Appealing the Bedroom Tax

bloolagoon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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.

Mental and other hidden/none visible health is often ignored. It can and will change rapidly at times within 24 hours, although not visible like a wheelchair, it is real.

angrybuffalo

Dunroamin wrote: »

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.

[FONT=&quot]A daily mail red herring? May I refer you back to my original post on this subject? - nothing that I said suggested an assumption on my part that all flats are tower blocks, and even my reference to tower blocks doesn't in any way imply any blanket assumption - I was making a general point only.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]By saying that some children do not thrive in flats (due to confinement and restricted play) I am not saying that all children fail to thrive. And the marked preference of most parents for a house/secure private garden over a flat, in the interests of their children has been recognized and is undeniable. I acknowledge that we are talking about a preference rather than a need here.

However, the most pertinent point, which you have not responded to,concerned [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]2 child families having to move out of a 3 bedroomed (or two and a boxroom) council house where they are settled, to live in a two-bedroomed private sector flat, where the rent is higher, and the flat is less suited to the family's needs? this is a realistic scenario, and if the numbers of such families are not huge in social security terms, eg not in hundreds of thousands, it is actually a significant matter if the children affected number hundreds or thousands. If it is your child affected, it is of the utmost significance to you.

So what is achieved by stressing this family financially and emotionally (moving is costly), disrupting the children and placing their well-being at risk?

Please, tell me what is achieved?

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

mysterywoman10

angrybuffalo wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]A daily mail red herring? May I refer you back to my original post on this subject? - nothing that I said suggested an assumption on my part that all flats are tower blocks, and even my reference to tower blocks doesn't in any way imply any blanket assumption - I was making a general point only.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]By saying that some children do not thrive in flats (due to confinement and restricted play) I am not saying that all children fail to thrive. And the marked preference of most parents for a house/secure private garden over a flat, in the interests of their children has been recognized and is undeniable. I acknowledge that we are talking about a preference rather than a need here.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]However, the most pertinent point, which you have not responded to,concerned [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]2 child families having to move out of a 3 bedroomed (or two and a boxroom) council house where they are settled, to live in a two-bedroomed private sector flat, where the rent is higher, and the flat is less suited to the family's needs? this is a realistic scenario, and if the numbers of such families are not huge in social security terms, eg not in hundreds of thousands, it is actually a significant matter if the children affected number hundreds or thousands. If it is your child affected, it is of the utmost significance to you. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]So what is achieved by stressing this family financially and emotionally (moving is costly), disrupting the children and placing their well-being at risk?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please, tell me wh[/FONT][FONT=&quot]at is achieved?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Excellent points but I had to put my glasses on to read it

ab.da54

angrybuffalo wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]A daily mail red herring? May I refer you back to my original post on this subject? - nothing that I said suggested an assumption on my part that all flats are tower blocks, and even my reference to tower blocks doesn't in any way imply any blanket assumption - I was making a general point only.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]By saying that some children do not thrive in flats (due to confinement and restricted play) I am not saying that all children fail to thrive. And the marked preference of most parents for a house/secure private garden over a flat, in the interests of their children has been recognized and is undeniable. I acknowledge that we are talking about a preference rather than a need here.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]However, the most pertinent point, which you have not responded to,concerned [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]2 child families having to move out of a 3 bedroomed (or two and a boxroom) council house where they are settled, to live in a two-bedroomed private sector flat, where the rent is higher, and the flat is less suited to the family's needs? this is a realistic scenario, and if the numbers of such families are not huge in social security terms, eg not in hundreds of thousands, it is actually a significant matter if the children affected number hundreds or thousands. If it is your child affected, it is of the utmost significance to you. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]So what is achieved by stressing this family financially and emotionally (moving is costly), disrupting the children and placing their well-being at risk?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please, tell me what is achieved?[/FONT]



[/FONT]

[/FONT]

You mention no disability here, but tell me, what is so wrong with a family, who are receiving a very generous benefits package, paying a small amount each week for a roof over their heads.

