• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

One percent

Universal credits starting to bite?

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5614585/Family-14-living-four-bedroom-house-mother-claims-evicted.html

selected comments

A family of 14 are living in a four-bedroom house after a single mother-of-six claimed she was evicted after her housing benefit was slashed to 50 pence a week.

Patricia Newman, 33, and her six children have moved into her mother's home - already occupied by seven other members of her family.

Ms Newman says she was evicted from her social housing in Firgrove Walk - four miles from her mother's home - after she had her youngest child, and her housing benefits were reassessed.

She says the government benefits calculator took into account the combined benefits that she was already receiving, and then considered the amount of money coming into the household in other forms of benefits.

This was considered enough for Patricia to be able to pay her rent, she claims.

When I had my youngest, they reassessed my benefits and told me that I was only going to be awarded 50p per week for housing benefit,' she said.

'The rest would have to come out of my tax credits and income support. At the end of the day, I don't have the money to pay all of that rent.

Ms Newman added: 'Cheltenham Borough Homes seemed to deem the eviction as me making myself voluntarily homeless - but that was not the case.

'I went to a meeting at Cheltenham Borough Council and I was waiting for them to tell me what they could do to help us.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ina said:

The welfare state was established for all the right reasons in the 1940s.  It is in need of total reform starting with child benefit and WTCs.

It is not the role of government to pay the feckless to breed like rabbits.

I agree with the child benefit, the tenner a week for each child.  Many women are kept short by partners, so it is a little safety net. 

The rest of it no.  If you want kids, you need to be able to support them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Horrified Onlooker said:

Her comment above sums up this woman’s attitude. This woman has pumped out 6 children without any plans on how she will provide for them. She then waits for the council to tell her what they will do for her. 

Get up off your arse and help yourself, and keeping your legs together would be a good start 

 

:PissedOff:

Alternatively, she could part them for financial support, rather than leaving the taxerpayers fucked.

(yes, I know, bad taste, should apologise, bla bla)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ina said:

The welfare state was established for all the right reasons in the 1940s.  It is in need of total reform starting with child benefit and WTCs.

It is not the role of government to pay the feckless to breed like rabbits.

It is being totally reformed with the correct principles being put in place; starting with always being better off working than not working.  Ian Duncan Smith deserves much of the credit and this case does evidence that it's working - you can't keep rattling the begging bowl and expecting it to be filled; those days are gone.

There are though big problems with the way that it has been brought in: delays in payment leaving people with no money for weeks and disability assessments that are blatantly unfair.  However fix those and we actually end up with a welfare state doing what we always used to think it did: acting as a safety net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve just put some guesses into entitled to and yes, technically, her housing is reduced to 50 pence a week.  

She is entitled to 510 A WEEK but the cap limits it to 385 per week.  It’s equivalent to a 25k a year salary.  Not bad for a feckless lifestyle  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, One percent said:

I’ve just put some guesses into entitled to and yes, technically, her housing is reduced to 50 pence a week.  

She is entitled to 510 A WEEK but the cap limits it to 385 per week.  It’s equivalent to a 25k a year salary.  Not bad for a feckless lifestyle  

 

To be fair I don't think anyone could manage to rent something plus support a large family on £385 a week. Well you could if you didn't have to pay rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the gardener said:

To be fair I don't think anyone could manage to rent something plus support a large family on £385 a week. Well you could if you didn't have to pay rent.

Should have thought of that before having all those kids.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

At the very least she needs to be steralised - Who the fuck does she think she is? A fuckin Muzzer

Edited by mattydread
too much effin & jeffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, One percent said:

Should have thought of that before having all those kids.... 

I'm sure that this woman is a career benefits claimant but sometimes people can be self-supporting and then fall on hard times.

The real issue here is Landlord Benefit. Our own taxes are being used to drive up tents and make everything more expensive. Without high rents this woman could manage just fine on the generous benefits. Might not get lots of holidays in the sun but then that's not what benefits are for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, the gardener said:

I'm sure that this woman is a career benefits claimant but sometimes people can be self-supporting and then fall on hard times.

The real issue here is Landlord Benefit. Our own taxes are being used to drive up tents and make everything more expensive. Without high rents this woman could manage just fine on the generous benefits. Might not get lots of holidays in the sun but then that's not what benefits are for.

Yep. It will probably come to that soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt Hartman said:

It's going to take a generation before the reality sinks in that it's no longer financially profitable to have loads of kids on the state tit. Until that point, there will be a myriad of people like this whining that everyone is being mean to them by not forking over tens of thousands a year tax-free and keeping them ticking over in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

They do really need to hold the line on this one though and not be swayed by shite like I heard on R4 where people like this are made out to be some kind of victim of a totalitarian state - the same state that pays to put them in the wealthiest 1% of the worlds population for doing nothing, despite their protestations to the contrary - and the simplest of simple question is never asked of people like this:

"So why did you have six children you can't afford and why do you expect everyone else to pick up the tab?"

The welfare dependacy reset button needs to be pushed and then taped down.

No. its a couple of years.

Its hitting people now, and rightly so.

The cap of payouts on 2 kids has to remain, no matter what.

