? It is difficult economic conditions, increased taxes for workers and increased benefit payments. Whether or not you agree with it, it is ALWAYS going to create division.

Well we cant all claim can we? Some sad fuckers need to pay the tax to keep the rest in benefits.

Same. I wouldn’t.

The spiteful posters are the ones attacking anyone - including me - raising the issue.

I am delighted to see disabled children’s families receiving a boost, and indeed those low-income households who would not normally visit a cultural attraction (although sadly those might be few) but the breadth of entitlement at Chatsworth is a bit eyebrow-raising. Pension credit? Hrrrmph. Anxiety? Hrrrmph. I know people in both those categories and the £3 ticket for them is a big no from me if I’m required to pay £33.

Because when my husband was close to dying for nearly a year and he was on benefits, we went to Chatsworth and had a very rare day out, we couldn’t afford to buy a drink in the cafe when we were there, and had to sacrifice some of the food budget that month to afford the petrol, but for s brief period of time, we could pretend to be a normal family for a few hours.

Of course you don't support it, that's no surprise.

However, given no one's asking for, or needs, your support to offer a discount on their entry fee it's irrelevant.

the standard ticket prices are NOT subsidising the discounted ticket prices. The revenue generated from the discounted prices (& additional expenditure) are in ADDITION to the other ticket sales.

And I have complained about neither? And yet you still invoked my “privilege”?

I thought UC discounts were designed to widen access ie attract lower income families, people from certain ethnic groups who might never think of going there. Not about giving people on UC a discount per se but getting them to visit in the first place. In that respect UC is just being used as a broad brush to attract this group.

I'm a member of Kew Gardens. It always seems pretty middle class there tbh. I can see why they want to widen the visitor base. It costs 85p per ticket!

Shock horror they have low prices for people on UC AND asylum seekers. They also offer small discounts to people who live in local postcodes.

I wonder how many people use it.

Apologies for being a massive scab on society, and fwiw, it was painfully awkward to stand at the reception desk and prove we were on benefits, it was an exercise in humility.

Out of curiosity how do you prove your benefit status at these attractions? I can't imagine they have a super thorough process that couldn't be deceived by forgery etc. I bet this'll increase people trying to prove they are claimants or using friend's details etc. Especially with such a massive difference in cost.

I had to log on to the UC site at reception, show my most recent statement which they cross referenced with our ID documents.

There people who game rhe system and genuine claimants. I wish the government could differentiate between the two.

One has not “RTFT” but one imagines these schemes are so those who rely on universal credit realise if they too work hard, sleep with well connected persons, perhaps marry the latter, they too can have a house like this. Thus reducing the number claiming such things. So win win for everyone.

The people on UC didn’t set the £33 admission price. The problem is the focus on them, rather than the people who did set the price. Which is of course, straight out of the Reform playbook

It wouldn't cost £33 per person (so £165 for my family with 3 children) if a considerable number of people weren't getting in for £3. The price being discounted for those on benefits does affect the OP because attractions have to make their money somehow. If they are running at a loss for those on benefits they have to make more profit from those who are not.
This may not bother the very rich who can easily afford £165 just for tickets to an attraction but seems very unfair for the average family who may have similar or even less to spare than a family on benefits and no housing, commuting or childcare costs.

It's not ok for people on benefits to be unable to have fun days out. It also is not ok for people who work and who are not on benefits to be unable to have fun days out because the price has been put up to subsidise people on benefits.
Perhaps something like charging £22 per ticket and £14 to those on benefits would be more fair.

To be honest this sounds like a massive GDPR risk, no one should ever be 'watched' signing in to anything.

Not sure what your reply was about then. You responded to my reply pointing out that taxpayers didn’t funded this, and therefore linking it to change in ISAs was a non sequitur. What were you trying to say?