Bedroom Tax and kids living away??

GlasweJen

I think it's an incredibly lucky person who gets DLA and doesn't spend it on disability. In my experience (overnight care 3 times a week from sister, mum or sister cook for me, carers from agency for 20 hours a week) my disability is a lot more costly than any money I can access from the government.

ab.da54

GlasweJen wrote: »

I think it's an incredibly lucky person who gets DLA and doesn't spend it on disability. In my experience (overnight care 3 times a week from sister, mum or sister cook for me, carers from agency for 20 hours a week) my disability is a lot more costly than any money I can access from the government.

My disability benefits also go on care needs however, even through reading these forums, there are people who do not pay for care needs, despite receiving DLA for that purpose.

nannytone_2

ab.da54 wrote: »

That's just you though nannytone.

Not everyone will be in the same position that you are in.

The trouble with personalising is that it makes it sound as though everyone will be the same.

of course it isnt just me!
but even if it was ....
dont you think that any consideration should be given for peoples different circumstances?

or, because they thought it looked good on paper ... everyone should just have to pay, regardless of the hardship it causes?

ab.da54

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Barriers?

So how does this solve the problem of a family with two severely disabled children who can't share for medical reasons?

Where is there lodger going to go? In the garden shed?!

And who would want to live in a shed with a family with two severely disabled children anyway?!!

By far the greatest number affected are families not single people. Who don't "actually" have this spare room to let out to a lodger!

There are barriers being thrown up.

A family with two severely disabled children who can't share for medical reasons, will be receiving an awful lot of money in benefits. They will not be on the breadline and, although I don't envy their position, as it cannot be an easy one, they will be able to fund the extra room.

ab.da54

nannytone wrote: »

of course it isnt just me!
but even if it was ....
dont you think that any consideration should be given for peoples different circumstances?

or, because they thought it looked good on paper ... everyone should just have to pay, regardless of the hardship it causes?

I have already stated that those who are more vulnerable and will suffer the most through this should be helped.

I have addressed this issue off the forum for what it is worth as I do not think the very vulnerable should suffer but I don't necessarily think that disabled people will fall under the category of most vulnerable.

You have know for a while that these changes are coming in.

What proactiove steps have you taken to address the shortfall you will need to find?

Have you contacted your MP with regards this issue?

nannytone_2

ab.da54 wrote: »

My disability benefits also go on care needs however, even through reading these forums, there are people who do not pay for care needs, despite receiving DLA for that purpose.

so that makes it ok to penalise everyone that is affected by this reduction in benefit?

we will have to be using the money given specifically to, in some part, met our disability needs.
so how will i fund my disability needs

those needs are not going to disappear, so obviously they will no longer be met.

and all because there is no 1 bed housing available.?

nannytone_2

ab.da54 wrote: »

There are barriers being thrown up.

A family with two severely disabled children who can't share for medical reasons, will be receiving an awful lot of money in benefits. They will not be on the breadline and, although I don't envy their position, as it cannot be an easy one, they will be able to fund the extra room.

that doesnt necessarily follow.
someone can have severe learning difficulties, but be perfectly mobile and only get low rate mobility.
the other sibling may have no night time needs and so get a lower rate of care.
but the mobile one may well keep the other one up all night if they share a room!

you cant say that just because someones benefit affects every aspect of their life, that they will also be receiving the highest rates of benefit.
it doesnt work like that

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

that doesnt necessarily follow.
someone can have severe learning difficulties, but be perfectly mobile and only get low rate mobility.
the other sibling may have no night time needs and so get a lower rate of care.
but the mobile one may well keep the other one up all night if they share a room!

you cant say that just because someones benefit affects every aspect of their life, that they will also be receiving the highest rates of benefit.
it doesnt work like that

Lots of children spoil their sibling's sleep patterns, it's not something specific to those with learning disabilities.

nannytone_2

ab.da54 wrote: »

I have already stated that those who are more vulnerable and will suffer the most through this should be helped.

I have addressed this issue off the forum for what it is worth as I do not think the very vulnerable should suffer but I don't necessarily think that disabled people will fall under the category of most vulnerable.

You have know for a while that these changes are coming in.

What proactiove steps have you taken to address the shortfall you will need to find?

Have you contacted your MP with regards this issue?

my MP is or should be on first name terms with me!

i contacted him regarding the changes in LHA ( even though it didnt affect me)
i contacted him regarding the housing benefit changes to the under 35's ( didnt affect me)
i have contacted him about these new reforms.
his answer? to tell me to write to Ian Duncan Smith because it is all hus fault.
i did wriye to IDS and received the generic 'why we need to do this' letter.

id like to know, what measures you think i could have taken to prepare for this but?

i was homeless when i was offered this property, and so couldnt turn it down.
but that still doesnt change the fact that there are NO 1 bed properties.
even the sheltered housing for pensioners are ALL 2 bedroomed.

jayII

nannytone wrote: »

so that makes it ok to penalise everyone that is affected by this reduction in benefit?

we will have to be using the money given specifically to, in some part, met our disability needs.
so how will i fund my disability need?

You talk as though there is a choice.

In reality this country is heavily in debt and almost everyone is having to cut back and make sacrifices, just to get by.

I now work 3 x as hard as I ever have at work, as do most other people I know, because jobs are being cut and people not replaced. The rest of us have to take up the slack. Lunch breaks and leaving on time are a thing of the past. At the same time times are very hard financially, I can't afford holidays, days out, gym membership, meals out, or any other luxuries.

I'm not complaining, I feel I'm lucky to have a job and be able to pay my (private) rent. But that doesn't change the fact that I and many others are going without and struggling to get by.

Times are hard, money is scarce and cuts have to be made by almost everyone.

Where do you think the money should come from to subsidise over-occupiers?