In court I would imagine. Government had to issue a blanket ban on evictions as they didn't want people (possibly Covid infected) on the streets during pretty much "house arrest". I imagine means testing everybody and the resultant cost in man hours/£££'s that would entail would probably cost too much and there would be too few civil servants to do it.
This is where the "safety net" of welfare benefits is supposed to pick up the slack when you fall on hard times. That is why the government takes national insurance payments from your wages, you are in effect paying into an "insurance" system. A lot of people who bought into the Benefits Street demonising of the poor are sadly going to experience living hand to mouth on state handouts first hand rather than vicariously through tv programmes. There will probably be 4 or 5 million unemployed when this furlough scheme ends. This is unchartered territory and people are going to have to change their opinions of "dole scroungers".
nicely put, i have sympathy with a lot of people who will genuinely suffer and we must help them, but like Grenfell there will be some who live of the backs of others lying through their teeth and it will be up to the courts to identify who they are. There is always the other side of the coin why should the landlords suffer, its time the gov paid the rent direct to the landlords This will stop a lot of corruption, and about time the courts gave stiffer sentences for the scum who try and thrive through this divers period in history
Still just 20% Say, wage 1 =£100/week wage 2= £100 then house income is £200 (100%) furlough =£80 =£80 is £160 (80% of 200)
Aye I should have said ‘lost double the money’ but I stand by the fact it would cripple folk on low pay.
Just as an aside, the prosecutor mentioned in this is a MLF. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020...truck-handed-six-month-jail-sentence/12592832
It was always the default position that rent was paid direct to the landlord under legacy benefits and it worked perfectly. But Iain Duncan Smith knew better and Universal Credit pays the rent to the tenant who then in turn pays it to their landlord. Oh and the built in 5 week wait for the claimant to receive their first payment ensures that they then go into 5 weeks worth of rent arrears. DWP have been asked by many groups including opposition MP's to change this but they are adamant that it stays this way. So a tenant that has never previously had any arrears on their account is deliberately placed into 5 weeks of arrears. John Major describes IDS as an "unproven genius" which I find quite amusing.
I just can’t get my head round the fact people have a delay to get money when in desperate need. I can’t even imagine the additional pressure that would put on them. I’ve been short of money in my younger days and it’s all consuming. It’s not something you can switch off from when you’re short. A massive delay for a monthly amount you’d generally earn in a few days. I don’t understand the system. I recall a close friend of mind having the Child Support taking almost his entire wage and saying deductions wouldn’t take into account the cost of his housing as he had a private landlord, nearly broke the lad fortunately he came through it but many don’t. It’s baffling that we don’t look after our own, there should be a varying scale based on past, recent or average ratings, surely? Especially as it gets taken back now from what I understand of Universal Credit (could be wrong on that..)
The more you look into Universal Credit the more you see how stupid it is. If you get let's say a temporary job for 2 weeks in one of your monthly "assessment" periods then 63p out of every pound you earn is deducted from your Universal Credit pro rata. So let's say you earn £700 take home pay in those 2 weeks. £441 is deducted from your UC meaning you are £259 better off or £129.50 per week. And that's without your travel to work costs which could easily be £29.50 per week. So you are basically working a 40 hr week to be £100 better off that is £20 per day! That is hardly encouraging people to take up work is it? Everything about it is wrong and that's not even mentioning the ridiculous 35 hours per week of "jobsearch" you must prove that you have done to Jobcentre staff in order to not have your welfare payments "sanctioned" and stopped for periods of at least a month or up to 12 months I think.
Before this pandemic scuppered all my work the clients that I worked and tried to help with were mostly on UC , the scheme is a I can describe only as a Orwellian nightmare. I've seen first hand what going hungry and being left without any income whatsoever. Considering how rich our country is it's not the way treat the most vulnerable people in our society. In fact it's quite contemptible.
Really? You think it’s understandable for somebody out of work to not want to go and earn an extra £100+ a week by taking up employment? I can’t get my head around that. They’ll be up over £400 a month. Why on Earth would anybody choose to not go for that? That’s without the obvious social and physical/mental health benefits you can gain through going into work.
Oh and another thing about this big bad DWP and universal credit. I needed to go on benefits for the first time in my life, last year, for about 7 months. I never had a problem with the process. I was never brought in and interrogated about my sickness like people claim happens to everybody lol. I simply filled in the forms and they replied to me a few weeks later saying they were awarding me money. No need to go in and see their doctors for an assessment. After I paid all my bills, I had approximately £850 a month disposable income left over. Obviously I needed to get my food shopping out of that. My life on benefits wasn’t hard, at all. Far from it. I was banking £250 a month into my savings out of my dole money. Good times.
Is there anybody else on here that would be over the moon if DWP just payed all your bills while you were unemployed I know I would having no pressure would be great.
I always thought folk got paid like £80 week or summat, am I wrong on this? I’d certainly work for £100 week extra personally, that’s £5,200 a year, I’d move job for not much more than that.
In the example I gave you would be better off by £129.50 per week for 2 weeks. If you worked the full month (4 weeks) you wouldn't receive any Universal Credit. On legacy benefits you would sign off the dole for a two week job and lose 2 weeks dole then sign back on again. Considering you would be earning £700 for the two weeks you deduct £280 dole and housing benefit from that you would be £420 better off. You would also receive dole and housing benefit for the other 2 weeks you weren't working which cancels that out. So you would be £700 better off by taking the hypothetical temporary job on legacy benefits. On Universal Credit you would be £259 better off.
So are you saying people who say it’s not worth working for are just to idle to work or am I reading this wrong?
What I am saying is you have less incentive to take temporary work on Universal Credit than on Jobseekers Allowance. Almost £500 less incentive in the example I gave.
