Spare room changes: 'I won't go quietly'

[StottyZr]

How difficult would it be to claim that a now unoccupied room is being used as a prayer room?

Is this a plausible way to avoid the tax cost?

I was told this being done by muslims, the source of information being a bit of a racist so I don't really trust it

The guy also claimed this reason is used when building extentions so the house cannot be re-banded which sounds even more like crap.

Anybody care to clarify and put my mind at rest?


I also pointed out to him, if it is possible any religion can claim it so it couldn't be specific to Muslims. I received a frown

[Oakey]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Expand on this please. Would that Soldiers off the Street fall under this?

[BlackVanDyke]

eccles said:

Broccers said:

There was a thing on the box last night about a woman needing an extra room for her dying other half (they were young) and as she had lost her baby the council said no chance now. Other half later died before programme was aired. What a sad state we are in if we can't help those of certain death out by providing appropriate housing.

That's not quite how it was now is it..... She was fine in her house, but when the boyfriend moves in, all of a sudden there wasn't enough space. He got her up the duff, so that was used as more ammo for a new house, also throw in the emotive issue of his terminal brain tumour. So they failed to get a house because they didn't fit any of the criteria, but they made great emphasis on his tumour, so the council relented and gave them a bigger house.

This is a classic (apart from the brain tumour bit)case of what's wrong with the system at the moment, you make your needs change and expect the council to help you out. If she wasn't on benefits how would she have managed?

... hang on just one minute there. Someone who is dying CANNOT generally be nursed in the marital bed or marital bedroom. With a brain tumour in particular, this may be the case for quite some time - months, perhaps even a couple of years if they're lucky/unlucky with location or symptoms. Occasionally, more than a couple of years - think a slow-growing brainstem tumour that causes paralysis and seizures but will not get to a point where it'll kill for ages and ages. This is a classic example of a couple who cannot continue to share a bedroom indefinitely. The fact that they were already asking for a move, or that they started a family - not unreasonable to do it in a bit of a hurry when your life partner is dying - are both kinda secondary.

If they weren't on benefits they'd have ended up on them pretty bloody quickly, in those circumstances. He can't work, and she needs to look after him and their baby when it turns up.

[Oakey]

BlackVanDyke said:

... hang on just one minute there. Someone who is dying CANNOT generally be nursed in the marital bed or marital bedroom. With a brain tumour in particular, this may be the case for quite some time - months, perhaps even a couple of years if they're lucky/unlucky with location or symptoms. Occasionally, more than a couple of years - think a slow-growing brainstem tumour that causes paralysis and seizures but will not get to a point where it'll kill for ages and ages. This is a classic example of a couple who cannot continue to share a bedroom indefinitely. The fact that they were already asking for a move, or that they started a family - not unreasonable to do it in a bit of a hurry when your life partner is dying - are both kinda secondary.

If they weren't on benefits they'd have ended up on them pretty bloody quickly, in those circumstances. He can't work, and she needs to look after him and their baby when it turns up.

Perhaps these are things they should have taken into consideration before they decided to have a kid? Me and my girlfriend would like kids, we can't afford it, we certainly wouldn't attempt to if one of us was terminally ill.

[BlackVanDyke]

Oakey said:

BlackVanDyke said:

... hang on just one minute there. Someone who is dying CANNOT generally be nursed in the marital bed or marital bedroom. With a brain tumour in particular, this may be the case for quite some time - months, perhaps even a couple of years if they're lucky/unlucky with location or symptoms. Occasionally, more than a couple of years - think a slow-growing brainstem tumour that causes paralysis and seizures but will not get to a point where it'll kill for ages and ages. This is a classic example of a couple who cannot continue to share a bedroom indefinitely. The fact that they were already asking for a move, or that they started a family - not unreasonable to do it in a bit of a hurry when your life partner is dying - are both kinda secondary.

If they weren't on benefits they'd have ended up on them pretty bloody quickly, in those circumstances. He can't work, and she needs to look after him and their baby when it turns up.

Perhaps these are things they should have taken into consideration before they decided to have a kid? Me and my girlfriend would like kids, we can't afford it, we certainly wouldn't attempt to if one of us was terminally ill.

You might feel a bit differently about it if you knew you wanted kids one day but were facing the threat of not surviving to see 'one day'. Not a choice I'd make - if I was going to become a parent then I'd want to do it within my means to the greatest possible extent, especially as far as housing goes - but I know many people do feel a very strong urge and urgency to reproduce in that situation and I don't think it's completely unreasonable as an emotion, even if it's not the choice (I think) I would make in those circumstances.

[Emeye]

I've not got time to read the whole thread yet, but wanted to add this:

My Gran was in exactly the same situation as Blugnu's nan about 10 years ago before she passed away - we tried for years to get her into a more suitable property but the council never had anything available.

