Family lose housing benefit for 'shrine room'

[cajar]

Their young daughter lost her fight to cancer january last year. The council have now informed them that they will have to move to a smaller home, or make up the shortfall in housing benefit.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...old-daughters-bedroom-shrine-died-cancer.html

 

[Inky Pete]

Fair enough.

Kid's been dead a full year, how long should the taxpayer be expected to fund their empty room for?

 

[AronSearle]

Their young daughter lost her fight to cancer january last year. The council have now informed them that they will have to move to a smaller home, or make up the shortfall in housing benefit.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hters-bedroom-shrine-died-cancer.html[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile many are on the waiting list who don't have enough bedrooms.

(not that I think that matters, My parents had a 1 bedroom flat, didn't leave me scarred for life, but **** people who think social housing is owned by anyone but the state and allocated according to need).

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

Kid's been dead a full year

Sorry. You come across as a total insensitive bar steward.

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

how long should the taxpayer be expected to fund their empty room for?

Taxpayers (?). Many of whom live in 'social housing' (crap phrase that) don't fund empty rooms. The villains are the private sector who rent out a £10 broom cupboard for £100 p.w. knowing that the council/social will make up the other £90.

Let me guess............ No. I'll stop there.

 

[joinerjohn]

It is fair enough. OK If these people want a "shrine" to their daughter, let them create one somewhere else. If everyone who'd ever lived had followed their example, there would now be no rooms anywhere for anyone to live in. they'd all be fookin shrines.
One of my daughters was complaining on Faceache last year that her Nan's council house had been re-let only 6 weeks after her nan had died at home. I told her the council is ran much like a business and can't afford to have empty properties going unrented, just because some old bint had died in them. (Yeah you can really tell how much I loved my ex mother in law.)

 

[Inky Pete]

Kid's been dead a full year

Sorry. You come across as a total insensitive bar steward.

Yep, if you like, that's me.

So how long would YOU be willing to pay for the shrine for?????

 

[Inky Pete]

how long should the taxpayer be expected to fund their empty room for?

Taxpayers (?). Many of whom live in 'social housing' (crap phrase that) don't fund empty rooms. The villains are the private sector who rent out a £10 broom cupboard for £100 p.w. knowing that the council/social will make up the other £90.

Let me guess............ No. I'll stop there.

You sure the villains aren't really those with responsibility for the public purse, dishing out outrageous levels of housing benefit to anyone who sits on their a**e and just keeps knocking out kids - inevitably pushing up rents way beyond the means of ordinary WORKING people???

Landlords can only charge rents that they know people can and will pay. Slash housing benefit and rents will drop for benefit claimants AND ordinary workers, PLUS the taxpayer will have a smaller bill to pick up.

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

Take it a step further.

You die.

Got a double bed.

Your missus has to get into bed with another fella?

(hang on.......)

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

Landlords can only charge rents that they know people can and will pay. Slash housing benefit and rents will drop for benefit claimants AND ordinary workers, PLUS the taxpayer will have a smaller bill to pick up.

No. Landlords have a list of what the limits of the rental rate is for a broom cupboard/1 bed/2 bed /3bed can be. This will be the max for a decent place. Which they set at as the "norm". If unaffordable, I, (according to you) as a taxpaying scum social housing tenant, are paying to keep private landlords in the style that they've become accustomed to. Not deserved, accustomed. Normally private landlords sell ****e that they would never live in at a premium, not realistic, rate.

Eee.

 

[big-all]

the common sense answer is see them in person explain the situation give them say 6 months or a year to grieve and get used to the idea give them positive help to help them accept what will happen but in a sympathetic way and see how they cope
after all we need to look at the whole picture would the £12 a week be good value if it meant many doctors or hospital appointment heavy medication
any amount off counselling or home help
any time off work

its the whole picture that needs looking at people are not just statistics the are human with needs

 

[Scoby_Beasley]

the common sense answer is see them in person explain the situation give them say 6 months or a year to grieve and get used to the idea give them positive help to help them accept what will happen but in a sympathetic way and see how they cope
after all we need to look at the whole picture would the £12 a week be good value if it meant many doctors or hospital appointment heavy medication
any amount off counselling or home help
any time off work

its the whole picture that needs looking at people are not just statistics the are human with needs

According to some here the saving of 12 sobs a week would be great, meanwhile they would rent out their bit for a 112 sobs a week. And their wife / husband should be forced to share bed space with a stranger (we are after all, in this together aren't we??? Apparently not).

Net result.
Tenant stays in accommodation. Govt. pays 12 sobs.
Kick tenant out. Govt. pays 112 sobs a week.

Now, to my simplistic mind, who is the winner, and who are all the losing taxpayers? Aah!! Calculators working again!!

Winners = Private Landlords
Loser = REAL Taxpayers.

 

[big-all]

there are so many implications from these actions
take in a stranger with the security implications
the household contents/buildings insurance implications
you invite someone in they can both be null and void

the average person that would rent a room in a family home is likely to be doing it through desperate circumstances and often with health implication
not often leading to a happy relationship with the tenant or family

having to move to another smaller property possibly several miles away may split up families and communities leading to further division off families and the cohesive structure that helps society remain in ballance

saying its only say £13 a week is pointless as it can be a further nail in the coffin off a strugling family trying to make ends meet

 

[noseall]

According to some here the saving of 12 sobs a week would be great, meanwhile they would rent out their bit for a 112 sobs a week. And their wife / husband should be forced to share bed space with a stranger (we are after all, in this together aren't we??? Apparently not).

Net result.
Tenant stays in accommodation. Govt. pays 12 sobs.
Kick tenant out. Govt. pays 112 sobs a week.

Sobs = tears.

I think you mean sov's guvner.

 

[cajar]

Council have visited them in person already bigall, and its been a year so far. They're not saying they can't have the room, just that they wont receive benefit for a 3 bedroom house, just for a two bedroom. It may mean that one or both parents would have to find jobs.

Would it be acceptable to ask the council to keep paying child benefit for example, for a dead child for a period of six months or more after the child had passed away? Just wondering where you would draw the line.