Living afloat & housing benefit?

[Blue_skies]

Commissioners Decision

 

may be applicable. In this case BW licence and mooring fee was permitted to be paid by way of HB.

 

Unfortunately HB is determined in the first instance by the LA's decision maker and any claim that is a bit outside the regulations may have to be appealed.

This link was great but exasperating reading. This kind of thing leaves me speechless. All it needed was someone somewhere to write clear rules. But no, instead we have individual cases going backwards and forwards in hearings and counter appeals, costing god-knows-how-much.

 

I think this is where most of the UK's GDP goes - paying lawyers and clerks to battle it out over sums of money dwarfed by the salaries of those lawyers and clerks.

[Christine]

This link was great but exasperating reading. This kind of thing leaves me speechless. All it needed was someone somewhere to write clear rules. But no, instead we have individual cases going backwards and forwards in hearings and counter appeals, costing god-knows-how-much.

 

I think this is where most of the UK's GDP goes - paying lawyers and clerks to battle it out over sums of money dwarfed by the salaries of those lawyers and clerks.

 

 

 

 

Love it or loath it, this is the basis of the English Legal System. It's this stuff that pays my wages so I can't comment!!!

 

I love the law - tis great fun.

 

(well - only until next Friday when I will be FREE!!!!)

[david and julie]

Interesting. I think this illustrates just how difficult to navigate these waters are! One thing I don't quite understand. I guess the marina has changed his mooring status to "residential status". Can you tell me, what was his mooring status before? Also, in its former status did HB pay all his fees connected with the marina (however they broke down)?

 

I'm not going to name the marina involved.

 

The marina had (has) about a dozen or so people who permanantly liveaboard. There were no "official"residential berths, apparently the situation was tolerated for whatever reason. I presume someone(I'm guessing here) from the management must have decided there was an opportunity to charge more for official status. Planning permission was applied for and granted, then the people who currently liveaboard were offered the (now legitimate) residential berths. Any berths left were (are) to be advertised.

 

The guy was one of these people. He didn't want to risk losing his mooring but couldn't afford the increase (which is more than the current licence and mooring combined) his first port of call was CAB as a general enquiry, after listening to his case they suggested to him he may be entitled to HB.

 

Prior to the marina changes he could afford his berth so never even sought help, it was only the(hefty) increased fee's which caused him problems.

 

One point he did mention was that HB said they would pay benefit on anything, be it a tent or even a caravan, as long as it had a legitimate recognised address. By its nature I doubt a casual mooring could satify this requirement, whereas full residential status(legitimate address) would. I believe this is why they said the benefit would stop if he went cruising.

 

Just to clear any uncertainty, although the marina did tolerate what has previously happened they are not going to do so in the future. They have now set time limits on how many nights a week anyone(non residential) can stay, they say they will enforce the limits. Whether they can sensibly do this or not is anyones guess. That said, it may be self policing anyway, anyone paying these increses would no doubt be a tad aggrieved if the guy next door wasn't!

[Blue_skies]

 

Love it or loath it, this is the basis of the English Legal System. It's this stuff that pays my wages so I can't comment!!!

 

I love the law - tis great fun.

 

(well - only until next Friday when I will be FREE!!!!)

 

Hmmm, not so sure. Perhaps claims and counter claims is the basis of the English legal system, I don't know, but it shouldn't be the basis of something as simple as applying for HB. People who try to claim these things are often unwell and the last thing they need is a series of brick walls and hearings.

 

I had to engage with the benefits system once when I was ill. My god, I hope I never have to do that again. It was the most enfuriating, dispiriting, stress-induciung experience of my life. Unhelpful, unsympathetic bureaucracy on a par with the world of Terry Gilliams "Brazil". It should have been simple but it seemed deliberately complicated.

