Appealing the Bedroom Tax

ComeTheRevolution

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

If it's been 'suggested several times' then perhaps you could consider that this poster is under siege and lay off.

Dunroamin

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

And your's is not?

I know many people who are disabled who do not have hospital beds....

And yet yesterday you said,

"I must move in different circles then because everyone I know and am talking about is in a hospital bed."

Quite a change in 24 hours.

bloolagoon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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.

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?

I cannot profess to know anything about ESA and the support group. I have been given less than a 20% chance of survival past 3 years, I do not need another another room. I need held at night and would fail in my quest to beat the odds if I could not be held or share a bed. I cannot see how a whole group need another bedroom, certain individuals, no matter what if any group (as many I know from Cancer groups do not claim as their partners work and they have no work history cannot claim), it should be on individual merits.

What are the support group criteria, would all need an additional room. Would those in WRAG not?

As I say, I am unfamiliar with the criteria but suspect that the group placement is not the best placed to a blanket approach.

bloolagoon

ComeTheRevolution wrote: »

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.

I do not think they consulted anyone in reality. Hence why we saw originally statistics of 2/3 disabled, yet the disabled covered stutters, diabetics, those with hearing aids who hear as well as a spectacle wearer and many other examples.

I honestly wish they had performed a more indepth consultation but have not seen any document that shows this.

Dunroamin

ComeTheRevolution wrote: »

If it's been 'suggested several times' then perhaps you could consider that this poster is under siege and lay off.

I've no intention of saying anything else on the subject. You can lead a horse to water......

mysterywoman10

ComeTheRevolution wrote: »

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.

This is not defined it does not have to be an "employee" it could be a friend, relative or volunteer carer, it is the need for the extra bedroom and yes to some extent I would agree it would be down to the interpretation of the Council. For example it could be employees 4 nights of the week and family the other 3.

But clearly one has to observe employment law as you rightly mention and it gets quite complicated when employees are working nights and days.

ComeTheRevolution

bloolagoon wrote: »

I do not think they consulted anyone in reality. Hence why we saw originally statistics of 2/3 disabled, yet the disabled covered stutters, diabetics, those with hearing aids who hear as well as a spectacle wearer and many other examples.

I honestly wish they had performed a more indepth consultation but have not seen any document that shows this.

And there seems to be no awareness that conditions fluctuate and can deteriorate so that someone moving to a one-bedroomed abode may at some point require 24/7.

Not unlikely as moving house is recognised by the NHS as being a top cause of stress which in turn is recognised as being a top cause of medical aggravation.

bloolagoon

ComeTheRevolution wrote: »

And there seems to be no awareness that conditions fluctuate and can deteriorate so that someone moving to a one-bedroomed abode may at some point require 24/7.

Not unlikely as moving house is recognised by the NHS as being a top cause of stress which in turn is recognised as being a top cause of medical aggravation.

Indeed particularly with mental health which is a mountain to climb in its own right. Imagine sleeping next to someone who thinks you are out to kill them, the enemy, that you wish harm. In the morning they love you, it can be overnight, not just in the future for some.

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon wrote: »

I cannot profess to know anything about ESA and the support group. I have been given less than a 20% chance of survival past 3 years, I do not need another another room. I need held at night and would fail in my quest to beat the odds if I could not be held or share a bed. I cannot see how a whole group need another bedroom, certain individuals, no matter what if any group (as many I know from Cancer groups do not claim as their partners work and they have no work history cannot claim), it should be on individual merits.

What are the support group criteria, would all need an additional room. Would those in WRAG not?

As I say, I am unfamiliar with the criteria but suspect that the group placement is not the best placed to a blanket approach.

I'm really sorry to hear of your own personal circumstances

I was suggesting in more as an indication of figures than anything else. I agree it should be decided on personal circumstances but it would be very difficult to do that in regulations without allowing for some generality. If a doctor says there is a medical reason for them not to share and it is their choice then not to do, then I would say the need should be met.

There may be times when the partner would still lie on the bed with the other person for many hours (holding them) but still has their own room for getting some sleep. I do believe sleep is very important for carers.

mysterywoman10

bloolagoon wrote: »

I do not think they consulted anyone in reality. Hence why we saw originally statistics of 2/3 disabled, yet the disabled covered stutters, diabetics, those with hearing aids who hear as well as a spectacle wearer and many other examples.

I honestly wish they had performed a more indepth consultation but have not seen any document that shows this.

I think a lot of charities representing different groups did try and make representations but they were largely ignored.

I agree many conditions are very fluctuating and mental health issues are not really considered at all in it.