Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
sailor0500

Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

Featured Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by David Mack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Greenie 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by sailor0500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? ?

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.