The world over, lots of people would give anything to have a house, money in the bank, every single week and yet so many people are complaining that, for this roof over their heads, they have to pay around £10 a week rent.

This £10 a week approx ensures repairs are covered, ensures they are not sleeping in a hostel, or on the streets. They have somewhere to sleep, protected from the elements. They have somewhere they can wash, somewhere they can eat. They will not lose this home unless they break the tenancy agreement, fail to pay this £10 approx rent.

What is so wrong with that?

Why have we become a nation where people who are receiving quite a generous benefits package each week, are up in arms at having to provide a small bit of security for the children they love?

I feel more sympathy for those on basic JSA, who can't immediately change their circumstances than I do for a family in receipt of a generous benefits package.

Dunroamin

angrybuffalo wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]A daily mail red herring? May I refer you back to my original post on this subject? - nothing that I said suggested an assumption on my part that all flats are tower blocks, and even my reference to tower blocks doesn't in any way imply any blanket assumption - I was making a general point only.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]By saying that some children do not thrive in flats (due to confinement and restricted play) I am not saying that all children fail to thrive. And the marked preference of most parents for a house/secure private garden over a flat, in the interests of their children has been recognized and is undeniable. I acknowledge that we are talking about a preference rather than a need here.

However, the most pertinent point, which you have not responded to,concerned [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]2 child families having to move out of a 3 bedroomed (or two and a boxroom) council house where they are settled, to live in a two-bedroomed private sector flat, where the rent is higher, and the flat is less suited to the family's needs? this is a realistic scenario, and if the numbers of such families are not huge in social security terms, eg not in hundreds of thousands, it is actually a significant matter if the children affected number hundreds or thousands. If it is your child affected, it is of the utmost significance to you.

So what is achieved by stressing this family financially and emotionally (moving is costly), disrupting the children and placing their well-being at risk?

Please, tell me what is achieved?

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Never having read the DM in my life, I know little about their taste in herrings, red or otherwise.

It's difficult to have a sensible discussion with the average Brit as they are all too consumed with the UK's obsession with living in a house rather than a flat and common sense goes out of the window. However, in the situation you mention I find it hard to understand why a family such as you describe shouldn't contribute a small sum out of the generous benefits they receive towards remaining in the 3 bed house rather than move to somewhere smaller. Do people really have to have every single thing provided for them these days?

ETA

Oops, I seem to have covered the same ground as ab.da.

bloolagoon

angrybuffalo wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]A daily mail red herring? May I refer you back to my original post on this subject? - nothing that I said suggested an assumption on my part that all flats are tower blocks, and even my reference to tower blocks doesn't in any way imply any blanket assumption - I was making a general point only.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]By saying that some children do not thrive in flats (due to confinement and restricted play) I am not saying that all children fail to thrive. And the marked preference of most parents for a house/secure private garden over a flat, in the interests of their children has been recognized and is undeniable. I acknowledge that we are talking about a preference rather than a need here.

However, the most pertinent point, which you have not responded to,concerned [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]2 child families having to move out of a 3 bedroomed (or two and a boxroom) council house where they are settled, to live in a two-bedroomed private sector flat, where the rent is higher, and the flat is less suited to the family's needs? this is a realistic scenario, and if the numbers of such families are not huge in social security terms, eg not in hundreds of thousands, it is actually a significant matter if the children affected number hundreds or thousands. If it is your child affected, it is of the utmost significance to you.

So what is achieved by stressing this family financially and emotionally (moving is costly), disrupting the children and placing their well-being at risk?

Please, tell me what is achieved?

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

There are little houses here in social with a garden, some shared yards, but few gardens. Many families live in flats, the council does, however, give excellent parks and green facilities free of charge.

Why do they need a garden when there are parks and fields?

I agree it is a preference, for many (even owner occupiers) in certain cities a luxury as opposed to a preference.

