Appealing the Bedroom Tax

mysterywoman10

I agree with the above bloolagoon.

A couple of points re sleep in carers one of the sticking points that some LA's are using is that the "disabled" person has to be the tenant or partner of the tenant. There is a case that has had to have a 16 year old made joint tenant to get around this, thankfully the HA involved were happy to help with this.

At present as far as I know if the sleep-in carer is non resident then they will get the allowance for the room (apart from exceptions mentioned above) if they are resident they don't, but that would not apply to say a mother/father looking after a adult son/daughter who would not be affected (unless they have another spareroom). So it primarily affects "couples".

I still thnk that the sizing criteria in both sectors is not the best way of dealing with things but don't disagree with any of your points in relation to a compromise as suggested above.

mysterywoman10

Sorry didn't answer fully your question, I'm not aware of any LA's presently who are exempting "couples" I think the law is now very much in their favour if you apply the recent case law but until LA's get "orders" from above it is highly unlikely they will do this.

bloolagoon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Sorry didn't answer fully your question, I'm not aware of any LA's presently who are exempting "couples" I think the law is now very much in their favour if you apply the recent case law but until LA's get "orders" from above it is highly unlikely they will do this.

The point I make is that I have seen no one who disagrees with you on this, however, stating DDA is an exemption is not sufficient. The arguments are on the terms used, not one individual situation. I suspect clearly cannot confirm others personal opinions that true cases need support.

Someone who snores, has restless legs, are not the ones discussed. Perhaps if people had clear definitions these fallouts would not occur, which is my personal observation only. I do not see much if any lack of support for genuine, the sandline on genuine will differ, hence clarification.

Dunroamin

angrybuffalo wrote: »

<<<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.>>>

it's not an unusual view, and my own local authority, among others, adopted a policy that tower blocks were unsuitable for families with children

But why assume that all flats are in tower blocks and that this is what's meant when talking about bringing up children in flats?

In my county there are none and all flats are low rise with either individual or communal gardens and that's not uncommon in many other areas.

ComeTheRevolution

Ziggazee wrote: »

Interesting argument that a disabled person needs a spare room so an overnight carer can stay occasionally. What about the divorced/separated father who can only afford a 1 bedroomed flat and can't claim more than the 1 bed rate cos he doesn't have full time care of his children? The same man that sleeps on a camp bed or settee when his children stay? If its good enough for them then surely a carer can be accommodated in a similar way 1or 2 nights a week

A carer is an employee, the home they are in overnight is their workplace.

If employment law slides to the extent that their rest time is compromised, the ability to do the job as alert personnel would threaten the health and safety of their client.

In regard to the separate issue of parenting, it's a tough situation particularly as the government encouraged shared residency a few years ago but there is no comparison due to the above points.

bloolagoon

ComeTheRevolution wrote: »

A carer is an employee, the home they are in overnight is their workplace.

If employment law slides to the extent that their rest time is compromised, the ability to do the job as alert personnel would threaten the health and safety of their client.

In regard to the separate issue of parenting, it's a tough situation particularly as the government encouraged shared residency a few years ago but there is no comparison due to the above points.

Not all carers are an employee. Some (though less frequent) are just lovely people who care and give up free time in receipt of no monetary value, either for love or morality.

Dunroamin

sunnyone wrote: »

That suits you and Krisscross but it dosnt suit all though, most disabled people have no need of a seperate bedrooms or a overnight carer thought, its a straw man argumant made by those that are totally against any benefit changes at all and who are totally unable to listen to reason.

As I said on another thread, my late inlaws slept separately when in the same situation as we are which was fine as it was their choice. However, to argue that they need two bedrooms and we need only one (if we were both in social housing) would be totally unfair as we both made our choice made on personal preference rather than actual need.

mysterywoman10

bloolgan I understand what you are saying. I've never said as far as I'm aware that everyone who meets the DDA would be classed as "disabled" in the terms of the sandline. No I don't consider snoring, restless legs etc. to be a dsability.

I suppose an easy definition of the group I am talking about would primarily be in the support group. (with a few exceptions!)

I don't beieve the bedroom tax is right full stop regardless of disability if that clarifies my position or the best way to go about solving housing issues (that aside)

The compromise you suggest about protections I'm assuming is an overall protection (unrelated to disablity)?

However much we debate figures and definitions yes the sandline will differ I agree.

Perhaps if we knew how many were in the support group this would be a starting point?

Dunroamin

nannytone wrote: »

a lot of us are disabled.
i myself am bling.
i have special software that allows me to joimn in this forum.

how many unskilled jobs that are available would welcome a blind member of staff?

But why not gain some skills so that you aren't looking for unskilled work as has been suggested several times?

ComeTheRevolution

bloolagoon wrote: »

Not all carers are an employee. Some (though less frequent) are just lovely people who care and give up free time in receipt of no monetary value, either for love or morality.

Of course but I can't comment on how the new rules would effect those circumstances as I don't know. Presumably it would depend upon whether the council recognised the need. What I stated about health and safety should still apply IMO but the government chose not to consult me.