Appealing the Bedroom Tax

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

I agree as well but I think we digress Nanny because families are not the ones primarily affected.

nannytone_2

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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

i havent been anywhere!

just getting fed up with the same old circular argument.

the people that are in 100% agreement with the reforms will only ever change their mind when something happens that negatively affects them or those that they care about.

until then they will be quite happy because the amount of suffering and harship that some people will be sealimg with is incomprehensible to them.

they are all in a position where the necessities of life can be afforded.

i can remember my sister being dumbstruck to my reaction, when she said she'd had a lovely bit of beef for sunnday dinner, and had bought enough so the dogs could have some too.
it never occured to her that a roasting joint wasnt even an option

Confuseddot

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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

Every policy change could be argued to be discriminating against something.

The arguement here is that tax payer are subsidisng social tennants who have more rooms than they have allocated.

Again before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, severly disabled should not be included as everyone agrees. The level of diability and where and how the axe should fall is different.

So you really think that a single person age 27 in a 3 bed council house should be subsided to stay there ?

I still wonder why they used DLA and ESA in the impact assesment for the private properties and then DDA for social. Maybe raise the figures ....

stevemLS

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

You might want to read the Articles before suggesting they would support an appeal - the two you have quoted do the opposite.

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary
to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions
or penalties.

Three points here:

A council house is not the property of the tenant.

The right to peaceful enjoyment comes under the tort of nuisance. Nothing the local authority is doing would be contrary to this.

Even if the provision was found to be applicable, the protocol gives an exception whereby the state can deny the right where it is in the general interest (which the under occupancy charge is), and in order to secure payment of taxes and other contributions.

Summary: this Article confirms the authority's ability to apply the under occupancy charge.

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the
law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.

No one is denying a claimant the right to family life. They are allowed sufficient bedrooms to house their family.

Again, an exception is given where a measure is for the economic well being of the country, which is the main motivation behind the under occupancy charge.

Summary: another epic fail

I agree.

The first applications for Judicial Review have been comprehensively dismissed.

See R (otao Buckley and ors) v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 512 (Admin) decision handed down last week.

nannytone_2

i really dont think you will find many 27 year old, fit and well, single people living in 3 bedroomed social housing do you?

maybe you should define what you mean by 'severly disabled'.

i have been told many times on this forum that i am 'just blind'
so clearly that isnt classed by people on this forum as severe.

who would you consider that this reduction in housing benefit is unfairly targetting?

mysterywoman10

Confuseddot wrote: »

Every policy change could be argued to be discriminating against something.

The arguement here is that tax payer are subsidisng social tennants who have more rooms than they have allocated.

Again before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, severly disabled should not be included as everyone agrees. The level of diability and where and how the axe should fall is different.

So you really think that a single person age 27 in a 3 bed council house should be subsided to stay there ?

I still wonder why they used DLA and ESA in the impact assesment for the private properties and then DDA for social. Maybe raise the figures ....

Do you really believe there are numerous healthy single people in 3 bedroomed properties apart from some of the exceptions like the Bushbury?

Actually one of the issues with LHA was that they originally failed to carry out a Impact Statement. It was done retrospectively I can get you the evidence for this if you like it formed part of the case. I do not dispute the issue is just as bad in the private sector far from it.

No everyone is not claiming discrimination. Anyway your argument is illogical because if they show more are disabled on their figures that means they wanted everyone to think more people were disabled?? How does that work?
Surely then it would then follow they wanted to be seen to be clamping down/discriminating against disabled people? Duh?

And no one yet responds to the saving money aspect of scrapping the £10 xmas allowance have they?

Anyway I'm totally fed up with this debate now. The bottom line is people have the right of appeal and no matter how much you all whinge on that is a FACT.

mysterywoman10

stevemLS wrote: »

I agree.

The first applications for Judicial Review have been comprehensively dismissed.

See R (otao Buckley and ors) v Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 512 (Admin) decision handed down last week.

I'll await AB response on this but I would say from first impressions it was a very general case,

Judical review does not form case law.

Confuseddot

nannytone wrote: »

i really dont think you will find many 27 year old, fit and well, single people living in 3 bedroomed social housing do you?

maybe you should define what you mean by 'severly disabled'.

i have been told many times on this forum that i am 'just blind'
so clearly that isnt classed by people on this forum as severe.

who would you consider that this reduction in housing benefit is unfairly targetting?

I am not getting into the ins and out of specific situations as I do not know or understand the complexities involved. I do object to someone who has a stutter being classed as severly disabled and excluded. I do acknowledge that this is a very difficult area to define.

I do know quite a few people like that, not here but in the town where I am from. My sister/husband and baby stayed with me and my parents in a 2 bed house for 2 years waiting for a two bed council flat after having to sell up as the interest rates were so high and her job after maternity leave wasn't guaranteed so we are going back a while.

I caught 5 mins of the one show the other night on this topic and the people on there seemed to be in same family, same estate never having worked and the idea of sharing completly alien to them. When the presenter did point out to one woman that it wasn't her house it was the councils she was quite shocked.

nannytone_2

yjpse people arent typical. they are picked [ure;y sor the sensationalist attention they will attract.

i understand that you dont want to get into specific situations, because that is when things get tough.
when you stop seeing people as benefit claimants, and start seeing them as the individuals they are, and start seeing the difficulties their situations bring ....

it is a lot harder to say you still agree with these reforms as you will learn firsthand about the hardship that is being caused

Dunroamin

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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.

Aren't these also families?

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!

Sorry, I've no idea what you're on about; your statement doesn't make any sense.

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

I don't support discrimination against anybody but this isn't a discrimination issue.