When she did pass away, a family from Poland were given her house!

How the hell is giving her house to a large family who have just rolled up here from another country going to help the council housing crisis!?!

Surely my Gran's house should have gone to a UK family who had been on the waiting list for years?

[youngsyr]

BlackVanDyke said:

Oakey said:

BlackVanDyke said:

... hang on just one minute there. Someone who is dying CANNOT generally be nursed in the marital bed or marital bedroom. With a brain tumour in particular, this may be the case for quite some time - months, perhaps even a couple of years if they're lucky/unlucky with location or symptoms. Occasionally, more than a couple of years - think a slow-growing brainstem tumour that causes paralysis and seizures but will not get to a point where it'll kill for ages and ages. This is a classic example of a couple who cannot continue to share a bedroom indefinitely. The fact that they were already asking for a move, or that they started a family - not unreasonable to do it in a bit of a hurry when your life partner is dying - are both kinda secondary.

If they weren't on benefits they'd have ended up on them pretty bloody quickly, in those circumstances. He can't work, and she needs to look after him and their baby when it turns up.

Perhaps these are things they should have taken into consideration before they decided to have a kid? Me and my girlfriend would like kids, we can't afford it, we certainly wouldn't attempt to if one of us was terminally ill.

You might feel a bit differently about it if you knew you wanted kids one day but were facing the threat of not surviving to see 'one day'. Not a choice I'd make - if I was going to become a parent then I'd want to do it within my means to the greatest possible extent, especially as far as housing goes - but I know many people do feel a very strong urge and urgency to reproduce in that situation and I don't think it's completely unreasonable as an emotion, even if it's not the choice (I think) I would make in those circumstances.

I'm with Oakey, it's not the state's job to finance people's desire to have children. If you want to have children, why should someone else pay to support them?

I would suggest that before becoming a parent it's your responsibility to ensure you can support them, which includes taking care of unexpected circumstances (savings for a rainy day and life insurance).

[Broccers]

Wow pretty heartless even for you lot that is.

Hope you never get anything nasty and find out what its all about.

[BlackVanDyke]

youngsyr said:

BlackVanDyke said:

Oakey said:

BlackVanDyke said:

... hang on just one minute there. Someone who is dying CANNOT generally be nursed in the marital bed or marital bedroom. With a brain tumour in particular, this may be the case for quite some time - months, perhaps even a couple of years if they're lucky/unlucky with location or symptoms. Occasionally, more than a couple of years - think a slow-growing brainstem tumour that causes paralysis and seizures but will not get to a point where it'll kill for ages and ages. This is a classic example of a couple who cannot continue to share a bedroom indefinitely. The fact that they were already asking for a move, or that they started a family - not unreasonable to do it in a bit of a hurry when your life partner is dying - are both kinda secondary.

If they weren't on benefits they'd have ended up on them pretty bloody quickly, in those circumstances. He can't work, and she needs to look after him and their baby when it turns up.

Perhaps these are things they should have taken into consideration before they decided to have a kid? Me and my girlfriend would like kids, we can't afford it, we certainly wouldn't attempt to if one of us was terminally ill.

You might feel a bit differently about it if you knew you wanted kids one day but were facing the threat of not surviving to see 'one day'. Not a choice I'd make - if I was going to become a parent then I'd want to do it within my means to the greatest possible extent, especially as far as housing goes - but I know many people do feel a very strong urge and urgency to reproduce in that situation and I don't think it's completely unreasonable as an emotion, even if it's not the choice (I think) I would make in those circumstances.

I'm with Oakey, it's not the state's job to finance people's desire to have children. If you want to have children, why should someone else pay to support them?

I would suggest that before becoming a parent it's your responsibility to ensure you can support them, which includes taking care of unexpected circumstances (savings for a rainy day and life insurance).

I don't disagree - my own choice would also be to operate within the resources available, not to rely on something more than what you know you have/will have at your disposal. But I'm not sure that applying an ideological stance about poor people becoming parents is necessarily an appropriate response to a very unusual and very tragic situation where a young couple are in a now-or-never dilemma.

[djt100]

Our local councils (sutton and Epsom & Ewell) will move you if you have a 3 bed and only a couple in the house. I know of 2 people this has happened to and i completely agree with it in principle.

The problem comes when you have lived in and looked after a house for XX years only to be told you have to move to a house 10 miles away from your current location , you then have no friends local and you get put in a sh!t hole area and badly maintained property, at a later stage in life you really can not afford to be starting over again with no local support.

now that is not fair.

[Oakey]

djt100 said:

The problem comes when you have lived in and looked after a house for XX years only to be told you have to move to a house 10 miles away from your current location , you then have no friends local and you get put in a sh!t hole area and badly maintained property, at a later stage in life you really can not afford to be starting over again with no local support.

now that is not fair.

you mean like people who rent privately often have to do?

