Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

[sailor0500]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b5852af40f0b6338b116dc6/CH_2234_2017-00.pdf

As a result of the Upper Tribunal decision, Housing Benefit is no longer payable for your CRT license. I understand that this will take effect at the annual review of each individual claimant but rest assured it is ending. The link will take you to the Upper Tribunals decision.

[matty40s]

Is it specific in this ruling that the CC licence was the one that has been disallowed??

[zenataomm]

What? ….. do you mean to say I shan't be getting public funds to pay for a CC licence?  What is this world coming to?

[David Mack]

Well here's a new definition of continuous cruising:

 

"He purchased a continuous cruiser licence, which allowed him to cruise; he was allowed under the terms of the licence to moor overnight provided he did not again moor within two miles of the same location on the same day."

 

Where has that come from?

 

But since:

 

"On 24 October 2016, the county court at Leeds ordered the claimant to remove his boat from canals and inland waterways under the control of the Canal and River Trust on 7 November 2016 at the latest."

 

it would appear that he hadn't "satisfied the Board" as to his pattern of movement.

Edited August 20, 2018 by David Mack

[Gareth E]

Hmm it seems that the decision of the learned gentleman may prevent someone from claiming 'housing benefit' in the future, should they wish to continually cruise. Not a problem though, the benefit claimant simply needs to apply for a mooring as well (at further public cost, obviously), but not use the mooring. He or she is then free to go off cruising at the taxpayers' expense.    

[Wanted]

Given that most people who claim HB are actually in work, I suggest that the snide comments be better aimed at those who have created a society that allows somebody to work a full week and still not be able to pay their rent.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Wanted said:

Given that most people who claim HB are actually in work, I suggest that the snide comments be better aimed at those who have created a society that allows somebody to work a full week and still not be able to pay their rent.

 

Ah yes the anonymous 'they'. Who is it that created this iniquitous society where those at the bottom of the heap needed help? When did it start? I think it has always been thus. 

[TheBiscuits]

43 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Hmm it seems that the decision of the learned gentleman may prevent someone from claiming 'housing benefit' in the future, should they wish to continually cruise. Not a problem though, the benefit claimant simply needs to apply for a mooring as well (at further public cost, obviously), but not use the mooring. He or she is then free to go off cruising at the taxpayers' expense. 

Will the licence be covered for those with a mooring?  I suspect not from the sounds of it - the mooring fee will be, but not the licence.

[billS]

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ah yes the anonymous 'they'. Who is it that created this iniquitous society where those at the bottom of the heap needed help? When did it start? I think it has always been thus. 

Supply and demand. If the available workforce shrinks, then the cost of labour will increase. The ruling class found that out when the Black Death drastically reduced the labour force available and brought about the beginning of the end to the feudal system.

[Athy]

32 minutes ago, Wanted said:

Given that most people who claim HB are actually in work

Really? I had always thought that housing benefit was one of the things, alongside the dole, which could be claimed by the unemployed. As you suggest, some people who are in work are not prosperous, but they surely earn more money than people on the dole do? That being so, why do more working people than non-working people get this hand-out?

[Dave Payne]

23 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ah yes the anonymous 'they'. Who is it that created this iniquitous society where those at the bottom of the heap needed help? When did it start? I think it has always been thus. 

Then you would be wrong...

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Really? I had always thought that housing benefit was one of the things, alongside the dole, which could be claimed by the unemployed. As you suggest, some people who are in work are not prosperous, but they surely earn more money than people on the dole do? That being so, why do more working people than non-working people get this hand-out?

How do you think those on a low income pay rent?

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

 

How do you think those on a low income pay rent?

From their wages or salary of course, as I used to do. You miss the point, I think: their "low income" will, as I said, be higher than that of someone on the dole.

[Dave Payne]

You are a little out of touch athy, rent continues to increase a hell of a lot more than the minimum wage. A lot of people have to make up that shortfall with benefits whilst working.

 

this is the life that the government have created over the last 20 years.

[sailor0500]

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

Hmm it seems that the decision of the learned gentleman may prevent someone from claiming 'housing benefit' in the future, should they wish to continually cruise. Not a problem though, the benefit claimant simply needs to apply for a mooring as well (at further public cost, obviously), but not use the mooring. He or she is then free to go off cruising at the taxpayers' expense.    

In fact the ruling is being applied to all CRT licenses whether or not the claimant has a mooring or is a CC.

[nicknorman]

Yes Athy perhaps doesn’t understand that successive government policies have allowed employers to have cheap labour at below the market rate, effectively subsidised by in-work benefits. Personally I think that is wrong, but how do you undo it?

