Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The challenge to the bedroom tax (more particularly, its impact on disabled people) has now been to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of the Court below and found against the Government. Next stop, the Supreme Court.
I suspect becasue the issue at stake there is failure of the individuals LAs to operate the Discretionary housing payments system properly ( which combined with DLA/PIP are meant to cover the additional costs) rather than the application of the levelling of the playing field over Housing benefit payments ... mph1977 said:
Breadvan72 said:
The challenge to the bedroom tax (more particularly, its impact on disabled people) has now been to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of the Court below and found against the Government. Next stop, the Supreme Court.
I suspect becasue the issue at stake there is failure of the individuals LAs to operate the Discretionary housing payments system properly ( which combined with DLA/PIP are meant to cover the additional costs) rather than the application of the levelling of the playing field over Housing benefit payments ... When you start getting too many "exceptions to the rule" you start wondering if the rule correct in the first place.
And as an update to our particular saga involving "bedroom tax" - sadly, my brother in law died last week. However, due to the heroic efforts made by my wife over almost three years of fighting his corner for him (he had mental health issues), he was able to stay in the old family home right up to the last week of his life.
My wife is currently down at the house sorting out his clutter (there is a lot) before the house is handed back to the Housing Association for a DEEP clean and refurbishment.
And as an update to our particular saga involving "bedroom tax" - sadly, my brother in law died last week. However, due to the heroic efforts made by my wife over almost three years of fighting his corner for him (he had mental health issues), he was able to stay in the old family home right up to the last week of his life.
My wife is currently down at the house sorting out his clutter (there is a lot) before the house is handed back to the Housing Association for a DEEP clean and refurbishment.
Eric Mc said:
When you start getting too many "exceptions to the rule" you start wondering if the rule correct in the first place.
Yes, it's correct. Despite the left's repeated efforts to label it a tax, it's simply saying that people should not be funded by the taxpayer to rent a bigger house than they need.
Eric Mc said:
...sadly, my brother in law died last week. ....
Condolences.Johnnytheboy said:
Yes, it's correct.
Despite the left's repeated efforts to label it a tax, it's simply saying that people should not be funded by the taxpayer to rent a bigger house than they need.
I totally agree.Despite the left's repeated efforts to label it a tax, it's simply saying that people should not be funded by the taxpayer to rent a bigger house than they need.
Johnnytheboy said:
Eric Mc said:
When you start getting too many "exceptions to the rule" you start wondering if the rule correct in the first place.
Yes, it's correct. Despite the left's repeated efforts to label it a tax, it's simply saying that people should not be funded by the taxpayer to rent a bigger house than they need.
Johnnytheboy said:
If you are happy with tax payers who can't afford a spare room subsidising others to have one, then we are never going to agree.
It's working out what is meant by "spare room" that is causing all the problems. Indeed, it was the crucial point in this court case. I see a few more cases like this will be coming down the lineAnd, as has been said many times, magicking up alternative accommodation for those who are willing to dowwnsize is not proving very easy. We tried really hard to find an alternative accommodation for my brother in law but it was fiendishly difficult.
In the end, we were able to have him put on an "at risk" category which meant that the local Council were able to leave him where he was. Because of his mental health issues (which we had to get formally diagnosed), he just couldn't cope with change.
If we hadn't been able to fight his case for him, God knows what would have happened to him.
Johnnytheboy said:
mph1977 said:
Breadvan72 said:
The challenge to the bedroom tax (more particularly, its impact on disabled people) has now been to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of the Court below and found against the Government. Next stop, the Supreme Court.
I suspect becasue the issue at stake there is failure of the individuals LAs to operate the Discretionary housing payments system properly ( which combined with DLA/PIP are meant to cover the additional costs) rather than the application of the levelling of the playing field over Housing benefit payments ... Also if the landlord is private you'd only get HB for the size of the household, not the property ... that;s reserved for RSLs , who if they aren;t the council may well be managing the whole housing service i nthe district ...
also in the case of people with disabilities who are RSL tennants they 'got used' to not having to use the care and daily living component of DLA/PIP to pay for over entitlement housing ...
mph1977 said:
That is the point
Also if the landlord is private you'd only get HB for the size of the household, not the property ... that;s reserved for RSLs , who if they aren;t the council may well be managing the whole housing service i nthe district ...
also in the case of people with disabilities who are RSL tennants they 'got used' to not having to use the care and daily living component of DLA/PIP to pay for over entitlement housing ...
That's a lot of acronyms. Also if the landlord is private you'd only get HB for the size of the household, not the property ... that;s reserved for RSLs , who if they aren;t the council may well be managing the whole housing service i nthe district ...
also in the case of people with disabilities who are RSL tennants they 'got used' to not having to use the care and daily living component of DLA/PIP to pay for over entitlement housing ...
But it still isn't remotely fair to make people who can't afford their own spare room to pay other people to get one rent free.
If they don't need it, as the people in these test cases may well do.
mph1977 said:
Breadvan72 said:
The challenge to the bedroom tax (more particularly, its impact on disabled people) has now been to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of the Court below and found against the Government. Next stop, the Supreme Court.
I suspect becasue the issue at stake there is failure of the individuals LAs to operate the Discretionary housing payments system properly ( which combined with DLA/PIP are meant to cover the additional costs) rather than the application of the levelling of the playing field over Housing benefit payments ... Apparently one was an at risk woman who needed a panic room. Not totally sure why a single bedroom couldn't be converted into such a thing. Or a whole flat. Or why there aren't other alternatives for such situations. But hopefully those things were assessed on a sensible basis.