 

The law may be fun, but the benefits system aint IMHO! (No offense meant to you in all of this I'm sure you're a very helpful professional)

Edited February 17, 2007 by Blue_skies

[Christine]

Me in action Edited February 17, 2007 by Christine

[Dr Bradley]

I've seen first hand many people handling claims for benefit who are horrendous in their attitude to claimants and woefully short of knowledge about what they are doing, so I can fully understand Blue Skies poor experience. On the other hand most of my past colleagues working with the public were professional and considerate.

 

Whilst it was some time ago that I actually dealt with claims for HB I am still involved (not for much longer though ) and still know the current rules. HB can be claimed in the circumstances described and as Christine has said there are ways to appeal about a refusal.

 

It is not possible to claim whilst cruising as it would involve mooring in different local authority areas and the idea of new claim for days or a few weeks would not be viable, however if you retain a home mooring and simply cruise for a few weeks as a "holiday" then the claim on the mooring you are still paying for should continue.

 

Next year the method of assesing the amount of housing benefit people can get will change. I've not yet worked out how this will affect "unusual" abodes but I think boaters claiming HB are likely to be better off - not a promise, just a possibility.

 

Blue Skies does seem pretty determined that HB cannot be claimed despite the wealth of knowledge on this thread saying otherwise.

[Blue_skies]

Blue Skies does seem pretty determined that HB cannot be claimed despite the wealth of knowledge on this thread saying otherwise.

That's a way of putting it I suppose, LOL. I'm sure there is a wealth of knowledge on here about it, and I bring some knowledge to the subject myself, I'm just saying the published rules are not clear. If you look back through my comments, rather than a need to say it cannot be claimed, can I suggest the language I use reveals a hope that it can be but also a desire for clarity. It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I know" but unless such statments are backed up with clear evidence, then I tend to discount things. No offence to you, and I'm certainly not saying you have done this, but in general forums can be a haven for people stretching the boundaries of their actual knowledge.

[NB Alnwick]

That's a way of putting it I suppose, LOL. I'm sure there is a wealth of knowledge on here about it, and I bring some knowledge to the subject myself, I'm just saying the published rules are not clear. If you look back through my comments, rather than a need to say it cannot be claimed, can I suggest the language I use reveals a hope that it can be but also a desire for clarity. It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I know" but unless such statments are backed up with clear evidence, then I tend to discount things. No offence to you, and I'm certainly not saying you have done this, but in general forums can be a haven for people stretching the boundaries of their actual knowledge.

 

Can someone please explain what 'LOL' means in this context?

[Dr Bradley]

Blue skies, I agree that the rules are not designed for approval by the Plain English Society. Even the people who operate them can't understand them. It's a result of the law making process that starts off intending to cover every possibility, then something occurs that isn't covered so its added on - again and again and.......

 

The result is a miasma of confusion.

 

No offence taken and hope none given.

[Blue_skies]

Blue skies, I agree that the rules are not designed for approval by the Plain English Society. Even the people who operate them can't understand them. It's a result of the law making process that starts off intending to cover every possibility, then something occurs that isn't covered so its added on - again and again and.......

 

The result is a miasma of confusion.

 

No offence taken and hope none given.

None taken and I agree with what you say here. However, one thing in all of this interests me. There must have been people claiming / attempting to claim HB for mooring fees for years. I can't see any reason why not, mooring fees haven't suddenly been invented. The cynic in me thinks then there must be a reason for not making the rules clear. Is it to discourage people from using this as a housing solutiuon?

 

Miasmas often have a stinking, choking purpose

 

 

Can someone please explain what 'LOL' means in this context?

LOL = "laugh out loud". Not necessarily to indicate that someone has cracked a joke that has made the acronym user laugh out loud but rather the user is keeping the mood light and perhaps replying tongue in cheek. It's an attempt to add some of the 90% of communication that can be lost by typing a brief message.

[NB Alnwick]

LOL = "laugh out loud". Not necessarily to indicate that someone has cracked a joke that has made the acronym user laugh out loud but rather the user is keeping the mood light and perhaps replying tongue in cheek. It's an attempt to add some of the 90% of communication that can be lost by typing a brief message.

 

And I always thought it meant 'Lots of Love' . . .