No Hosepipe ban for Benefit Claimants!
Discussion
Fair I guess, can't have little Kayden, Hayden, Chardonay and Kiera-Leanne going without the paddling pool being filled 
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/benefits-claimants-i...
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/benefits-claimants-i...
Once you get beyond the headline it looks like it's linked to a tariff called WaterSure.
Though from a quick read that seems to have some pretty mad assumptions in it like if you have three kids under 19 you might need to use loads of water so you might be exempt.
I might have misunderstood as I'm not really sure I want to get too angry about water - but there do seem to be some pretty broad brush exemptions.
Though from a quick read that seems to have some pretty mad assumptions in it like if you have three kids under 19 you might need to use loads of water so you might be exempt.
I might have misunderstood as I'm not really sure I want to get too angry about water - but there do seem to be some pretty broad brush exemptions.
"Benefits claimants told to ignore hosepipe ban amid calls of 'two-tier' policy"
That's quite a selective headline... I've been trying to get my head around the detail and rational.
WaterSure is a scheme that caps water bills for low-income households who have unavoidably high water use. To qualify for WaterSure, you generally must meet both of these requirements:
1) Receive a qualifying means-tested benefit, such as Universal Credit, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit or certain tax credits.
2) Have high essential water use because either:
- A) Someone in your household has a qualifying medical condition that requires significant water use, or
- B) You have three or more dependent children under 19 living at home (typically in full-time education).
I understand a 2A scenario, but not 2B. A is actually captured on its own in other schemes.
What I don't understand is why receiving benefits changes the position. If the justification is having three or more dependent children why should a family on benefits be exempt while an otherwise identical family just above the benefits threshold isn't? I don't see how claiming benefits affects the objective of reducing water use in a 2B scenario.
That's quite a selective headline... I've been trying to get my head around the detail and rational.
WaterSure is a scheme that caps water bills for low-income households who have unavoidably high water use. To qualify for WaterSure, you generally must meet both of these requirements:
1) Receive a qualifying means-tested benefit, such as Universal Credit, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit or certain tax credits.
2) Have high essential water use because either:
- A) Someone in your household has a qualifying medical condition that requires significant water use, or
- B) You have three or more dependent children under 19 living at home (typically in full-time education).
I understand a 2A scenario, but not 2B. A is actually captured on its own in other schemes.
What I don't understand is why receiving benefits changes the position. If the justification is having three or more dependent children why should a family on benefits be exempt while an otherwise identical family just above the benefits threshold isn't? I don't see how claiming benefits affects the objective of reducing water use in a 2B scenario.
MrBogSmith said:
"Benefits claimants told to ignore hosepipe ban amid calls of 'two-tier' policy"
That's quite a selective headline... I've been trying to get my head around the detail and rational.
WaterSure is a scheme that caps water bills for low-income households who have unavoidably high water use. To qualify for WaterSure, you generally must meet both of these requirements:
1) Receive a qualifying means-tested benefit, such as Universal Credit, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit or certain tax credits.
2) Have high essential water use because either:
- A) Someone in your household has a qualifying medical condition that requires significant water use, or
- B) You have three or more dependent children under 19 living at home (typically in full-time education).
I understand a 2A scenario, but not 2B. A is actually captured on its own in other schemes.
What I don't understand is why receiving benefits changes the position. If the justification is having three or more dependent children why should a family on benefits be exempt while an otherwise identical family just above the benefits threshold isn't? I don't see how claiming benefits affects the objective of reducing water use in a 2B scenario.
Agreed. Why ban for some and not all, makes no sense. You either have enough water to go around or you don't.That's quite a selective headline... I've been trying to get my head around the detail and rational.
WaterSure is a scheme that caps water bills for low-income households who have unavoidably high water use. To qualify for WaterSure, you generally must meet both of these requirements:
1) Receive a qualifying means-tested benefit, such as Universal Credit, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit or certain tax credits.
2) Have high essential water use because either:
- A) Someone in your household has a qualifying medical condition that requires significant water use, or
- B) You have three or more dependent children under 19 living at home (typically in full-time education).
I understand a 2A scenario, but not 2B. A is actually captured on its own in other schemes.
What I don't understand is why receiving benefits changes the position. If the justification is having three or more dependent children why should a family on benefits be exempt while an otherwise identical family just above the benefits threshold isn't? I don't see how claiming benefits affects the objective of reducing water use in a 2B scenario.
TX.
Warhavernet said:
Pensioners, immigrants, the filthy rich or benefit claimants, no-one should be allowed to waste water on paddling pools or gardens.
Even if it's not in short supply?Never been a hosepipe ban (aiui, the locals are fairly proud of it!) where I live, due to Portsmouth Water supplying from aquifers. It's made watering in my newly seeded lawn (yeah, I know...) much easier.
The new dog isn't fussed by paddling pool - but also isn't fussed about being active in the heat. Last dog, it was a must!
Warhavernet said:
Pensioners, immigrants, the filthy rich or benefit claimants, no-one should be allowed to waste water on paddling pools or gardens.
Have no fear, as a benefit claimant i wont be wasting water on any of the above. I shall however continue to hose down my cars and motorcycles, as part of the washing routine. 
The Watersure tariff was introduced 27 years ago and those on it have been exempt all that time.
I'm also exempt from any hosepipe ban, should Affinity introduce one here, because I'm on the Priority Services Register - I have a medical device which requires electricity. The same register covers both power and water.
I'm also exempt from any hosepipe ban, should Affinity introduce one here, because I'm on the Priority Services Register - I have a medical device which requires electricity. The same register covers both power and water.
rscott said:
The Watersure tariff was introduced 27 years ago and those on it have been exempt all that time.
I'm also exempt from any hosepipe ban, should Affinity introduce one here, because I'm on the Priority Services Register - I have a medical device which requires electricity. The same register covers both power and water.
Why should you be exempt though? Why would your situation mean you can water your garden Vs say me who can't?I'm also exempt from any hosepipe ban, should Affinity introduce one here, because I'm on the Priority Services Register - I have a medical device which requires electricity. The same register covers both power and water.
TX .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff