To think this woman should not rely on the council?

[tessofthedurbervilles]

A woman I got chatting to disclosed that her and her five kids were going to be evicted from her house due to complaints from neighbours about their anti social behaviour. Her whole attitude was one of it being someone elses' fault and responsibilty 'the council won't rehouse me' how dare they.
Nobody with 5 kids should be thrown out on to the street but her whole attitude was that her and her brood were someone else's responsibility.
I suggested she look for somewhere pdq but she looked at me blankly and said 'if I sleep in my car and the press get wind of it they will have to do something'
Is it me? AIBU to think your kids, love, your problem....move over Jeremy Kyle..I'm after your job!

For anyone looking for a rental property that accepts DHSS as it's always called in the ad's but isn't in fact.
You could tell the landlords that it will only cost another £120 to insure the property up to £40k if they accept a housing benefit tenant, you could even offer to pay that yourself if it helped you find a home.

That's fine sorrento in principle and is a fact I will certainly store in the God forbid I ever need it, but there is still an issue with agencies- i've never seen a house here not with an agency, and they refuse to pass on details.

It's a shame; if its as you say £120 to insure, it isnt much and many a tenant would happily find it. Being on HB doesn't automaticlly write you off as honest or even that poor (disabiltiies for example boost income quite well and I will admit that I know that from experience).

Well no it's £120 extra to insure the house if people on benefits are in it, it's around £400 for other people, so hardly a massive difference.
I'm afraid I am coming around to the idea we need some sort of 2009 version of workhouses where alarm clocks go off at 7.30am and breakfast is served, kids taken to school and mothers/fathers educated or do something productive because the current system just is not working.
The biggest concern is those 5 children growing up and thinking they will survive the same ways as their mother has but I do not believe the welfare state as it currently stands will exist by then, so then what do they starve ?

If you changed the name workhouse to supported accomodation I'dprobabvly agree with you

I would worry that people with Sn etc would just be dumped into them (as Mum to 2 /3 such kids its my job to worry anbout that) or people who genuinely are out of work through no real fault of their own, or at the least are trying to change that (so even if someones lost theior job through 'fault' eg they simply werent very good at it, if they are looking then OK; bit like JSA I guess).

but there is a certain percentage for whom the current systems don't work.

The thing is the people who are genuinely out of work through not fault of their own would be in and out of those places like lightening.

If instead of benefits a couple 20 year olds with no kids are offered a safe couple of rooms sort of half way houses between their parents home and independent living they might not go on to have babies in order to ensure a roof over their heads. It's win win on both aspects, if you take away the incentive to have children as a way of survival, which it is for many single young people you also reduce the overall amount of people dependent on the state. You can call that whatever you like, it seems like the way forward to me.
Of course it won't happen because right now there are about 60 council employees I can name who's jobs you could remove overnight if you took away cash benefits, how much money would that save ?

Yes Sorrento,a nd by the time they came out they'd have lost their home, and their kids would be traumatised.

A competely not acceptable way to deal with things like reduindancy and the results would be deeply disturbing and probably cost more long term.

It's also worth noting that many people didnt ahve kids to get benefits.Most people see having kids as a fundamental part of what they want from life. The benefits bit doesn't figure for most.

And most people aren't having kids on no income then claiming; for most- and atm this is relevant- they have kids thinking the job they have held for a good time and are doing well in will pay for the children, as they should. Then the job collapses and they've lost their income. Taking those people, removing the home they've lovingly cared for wouldnt help at all, the home etc is massively motivating in getting back on your feet as most people want. You'd also have lots of landlords shrieking hey where's my tenant gone, because many are signed up to contractualperiods and that creates issues in itself for income for the landlord. The other end of the scale are people like my parents: nobody ahs a more solid work ethic than dad, put every penny he could get spare through overtime etc into a pension fund..... and the company sold out to an American firm, which then folded the ension under (crucial this bit) American law. Which means he will be lucky to see a penny (Government ahs awarded soem money but the youngest recipients realise that the longer they drag it out, the more appeals they call, the more other people die and the greater their share of the pot. Dad is not a younger member). the idea that they should be placed into a sort of workhouse is shocking IMO.

Now, if you mean people without a home that's different (have realised you might mean that) places like that do exist. There was one where we used to live. They certainly did motivate famillies to try and get sorted but you ahd a reverse factor as again the kids suffred and no employer would touch a resident of that place. A fair few people ended up there as well becuase their landlords weren't paying their buy to let mortgage (even though they'd had the rent and not rfom HB either) which puts homelessness in a whole other thing that I understand Shelter are looking at ATM. as a massive issue in itself, think you end up with hours to shift legally.

Peachy there is a whole underclass of people who do see their children as a meal ticket and you cannot deny that.
What is becoming a major major issue is that if the parents never work and then the children never work and the majority of people only have one or two children because they can't afford more. Who will pay for this woman's 5 children to eat and their children ?
Time for some tough love.
The benefits system will collapse under the sheer weight of it's dependents unless the incentives are removed.

I didn't deny that, I deliberaely typed most on my posts etc to indicate that I relaised that. Of course I know that BUT I also worked in that grouping in the field of family support and that was not for many people the main reason.

This underclass is really proportionately small, if you apre it right down to the element of produicng for benefit purposes.Existent yes, but not huge.

I cannot think of any parents I knoew who would have fallen in that- Mum of five who escaped abuser DH; dad who hurt back and couldn't work; Dad who did work but on minimum age so soudnt afford the months fee in advance Nursery wanted to secure a place so DW could work.... lots and lots of reasons for poverty.

Isn't one of the biggst reasons for claiming simply age? Pension tax credits etc?

I ahave also thought of a few ways your workhouse would directly harm our chances: firstly kick out at 7.30- well Dh and a significant amount of people I know get back from work then. And our chance of being self supporting if SH's job does end is to develop his small hobby-business into a proer one; now, that requires a computer etc etc (it has to really, is ebay based) and to be around in the day able to process orders etc. SI that not soemthing worth developing? I personally give himmassive kudos points for runnig it alongsie a proper demanding jonb as security, so he should indeed not be stripped of it if circumstances beyond his control took his job.

I know our opinions will never match Sorento and I actually know I have good reasons behing mine that are not based in naivite and l;ack of exposure (growing up on a rough estate proves this in itself) however maye both our existences prove the old beleif of mine that we need people representing both extremes in order to reach a sensible midway.