Then tax credits need deactivating, mainly by bumping up the hours ro 38h/w and reducing the payout.

Franbkly they should change to stop hne th youngest is 11. Parents can both go out and get FT jobs.

1 hour ago, the gardener said:

I'm sure that this woman is a career benefits claimant but sometimes people can be self-supporting and then fall on hard times.

The real issue here is Landlord Benefit. Our own taxes are being used to drive up tents and make everything more expensive. Without high rents this woman could manage just fine on the generous benefits. Might not get lots of holidays in the sun but then that's not what benefits are for.

Copp HN at 500/m countrywide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot going on here, mostly benefit maximisation.

'Dorothy, of Mersey Road in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, also shares her home with her two adult sons and their collective four children, over whom she has guardianship.

The grandmother-of-ten said: 'Patricia and the children really need rehousing - the children need their own home with their mother.

'I have guardianship of four kids and it is hard work having that many children here.

'I am out looking after my mother who is seriously ill with heart problems among other illnesses. All day I do the jobs that she needs doing.

'Then I come home and I need to do it all again. You can't come home and relax.''

The grandmother is scamming money for her sons kids, who, depsite having guardianship for, also has her sons living with her.

Her + 2 sons + 4 kids = 7.

Grandmother is scamming it as her mothers carer, more benes.

Then this - 'Then I come home and I need to do it all again. You can't come home and relax.'''

Why? There are 3 other adults in the house, doing nothing.

'Ms Newman says she was evicted from her social housing in Firgrove Walk - four miles from her mother's home - after she had her youngest child, and her housing benefits were reassessed.

She says the government benefits calculator took into account the combined benefits that she was already receiving, and then considered the amount of money coming into the household in other forms of benefits.

This was considered enough for Patricia to be able to pay her rent, she claims.'

It takes sme extreme cuntery to e evicted from social housing - pimping, dealing, destryoing the house. The duiaghter will be a toal cunt.

Shes not homeless, so does not score housing points.

By being evicted shes intentionally made herself intetionally homeless.

She'll not be doign the token 16h/w work, so her benefits are capped at 25k - thats 25k people. Leaving no extra money for HB.

Hosugwise, shes only entitled to a 3 BR hhouse - same sex kids have to share.

My perosnal opinion is that tyou take the kids off her and brothers, put them in case, and force the parents to work to pay for the care.

 

 


 

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the gardener said:

I'm sure that this woman is a career benefits claimant but sometimes people can be self-supporting and then fall on hard times.

The real issue here is Landlord Benefit. Our own taxes are being used to drive up tents and make everything more expensive. Without high rents this woman could manage just fine on the generous benefits. Might not get lots of holidays in the sun but then that's not what benefits are for.

She has six children, the latest a one year old.  No father in sight.  I’m calling it a career bennies claimant

1 hour ago, Sgt Hartman said:

It's going to take a generation before the reality sinks in that it's no longer financially profitable to have loads of kids on the state tit. Until that point, there will be a myriad of people like this whining that everyone is being mean to them by not forking over tens of thousands a year tax-free and keeping them ticking over in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

They do really need to hold the line on this one though and not be swayed by shite like I heard on R4 where people like this are made out to be some kind of victim of a totalitarian state - the same state that pays to put them in the wealthiest 1% of the worlds population for doing nothing, despite their protestations to the contrary - and the simplest of simple question is never asked of people like this:

"So why did you have six children you can't afford and why do you expect everyone else to pick up the tab?"

The welfare dependacy reset button needs to be pushed and then taped down.

The only victim in all of this is the sap taxpayer. Oh and her kids.  There are loads out there who want to adopt. If she can’t support them, they should be taken off her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

She will be getting absolutely loads of benefits.  Universal credit is there to stop her getting all of that income and then a rent free house on top.

She now has to do what any working person has to do: pay her rent out of her income.  That is the point of universal credit; it forces people to behave like responsible adults at which point some of them start whining and talking rubbish like "I was evicted for having a baby".

No you bloody weren't.

Spot on i do not know if i`m giving the person/people who came up with UC to much credit but it seems to work on so many levels ,it starting to look like a work of art 

The removing of the i`m entitled to it element is the best part  for me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been on the sharp end of this UC scam. It's a total shower of shit. Not because of the idea, because of the jobsworth mentality of implementing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I’m supposed to care about these useless eaters?

Anyone who is familiar with the areas referenced will understand the kind of people involved here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

'Well look after you, feed you and house you to a decent level, as you cant do that yourself. But you have to do as we tell you and you dont get to vote.'

In Victorian times you needed to be a landowner to vote. I can't help thinking you should need to have a certain amount of assets to get the vote. Even if you needed a grand to vote it would prevent druggies etc getting to vote.

Why should a benefit claimant get any sort of say in how much other people should pay in tax to support them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrPin said:

I have been on the sharp end of this UC scam. It's a total shower of shit. Not because of the idea, because of the jobsworth mentality of implementing it.

Yes, unsympathetic is an understatement for some of them.  I always thought the bar was high for the pittance that is JSA, ?£70 a week, with having to evidence three or four job applications each week but now you have to evidence your spending thirty five hours a week looking for jobs.

I didn't spend thirty five minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.