306chris

ab.da54 wrote: »

You mention no disability here, but tell me, what is so wrong with a family, who are receiving a very generous benefits package, paying a small amount each week for a roof over their heads.

The world over, lots of people would give anything to have a house, money in the bank, every single week and yet so many people are complaining that, for this roof over their heads, they have to pay around £10 a week rent.

This £10 a week approx ensures repairs are covered, ensures they are not sleeping in a hostel, or on the streets. They have somewhere to sleep, protected from the elements. They have somewhere they can wash, somewhere they can eat. They will not lose this home unless they break the tenancy agreement, fail to pay this £10 approx rent.

What is so wrong with that?

Why have we become a nation where people who are receiving quite a generous benefits package each week, are up in arms at having to provide a small bit of security for the children they love?

I feel more sympathy for those on basic JSA, who can't immediately change their circumstances than I do for a family in receipt of a generous benefits package.

My family are in this category. If you think that the benefits we receive are generous then come and live with us for a week. I’ve been out of work since Oct having worked since I was 16 (now 32). One point that pigs me right off is the one size fits all approach to this. This is a real example

My neighbour and I both live in identical houses i.e. the floor layout is the same (as is the case for all virtually all the 2 and 3 bed houses on our estate) . Now she has two very large bedrooms and I have one large, one medium and one box room. We both have a boy and a girl each (all under 10 different ages though) now they have put up a partition to give the same layout as me and won’t be subject to reduced benefits, but if we were to knock through and make it a two bed it wouldn’t alter thing either. How is that fair?

Also, please explain to me how you can get a letter saying that you are entitled to x amount to live on each week as that is the min amount by law you need to live on and then for them to take away 10% of the gross amount?

bloolagoon

306chris wrote: »

My family are in this category. If you think that the benefits we receive are generous then come and live with us for a week. I’ve been out of work since Oct having worked since I was 16 (now 32). One point that pigs me right off is the one size fits all approach to this. This is a real example

My neighbour and I both live in identical houses i.e. the floor layout is the same (as is the case for all virtually all the 2 and 3 bed houses on our estate) . Now she has two very large bedrooms and I have one large, one medium and one box room. We both have a boy and a girl each (all under 10 different ages though) now they have put up a partition to give the same layout as me and won’t be subject to reduced benefits, but if we were to knock through and make it a two bed it wouldn’t alter thing either. How is that fair?


Also, please explain to me how you can get a letter saying that you are entitled to x amount to live on each week as that is the min amount by law you need to live on and then for them to take away 10% of the gross amount?

That does seem rather a strange situation. Are your neighbours owners or tenants? Many have to pay towards their rent in private rental from the minimum.

mysterywoman10

No its not strange she has explained why 2 chldren under 10 of the same sex are expected to share. Some properties have two larger bedrooms and some 3 but the same over all size. So her's is classed as 3 bed but the other is still a 2 bed (the partion) would have to be removed and made good on leaving the property though.

Your point about the minimum income the government says you should have to live on is the pertinate one because as you rightly point out you now have less to live on than your neighbor in the same situation with a different layout house of the same size

I'd use this as grounds for an appeal, please see AB's points on the government actuary. It appears to be a conflict of regulations, maybe she can advise further on this?

bloolagoon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

No its not strange she has explained why 2 chldren under 10 of the same sex are expected to share. Some properties have two larger bedrooms and some 3 but the same over all size. So her's is classed as 3 bed but the other is still a 2 bed (the partion) would have to be removed and made good on leaving the property though.

Your point about the minimum income the government says you should have to live on is the pertinate one because as you rightly point out you now have less to live on than your neighbor in the same situation with a different layout house of the same size

I'd use this as grounds for an appeal, please see AB's points on the government actuary. It appears to be a conflict of regulations, maybe she can advise further on this?

It is strange unless they have a dual aspect window as then the second room isn't a bedroom. Also I'm suprised their local authority allowed a partition and door as depending on layout there could be fire safety regulations.