View Single Post
Old 15-07-2017, 07:42   #420
nomadking
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb, V6 STB
Posts: 7,862
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
Re: Worrying news for ESA claimants converting from DLA to PIP.

17 in the whole country?
This is EIGHT just in the Westminster area.

Quote:
Westminster Council revealed to us that two households receive £1,950 and £1,750 a week respectively through the Local Housing Allowance.

Three others get the same amount as the Warsames - namely £1,600; while three families are on more than £1,500 a week.
From a FOI request from 2011 for JUST Westminster
Quote:
For all live claim types (excluding suspended) there are currently
6338 claims paying over £1000 (i.e over £250 pw) – including those paying over £2000 per month
and 1220 claims paying over £2000 (i.e. over £500 pw)

From DWP report: Housing Benefit caseload breakdown - March 2011
Quote:
For Nov 2010
160 were receiving more than £50,000/year.
11830 were receiving £20,000 or more/year.
Quote:
34,610 were £15,000-£20,000
128.960 were £10,000- £15,000
75% were £5,000 or less and a further 21% were £5,000-£10,000.
So were does the 17 come from?
From the figures for previous years it can be clearly seen that the problem arose from the Local Housing Allowance system introduced in 2008. In just 2 years the number even in the £25K-£30K band tripled. The problem was that for large houses, the sky was the limit. People were DELIBERATELY moving into expensive areas because they knew it would be all covered by the taxpayer.

Then there is this case which is beyond belief.
From an Upper Tribunal ruling where the guy WON a rehearing.
Quote:
The context of this remark is evident from the papers and will be known to the parties. Briefly, however, it is relevant to the appellant’s case that he could not reasonably have been expected to realise he was being overpaid (per regulation 100 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006), when he was being paid in effect four times the level of his rent, because of his alleged belief that the “benefit cap” meant that he was entitled to a capped amount of £1000 regardless of his actual rent (see his email of 24 May 2011 on page 60)
In other words he was claiming and RECEIVING £1,000/week, even though his actual rent was a quarter of that. £750/week in free money in his pocket. How did Islington council allow that?


Last edited by nomadking; 15-07-2017 at 08:16.
nomadking is offline   Reply With Quote