Appealing the Bedroom Tax

bloolagoon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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

On that we will see eye to eye. When you witness what the truly vulnerable deal with, the so called emergency housing and lack of any form of support it opens your eyes. What I cannot accept is the reason for moving is due to higher rentals in private. That is akin to putting them in a higher order than private rentals and is certaintly no valid argument for exclusion.

mysterywoman10

Confuseddot wrote: »

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.

Well if you are not an expert in disabilites then how can you really judge?

Two bedroomed property whether house or flat -

So couples who can't share a bedroom when caring for a severely disabled partner should be taxed. Do you want graphic details pictures? Hospital beds, oxygen, tracking, adaptations what would convince you?

Where as the next door neighbour single with 1 child pays looses nothing?

Not that I'm saying either should loose but if that isn't discrimination then I don't know what is?!

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon wrote: »

On that we will see eye to eye. When you witness what the truly vulnerable deal with, the so called emergency housing and lack of any form of support it opens your eyes. What I cannot accept is the reason for moving is due to higher rentals in private. That is akin to putting them in a higher order than private rentals and is certaintly no valid argument for exclusion.

I know it's very very wrong but applying the same criteria to SH will leave even less options open and making it harder to try and remedy the situation in private is the way I see it. This will endorse the system in private not the other way around.

We all know it won't free up properties, if they were buiding more then yes but it won't, you know in your heart of hearts it won't. And the severely disabled will suffer and their famiies I know they wlll.

It's building and providing affordable housing for all that is the issue, this tax won't do that.

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon the bottom line is whether it be a 2 bedroomed property and it could be a very small 2nd bedroom just enought to get a bed in which my daughter's flat was is there really much difference between that and a large one bed?

To a single person who is very vulnerable/disabled no it doesn't but to a couple who need to share with high needs it does, and to a Mum caring for a severely disabled adult of 30 it does.

But the bottom line is they are all vulnerable and need to be housed.

mysterywoman10

nannytone wrote: »

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

No nothing yet

Confuseddot

Well no-one as its not a tax but in an ideal world the disabled person should not have their benefit reduced. However we not in ideal world assuming the couple get esa, dla, carears allowance and premiem then finding the extra for the rent shouldn't be as difficult. I know you don't agree with me but hats my thoughts.

If someone is under 25 say and in social 2 bed and gets 56 a week then the proportion they have to pay is disproportion to others which would be age discrimination too ?

Ziggazee

nannytone wrote: »

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.

How bl**dy judgmental!!! :mad:

I'm in 100% agreement....and have my own reasons for being so......but it doesn't mean I've never suffered hardship!!

nannytone_2

again youre assuming that everyone with a life changing disability attracts the high levels of benefit.

and the scenasrio quoyed abpve [rpbably do get asignificant amount more than someone on JSA would, but they get it because it reglects the higher cosys of having a disability.

the DLA and premiums are there to directly meet those costs... and not the costs of housing!

mysterywoman10

Confuseddot wrote: »

Well no-one as its not a tax but in an ideal world the disabled person should not have their benefit reduced. However we not in ideal world assuming the couple get esa, dla, carears allowance and premiem then finding the extra for the rent shouldn't be as difficult. I know you don't agree with me but hats my thoughts.

If someone is under 25 say and in social 2 bed and gets 56 a week then the proportion they have to pay is disproportion to others which would be age discrimination too ?

No because if they are fit and able they can change their situation that is the difference. If they are not and disabled then yes.

The whole tax is ridiculous for either situation though which is why I cannot understand why anyone in their right minds supports it. Because realisticly a 25 year old fit and healthy with no other problems would not be allocated a 2 bedroomed house in the first place, whether on JSA or not.

mysterywoman10

nannytone wrote: »

again youre assuming that everyone with a life changing disability attracts the high levels of benefit.

and the scenasrio quoyed abpve [rpbably do get asignificant amount more than someone on JSA would, but they get it because it reglects the higher cosys of having a disability.

the DLA and premiums are there to directly meet those costs... and not the costs of housing!

And Nanny is quite correct in this argument and this is what the case we have quoted upholds.

I've replied to PM nanny.