Appealing the Bedroom Tax

angrybuffalo

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It costs the taxpayer: so even less money left in the state pot for those who need it.

I thought this government had/are, bringing in an appeal fee now to make these appealants contribute, instead of the taxpayer footing all the costs?

you're thinking of the employment tribunals. disputing unfair dismissals has been made significantly more difficult by the government.

tribunal appeals for social security disputes are still free - nobody who cares about social justice would seriously suggest charging fees.

you do know that social security benefit claimants are also tax-payers, don't you?

Confuseddot

angrybuffalo wrote: »

no way of knowing what you see of course - doubt you have the 'all-seeing eye'. but perhaps i should have said 2 bed-roomed houses. there really is a problem there, because while there has been new-building of 2 bed apartments - aimed at young professionals, many are not really suitable for families with young children. families with 2 same sex children in a 3 bed home (often 2 beds + a box-room!) will be deemed to be under-occupying. (there was an interesting article in The Guardian featuring the Bushbury estate in Wolverhampton a week last Saturday - sorry I'm not allowed to send a link - where a shortage of 2 bedroomed houses was identified, and I believe is not untypical. ) Flats are not that suitable for young children, and I personally do believe that safe outdoor garden space is important for the development and well-being of young children.

A lot of the new-build 2 bedroom flats are in the private sector, where the rent (and consequentially the HB bill) is higher that a 3 bed council house. Imho, it is a great shame to oblige young families to move to a less suitable, more expensive accommodation, to achieve nothing good whatsoever, merely the satisfaction of some ideological delusion around the possibility that some people with very little have more than they ought to be allowed to have.

In most large cites flats are the only option, so are you saying all families with young children move out of the city.

By setting the LHA rates at 30% and restricting allowance to alledged need of rooms in the private sector started this process. It seems that those who are rent in the private sector are second class citizens, higher rent, unsecured, dodgey landlord, manage their own payments etc I think its espically bad for those under 35 only getting a shared allowance instead of a 1 bed flat. You are definitely deemed a second class citizen if you are single in this country.

The vast majority of those in private rentals would love the benefits associated with social tennacy and may be quite happy to pay the 14 or whatever the extra. I think that maybe each needs to see how the others live in order to understand.

I don't think anyone on this board thinks that severly disabled people should be asked to move but it seems like that is the argument brought out everytime someone tries to challenge something against those who want it stoped. I do think that the figures being banded about leave a lot to be desired as I have already stated.

I do worry that people will pick up on some of the parts on this and believe that they are in right and then end up in more difficulty.

nannytone_2

why not suggest that families with young children move out of the cities?

a lot of people on this forum seem to think it is fine to force disabled people 'into' the cities in order to find 1 bed properties

Credit-Crunched

angrybuffalo wrote: »

you're thinking of the employment tribunals. disputing unfair dismissals has been made significantly more difficult by the government.

tribunal appeals for social security disputes are still free - nobody who cares about social justice would seriously suggest charging fees.

you do know that social security benefit claimants are also tax-payers, don't you?

How naive to think it is free?

Does everyone involved in the process work pro bono I don't think so.

It has a cost somewhere, and rest assured it will be footed by the minority for the majority.

I would say that the ratio of benefits : taxes paid for benefit claimants is slightly higher than mine.

Taxes paid 40% benefits received Nil.

Then even if I do need them, I get turned away as I was foolish enough to save up, get a mortgage and some emergency funds for savings....

I wish people would realise what they get is very very generous, all this government is doing, is re-adjusting the ludicrous over spend of the Labour years.

mysterywoman10

I think it is very naive to think that if a government embarks on a policy of discrimination that it is the fault of the person being discriminated against if they appeal against that.

The government is responsible for the cost to the tax payers no one else in the bedroom tax.

They went against countless advice, recommendations for amendments and against case law that they have now agreed is lawful by dropping their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

More money would have be saved by scrapping the £10 christmas bonus!!! Lot less hassle and expense to the tax payer

Dunroamin

angrybuffalo wrote: »

no way of knowing what you see of course - doubt you have the 'all-seeing eye'. but perhaps i should have said 2 bed-roomed houses. there really is a problem there, because while there has been new-building of 2 bed apartments - aimed at young professionals, many are not really suitable for families with young children. families with 2 same sex children in a 3 bed home (often 2 beds + a box-room!) will be deemed to be under-occupying. (there was an interesting article in The Guardian featuring the Bushbury estate in Wolverhampton a week last Saturday - sorry I'm not allowed to send a link - where a shortage of 2 bedroomed houses was identified, and I believe is not untypical. ) Flats are not that suitable for young children, and I personally do believe that safe outdoor garden space is important for the development and well-being of young children.

A lot of the new-build 2 bedroom flats are in the private sector, where the rent (and consequentially the HB bill) is higher that a 3 bed council house. Imho, it is a great shame to oblige young families to move to a less suitable, more expensive accommodation, to achieve nothing good whatsoever, merely the satisfaction of some ideological delusion around the possibility that some people with very little have more than they ought to be allowed to have.

You're (supposed to be;)) new here so you may not have read the number of posts from single people and couples who've been allocated 2 bed properties - you might find the search function useful here.

If flats were unsuitable for children, there'd be an enormous number of families on the Continent who'd be in the deep doodoo where apartment living is the norm but obviously nothing less than a house will do for the Brits, particularly when they're not paying their own rent!

As for gardens, you must have led a very limited life if you're not aware of how many flats do have their own gardens for those families who have the same viewpoint that you do.

nannytone_2

i have to agree with dunroamin on this one.
i lived in a 7th floor flat until my kids were 7 amd 4.
we dodmy have a garden obviously, but i took them out everday, regardless of the weather.
theres always a park nearby and i also used to take them to my parents so they could play in the garden.

but ....
i have said previously that my flat was turned down by 2 families befor it was offered to me,,, purely because there is no garden

mysterywoman10

The fact is actually families are not the most affected in this tax.Again refer to the Equality Impact statement.

So in a way it is not relevant it is mainly couples caring for each other, older people caring for an adult son/daughter.

I read it that AB was talking more generally in response to another point.

Dumroming admit defeat, Thomas Hardy hasn't come back has in response to the well argued legal points?! I think it was an awesome victory not a failure!

You also stated you supported no discrimination against severely disabled people, or was that not true?

mysterywoman10

Or single disabled people sorry Nanny and how are you? Good to see you back

mysterywoman10

nannytone wrote: »

i have to agree with dunroamin on this one.
i lived in a 7th floor flat until my kids were 7 amd 4.
we dodmy have a garden obviously, but i took them out everday, regardless of the weather.
theres always a park nearby and i also used to take them to my parents so they could play in the garden.

but ....
i have said previously that my flat was turned down by 2 families befor it was offered to me,,, purely because there is no garden

Actually that was the point AB was making in regard to the Bushbury estate and why some people had ended up in larger houses and to move them was costing more. For other reasons more to do with the reputation of the estate.