[Cyder]

Oakey said:

djt100 said:

The problem comes when you have lived in and looked after a house for XX years only to be told you have to move to a house 10 miles away from your current location , you then have no friends local and you get put in a sh!t hole area and badly maintained property, at a later stage in life you really can not afford to be starting over again with no local support.

now that is not fair.

you mean like people who rent privately often have to do?

Pow right in the kisser!

[eccles]

BlackVanDyke said:

eccles said:

Broccers said:

There was a thing on the box last night about a woman needing an extra room for her dying other half (they were young) and as she had lost her baby the council said no chance now. Other half later died before programme was aired. What a sad state we are in if we can't help those of certain death out by providing appropriate housing.

That's not quite how it was now is it..... She was fine in her house, but when the boyfriend moves in, all of a sudden there wasn't enough space. He got her up the duff, so that was used as more ammo for a new house, also throw in the emotive issue of his terminal brain tumour. So they failed to get a house because they didn't fit any of the criteria, but they made great emphasis on his tumour, so the council relented and gave them a bigger house.

This is a classic (apart from the brain tumour bit)case of what's wrong with the system at the moment, you make your needs change and expect the council to help you out. If she wasn't on benefits how would she have managed?

... hang on just one minute there. Someone who is dying CANNOT generally be nursed in the marital bed or marital bedroom. With a brain tumour in particular, this may be the case for quite some time - months, perhaps even a couple of years if they're lucky/unlucky with location or symptoms. Occasionally, more than a couple of years - think a slow-growing brainstem tumour that causes paralysis and seizures but will not get to a point where it'll kill for ages and ages. This is a classic example of a couple who cannot continue to share a bedroom indefinitely. The fact that they were already asking for a move, or that they started a family - not unreasonable to do it in a bit of a hurry when your life partner is dying - are both kinda secondary.

If they weren't on benefits they'd have ended up on them pretty bloody quickly, in those circumstances. He can't work, and she needs to look after him and their baby when it turns up.

....hang on a minute there....perhaps you should have actually watched the show.

She already had kids by a previous relationship. Gets new boyfriend, he moves in, everything fine. He gets ill and all of a sudden they want a bigger house....she then finds out she pregnant, and chucks that in the pot as ammo for a new house. They get turned down in front of the cameras, then council (no doubt aware of their public image) decide they are a special case and gives them a bigger house across the road. Boyfriend was dead by the time the show was put on on telly.Girlfriend left in nice big house.

[Broccers]

eccles said:

....hang on a minute there....perhaps you should have actually watched the show.

She already had kids by a previous relationship. Gets new boyfriend, he moves in, everything fine. He gets ill and all of a sudden they want a bigger house....she then finds out she pregnant, and chucks that in the pot as ammo for a new house. They get turned down in front of the cameras, then council (no doubt aware of their public image) decide they are a special case and gives them a bigger house across the road. Boyfriend was dead by the time the show was put on on telly.Girlfriend left in nice big house.

and now she will have to leave it - thats good, right?

[Deva Link]

Oakey said:

you mean like people who rent privately often have to do?

They're not generally in rented accommodation for their whole lives though.

[Dixie68]

Deva Link said:

Oakey said:

you mean like people who rent privately often have to do?

They're not generally in rented accommodation for their whole lives though.

People on benefits shouldn't be in publicly-funded housing all their lives either. Not being able to get a job and progress during a whole lifetime? If you have a genuine disability then fine, if not then it should be time limited at the very least.

[Derek Smith]

Dixie68 said:

People on benefits shouldn't be in publicly-funded housing all their lives either. Not being able to get a job and progress during a whole lifetime? If you have a genuine disability then fine, if not then it should be time limited at the very least.

Are you mistaking people on benefits with those who are unemployed? It's an easy mistake to make, it must be as the DM does it on a daily basis. Someone who works full time might well be on benefits due to low income. In fact there are many reasons why someone in full time work could be on benefits.

[Oakey]

Derek Smith said:

Are you mistaking people on benefits with those who are unemployed? It's an easy mistake to make, it must be as the DM does it on a daily basis. Someone who works full time might well be on benefits due to low income. In fact there are many reasons why someone in full time work could be on benefits.

It's even worse if they're in employment and spend their entire life in social housing. What, they can't raise themselves up over an entire lifetime?

Of course, a lot of them can but choose not to because they like the cheaper rent of social housing and having all the maintenance taken care of for them.

[Deva Link]

Oakey said:

It's even worse if they're in employment and spend their entire life in social housing. What, they can't raise themselves up over an entire lifetime?

You're just trolling now.

[Chainguy]

Deva Link said:

Oakey said:

It's even worse if they're in employment and spend their entire life in social housing. What, they can't raise themselves up over an entire lifetime?

You're just trolling now.

He really isn't you know. He just described my parents.