Appealing the Bedroom Tax

mysterywoman10

nannytone wrote: »

she is also severely disabled

the scenario was a fit and wekk 25 year old being given 2 bed social housing

Yes Mazza has a lot of stress with her concerns with her daughter, so I don't know why she was dragged into it.

Surely it illustrates the point we were making about disabled people being affected?

mysterywoman10

bestpud wrote: »

I do the same when using the desktop but tend to use my phone lately and pop in and out over the course of the day. I'm sure that's common on all forums.

It's becoming mysterywoman's party trick to make a big statement about logging off and having a life etc, followed by more posts!

For some reason, you often feature in her bag of tricks! Must be love!

Haha party trick love/hate same thing so they say

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon wrote: »

Really, Mazza says all in her area are given 2 beds as there are no 1 beds. I assumed if no 1 bedrooms they'd all be given 2 beds. So either 1 bedrooms are in abundance or they are given 2 bedrooms.

It varies from area to area in our area no one bedrooms are available on the current list for under 55's that is another problem and there are very very few.

I think there is no doubt the biggest shortage is one beds. But there are very few one beds in the private sector as well most new builds are 2 beds around here with a very small (box room) second bedroom.

You would be very unlikely as we have already said to get allocated a 2 bed flat without some other difficulty being involved if you were 25 and single or even a couple.

mysterywoman10

angrybuffalo wrote: »

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

Nonsense. As a former legal caseworker funded by the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, I have of course read the Articles, and clearly they do support an appeal.
<snip>


<<<Three points here:

A council house is not the property of the tenant.>>>

No it isn’t. But you assumed incorrectly. housing benefit is regarded as a possession for the purposes of the HRA and A1P1 is engaged.



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

Irrelevant, because your assumption was faulty, also, since you already quoted it, you know that it is a Convention right, not to be conflated with domestic housing law. the emphasis is on deprivation - there could well be many people in cyprus exercising their rights - but the Secretary of State has already accepted that A1P1 applies to housing benefit.

<<<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.>>>

Justification and proportionality – to be demonstrated by the government - demonstrated, not simply asserted, to the satisfaction of the Court – spin, prejudice and disingenuous rhetoric is no good here.



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

Utter rot and you know it. The article confirms nothing and it is for the Court to judge, not Thomas Hardy– it is extremely arguable that the measure is disproportionate - in the circumstances of particular cases.




<<<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.>>>

The bedroom tax is denying just that. The issue is their right to a home and to a family life. There will be a wide variety of circumstances where the impact is so severe and so unfair that it breaches their human rights. Are you being paid to make such claims?


<<<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.>>>

Again, the decision is the Court’s not the Government’s, or yours. I would add that article 14 should also be cited – tenants reliant on housing benefit. The appeal process is the statutory appeal process, any affected housing benefit claimant can appeal to the independent tribunal simply by writing a letter identifying their wish to appeal, the decision appealed against and the date it was made, and simply stating the basic grounds of appeal. It’s more important to lodge the appeal in time – more detailed arguments can be submitted at a later stage. But I would also recommend people write to their MPs.

<<<Summary: another epic fail [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

>>>

Heh Heh! your arrogance is suspiciously like that of the Secretary of State's legal team - underestimate my arguments at your peril. Tell me, who has just withdrawn his appeal to the Supreme Court?[/QUOTE]

.............................

Confuseddot

:cool:

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

No deliberate extremes I have given real life examples. Anyway ................

Btw Dumroming I missed off the *e on the end of her so it should have been here....i.e. that you have been here since 7.09 yesterday morning and it is now 1.25 am the next day.

Back to bed for me left the lap top on !!

I wasn't talking about the examples, I was meaning that because I queried why they person with the disability couldn't pay for it out of one of their other benefit that I was then vilifing disabled and have no heart etc etc.