[doratheexplorer]

6 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

You are a little out of touch athy, rent continues to increase a hell of a lot more than the minimum wage. A lot of people have to make up that shortfall with benefits whilst working.

 

this is the life that the government have created over the last 20 years.

A little out of touch?  Completely out of touch seems more like it! 

What world do some of you lot live in?  Have you ventured outside in the last 20 years?

[sailor0500]

21 minutes ago, Athy said:

Really? I had always thought that housing benefit was one of the things, alongside the dole, which could be claimed by the unemployed. As you suggest, some people who are in work are not prosperous, but they surely earn more money than people on the dole do? That being so, why do more working people than non-working people get this hand-out?

The only people I know who claim housing benefit for a mooring are OAPs on basic state pension and one disabled lady. If these people who receive around half of their mooring rent did not receive this they would be in private rented accommodation where they would get all or most of the rent paid, thereby filling the pockets of those who invest in buy to let property.

Edited August 20, 2018 by sailor0500

[Phil Ambrose]

13 minutes ago, Athy said:

From their wages or salary of course, as I used to do. You miss the point, I think: their "low income" will, as I said, be higher than that of someone on the dole.

It has to be remembered that H.B  is means tested. Which means every claim is different with a different outcome.  Some get more, some get less.

Phil 

[sailor0500]

24 minutes ago, Athy said:

Really? I had always thought that housing benefit was one of the things, alongside the dole, which could be claimed by the unemployed. As you suggest, some people who are in work are not prosperous, but they surely earn more money than people on the dole do? That being so, why do more working people than non-working people get this hand-out?

So you think it's a handout do you. Did you ever claim Child Benefit for 16 years for each child?  Was that a handout?

[BWM]

32 minutes ago, Athy said:

Really? I had always thought that housing benefit was one of the things, alongside the dole, which could be claimed by the unemployed. As you suggest, some people who are in work are not prosperous, but they surely earn more money than people on the dole do? That being so, why do more working people than non-working people get this hand-out?

Purely because there are more people on low, inadequate income than there are unemployed-especially when you take into account those on zero hours contracts and many pressed into self employment by unscrupulous employers. 

6 minutes ago, sailor0500 said:

So you think it's a handout do you. Did you ever claim Child Benefit for 16 years for each child?  Was that a handout?

I'm sure the term handout was only used as an alternative to benefit, not to insult.

[haggis]

13 minutes ago, sailor0500 said:

So you think it's a handout do you. Did you ever claim Child Benefit for 16 years for each child?  Was that a handout?

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children?  I am sure someone will be along to tell me why child benefit is necessary.

 

haggis

[matty40s]

12 minutes ago, haggis said:

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children?  I am sure someone will be along to tell me why child benefit is necessary.

 

haggis

The problem arises in your 2nd sentence.

Not all couples decide to have a child. Not all people having sex and making a baby are couples. Some don't even realise the two occurrences are connected and keep having sex and having babies.

[Athy]

40 minutes ago, sailor0500 said:

So you think it's a handout do you. Did you ever claim Child Benefit for 16 years for each child?  Was that a handout?

Yes, no and no.

31 minutes ago, BWM said:

 

I'm sure the term handout was only used as an alternative to benefit, not to insult.

Style, to avoid repetition. Why would it be an insult?

[cuthound]

26 minutes ago, haggis said:

Wandering slightly off topic, I have never really understood the reason for child benefit. Surely, a couple will have decided that they can afford to bring up a child before they have one so why should they be given a benefit? Housing benefits and other benefits for people with low incomes I can understand but why pay a couple to have children?  I am sure someone will be along to tell me why child benefit is necessary.

 

haggis

 

So that the Government can guarantee future generations of taxpayers? ?

[canals are us?]

Around 3 years ago I was Unemployed and got £71.40 a week JSA. I applied for HB for residential mooring and Boat licence and after 5 months of hassle got awarded £45 a week. £40 was the mooring fee cost. It didn't cover the £740 licence fee or the £150 for boat insurance.

 

Thankfully my Nan paid the mooring fees and license fees and I used the back pay from HB to pay the license fee from then on and 18 months later after applying for dozens of jobs and several interviews found work at £7.40 an hour doing Property Maintenane.

 

3 years later I'm self employed and earn anything from 8-10,000 a year, much less than working for others, but I manage to pay the bills and am contented and like the variety of work. I get working tax credits of £36.82 a week so use that for food. There is just myself and I have no children. 

 

I felt great when I went into the job centre and signed off.

 

James.