One was a room used periodically for the carer of a disabled guy.
I would imagine there will be exceptions to every situation and perhaps these situations warranted an exception. Doesn't mean to say the rule itself should be abandoned as generally it makes sense.
Safety nets or comfort blankets?
(Lack of suitable housing stock to match the demographic may be a problem. In which case I'd also expect exceptions to be made. But over time that should be forced to level out).
One was a room used periodically for the carer of a disabled guy.
I would imagine there will be exceptions to every situation and perhaps these situations warranted an exception. Doesn't mean to say the rule itself should be abandoned as generally it makes sense.
Safety nets or comfort blankets?
(Lack of suitable housing stock to match the demographic may be a problem. In which case I'd also expect exceptions to be made. But over time that should be forced to level out).
Johnnytheboy said:
But it still isn't remotely fair to make people who can't afford their own spare room to pay other people to get one rent free.
I've got a spare room, and I can afford it quite comfortably. I suspect a lot of people with spare rooms can actually afford them.How are the government to know whether a) house holds not in receipt of HB have a spare room, and b) whether those house hold can or can't afford that spare room?
Answer: they can't. It's not relevant.
The questions are:
- do we accept that some households need help with their housing cost, funded by public monies? (irrespective of whether they do/don't have a spare room they can/can't afford?)
Answer: yes.
- do we accept that where people get help with housing cost, it should not be dis-proportionate to their needs?
Answer: I think most people do, but probably don't understand they do, or just prefer to froth about the "nasty" party
- when determining "needs", should allowance be made for vulnerable groups?
Answer: yes (as per court decision)
- where vulnerable people lose financially from the so-called "bedroom tax", can they get financial support?
Answer: yes, from their local council's discretionary support fund, although I recall this money was not "ring fenced" so the Council could plead poverty and say they have no funds available.
- can we still blame Labour for all this mess?
Answer: damn right we can.
The_Burg said:
There is no such thing as bedroom tax! Never has been. There is a reduction in benefit if you have more room than you need.
This view is too simplistic. How do you define "need"? This has been pondered in court 3 times now, and will soon get a 4th go.
And what about situations where smaller housing is simply not available? Should they just tape off the room, and "promise" not to fill it up with junk?
Or should households just accept they're losing financial support with their housing because of a situation they can't do anything about, "tighten their belt" elsewhere, and just be lucky they live in a country where generous members of car websites are around to fund their wanton lifestyles?
It's all very simple from behind a keyboard.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
...
It's all very simple from behind a keyboard.
...
I tend to agree.It's all very simple from behind a keyboard.
...
But equally it seems very easy to make it so complicated that nothing can ever change - which is why we have a mammoth tax code with more holes than Swiss cheese, and a massive benefits system in the same state (one arguably leads to the other)
Edge cases torpedo sensible manoeuvres all the time. And the selfishness and stupidity of our electorate is at the root (coaxed on by the opposition parties of whatever colour).
We probably need to find more sensible ways of dealing with edge cases than running them through courts of law (assuming that's what was done). But outside of that, non-story surely?
(What would be preferable is to simplify the whole benefits system root and branch. Will never happen though).
Murph7355 said:
Apparently one was an at risk woman who needed a panic room. Not totally sure why a single bedroom couldn't be converted into such a thing. Or a whole flat. Or why there aren't other alternatives for such situations. But hopefully those things were assessed on a sensible basis.
One was a room used periodically for the carer of a disabled guy.
I would imagine there will be exceptions to every situation and perhaps these situations warranted an exception. Doesn't mean to say the rule itself should be abandoned as generally it makes sense.
Safety nets or comfort blankets?
(Lack of suitable housing stock to match the demographic may be a problem. In which case I'd also expect exceptions to be made. But over time that should be forced to level out).
These are the circumstances in which Discretionary Hopusing payments are meant to be used for ... One was a room used periodically for the carer of a disabled guy.
I would imagine there will be exceptions to every situation and perhaps these situations warranted an exception. Doesn't mean to say the rule itself should be abandoned as generally it makes sense.
Safety nets or comfort blankets?
(Lack of suitable housing stock to match the demographic may be a problem. In which case I'd also expect exceptions to be made. But over time that should be forced to level out).
it may be a little tin foil hattery but i do wonder if as previously suggested there is not an element of brinkmanship from either LAs or militant factions within the workforce here ...
it also seems to escape some people that the subsidy existed only if you were renting from the council or another 'registered soical landlord'
the obvious conflict of interest between the council or RSL as landlord and the council or in some cases RSLs as contracted out providers managing the housing dept and deciding who gets HB ,
if you rent privately and get HB it;s paid o nthe basis of your household size / eligibility ( various rules over gender + age of children and if other dependents / 'none dependent' household members make up the household)
the obvious conflict of interest between the council or RSL as landlord and the council or in some cases RSLs as contracted out providers managing the housing dept and deciding who gets HB ,
if you rent privately and get HB it;s paid o nthe basis of your household size / eligibility ( various rules over gender + age of children and if other dependents / 'none dependent' household members make up the household)
Government possibly going to abolish Supported Housing.....
https://www.learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk/cuts-to-...
https://www.learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk/cuts-to-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff