Appealing the Bedroom Tax

mysterywoman10

Nanny I've said this to you before I think you would make a good case for appeal because you fall between the two camps. I'm sure we can get you the support you need to appeal You can't move to a one bed even if you wanted to and a case like yours is very important I believe.

It isn't just about the severity of the disablity, it's about the effect on that person.

You only have to PM if you want to take it further totally up to you.

mysterywoman10

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

Oh you have to laugh don't you!

Confuseddot

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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.

No-one as far as I have read, has said that people can't appeal. The worry is that expections set too high and not cause anyone to get further into trouble by not paying and then 8 month down the line having a huge problem when the tribunal goes against them and they have to pay.

It wasn't as arguement I just find it strange that they don't use the same figures in both reports, as they are based on the 08/09 housing survey I don't really suppose it matters when they do the actual report.

Am sure most people wouldn't notice the 10 gone.

bloolagoon

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?

To be frank, anyone who is affected in private rental as they are the direct comparable peers.

I personally would add adapted properties, victims of child sexual abuse and mixed sex rooms, homes where carer is live in and the bedroom cannot suffice, or no dining room, and anywhere there are no downsizeable properties in either private or social within a set radius.

mysterywoman10

Confuseddot wrote: »

No-one as far as I have read, has said that people can't appeal. The worry is that expections set too high and not cause anyone to get further into trouble by not paying and then 8 month down the line having a huge problem when the tribunal goes against them and they have to pay.

It wasn't as arguement I just find it strange that they don't use the same figures in both reports, as they are based on the 08/09 housing survey I don't really suppose it matters when they do the actual report.

Am sure most people wouldn't notice the 10 gone.

Appealing doesn't mean you don't pay in the meantime and no one has suggested otherwise please let me make that abosultely clear. People will have to pay regardless of whether they appeal or not unless they get a DHP to help them.

Nanny knows full well she will have to pay whether she appeals or not.

stevemLS

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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.

It was specifically argued that the council had failed to have proper regard to the higher number of children and disabled people which would be affected. The court held:

"x) The Council were entitled to conclude that the impact on disabled people and children was not uniform; and that in the circumstances the creation and operation of the hardship fund is the best way to help those in severe financial hardship. It is clear from the consultation materials, the EIA and the minutes of full Council meetings (including Cabinet Reports) that the Council did consider whether there were alternative means of developing a scheme which had less impact on persons who share protected characteristics including disabled people and children."

And of course judicial review forms case law, it is just one particular form of proceedings in a specialist division of the High Court.

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon wrote: »

To be frank, anyone who is affected in private rental as they are the direct comparable peers.

I personally would add adapted properties, victims of child sexual abuse and mixed sex rooms, homes where carer is live in and the bedroom cannot suffice, or no dining room, and anywhere there are no downsizeable properties in either private or social within a set radius.

Totally agree and as AB pointed out if you look back at her posts there were enough problems already with the sizing criteria in private rented to even consider bringing it into SH.

It is a totally flawed policy from start to finish in private and social. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Confuseddot

nannytone wrote: »

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

No i won't get into specifics and I beleive then its get too personal and thats not the point. I am not a expert in disabilities and housing adaptions etc As a benefit claimant myself i can see the difficulties as I going through them.

But I will say that nothing I have seen/read has made me change my mind about this policy.

mysterywoman10

stevemLS wrote: »

It was specifically argued that the council had failed to have proper regard to the higher number of children and disabled people which would be affected. The court held:

"x) The Council were entitled to conclude that the impact on disabled people and children was not uniform; and that in the circumstances the creation and operation of the hardship fund is the best way to help those in severe financial hardship. It is clear from the consultation materials, the EIA and the minutes of full Council meetings (including Cabinet Reports) that the Council did consider whether there were alternative means of developing a scheme which had less impact on persons who share protected characteristics including disabled people and children."

And of course judicial review forms case law, it is just one particular form of proceedings in a specialist division of the High Court.

Are you talking about the Council Tax scheme here??? Not the bedroom tax? Sounds like it?

Anyway sounds like they had bad lawyers from looking at what you have described.

nannytone_2

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Are you talking about the Council Tax scheme here??? Not the bedroom tax? Sounds like it?

Anyway sounds like they had bad lawyers from looking at what you have described.

i sent a pm ... did you get it?