With regards the 25 year old and 2 bed social housing it all depends on the area and availability of housing, my friends that have received these flats are all working not sure if it makes a difference. Each area has their own allocation policy.

nannytone_2

bestpud wrote: »

You've told us many times that social housing is easy to come by in your area but there is no one bedroom properties.

Furthermore, you have said families don't want the abundance of two bedroom flats so turn them down.

Given all that, I'd say it is highly likely there is under 25s occupying two bedroom flats.

i never said there was an abundance of 2 bed flats. there are only 6 2 bed flats in the market town that i live in (social housing) but there are many 2 bed houses, both social and privately let.
the private houses are new ( mostly built within the past 8 years) and the council stock is mainly from the 50's.
the rents on the provate lets are much the same as the social housing rents.
so given that, many younger people that arent as concerned with long term security ... choose to rent the private lets instead.

mysterywoman10

Confuseddot wrote: »

:cool:

I wasn't talking about the examples, I was meaning that because I queried why they person with the disability couldn't pay for it out of one of their other benefit that I was then vilifing disabled and have no heart etc etc.

With regards the 25 year old and 2 bed social housing it all depends on the area and availability of housing, my friends that have received these flats are all working not sure if it makes a difference. Each area has their own allocation policy.

Because if you read the case we keep quoting it explains why DLA is not for housing costs and why it is discrimination and a breech of HR.

You latest example illustrates it better you need to compare to someone who is able to work/in work against a significantly disabled person who cannot work, to understand the discrimination.

Also if the issue is "over occupation" this cut to benefits will not address it will by your own example of someone who is in a 2 bedroomed property and working?

Which brings it back to initial allocations which should be done on the greatest need.

angrybuffalo

Dunroamin wrote: »

But 25 year olds renting in the private sector are only funded for a room in shared accommodation so is it fair that they get a whole 2 bed house/flat to themselves in social housing?

what is it you really want? you want to prescribe an absolute bare minimum of space which non-wealthy may occupy and ensure that as many people as possible are pushed to the baseline minimum requirement.? not everyone considers this to be fairness or equality.

there is a need for social housing. suck it up. there is not enough of it to go round (more could be built if the will was there). To say that it is unfair that some but not all benefit from social housing and therefore it must be taken from those who have it doesn't make the best sense. some people are born ugly - life is swings and roundabouts - they don't demand that better looking people must have their noses cut off to make life fair.
make your argument against social housing if you feel so impelled, and kid yourself as much as you like, but don't feel that the false push to the bottom arguments about unfairness fool everybody.

angrybuffalo

Confuseddot wrote: »

No I am not saying that, you are deliberately taking it to extremes. Show me where I have vilified disabled people ?

My understanding is that these benefits are received to help them be equal to "normal people" or however its put then surely if the need for an extra bedroom is due to the disability then it should be paid for by a disability benefit. In the same way that an adapted car is needed for wheelchair users and that is what the mobility component is for.

I put the situation into a calcultator thingy thats what came out.

then you will be pleased to know that you think like a Secretary of State. The Secretary of State fought long and hard to get the Department of Health to pick up the bill for the additional housing needs of disabled people arguing that it was a care need before conceding that he got that wrong. the problem with that argument is that you don't get much more concrete than a housing need - bricks and mortar and all that - and it is hard to call a room anything other than a room. a housing need arising from disability...can't really get round it by calling it a care need or a mobility need.

as for paying for it out of disability benefits, all benefits are calculated very carefully by government actuary to meet the purpose they are intended for, and the only benefit designed to meet housing costs is housing benefits. it took three court of appeal judges to tell the Secretary of State not to be such an !!! - he really should have known all about this but he still tried to argue it.

nannytone_2

Ziggazee wrote: »

JSA is for people capable of working, so.....just get a job. I was unemployed briefly and I went out and did everything I could to pay my mortgage and pay my bills! There are jobs out there.....ok they may not pay as much as people want, but they are there.

What is it with this society that 'expects' government handouts for doing nothing?!?

its that simple isnt it?

just get a job.
why doesnt everyone think of that!