Appealing the Bedroom Tax

wrightk

appealed a month ago, just found out today it has been refused. We were offered a 3 bedroom house as we were assessed as in need of a 3 bed house due to our daughters condition and the fact she cannot share with our youngest daughter. she receives high rate care and mobility. I included all the paediatric reports, ot etc all stating it would be impossible for her to share and still declined.

It all seems very vague at the moment, no letter. I had to find out by calling them and i dont know if i have any grounds for appeal or who to contact for some more advice?

could anyone help please?

many thanks

mysterywoman10

wrightk wrote: »

appealed a month ago, just found out today it has been refused. We were offered a 3 bedroom house as we were assessed as in need of a 3 bed house due to our daughters condition and the fact she cannot share with our youngest daughter. she receives high rate care and mobility. I included all the paediatric reports, ot etc all stating it would be impossible for her to share and still declined.

It all seems very vague at the moment, no letter. I had to find out by calling them and i dont know if i have any grounds for appeal or who to contact for some more advice?

could anyone help please?

many thanks

Hi I'm really surprised they have done this given that about two weeks ago the DWP sent out a circular saying that severely disabled children should not have to share.

Presumably you asked them to look at the decision again and now they have turned you down?

You need to refer to the following bulletin issued by the DWP the LA should be aware of it.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/gorry-v-secretary-state-work-and-pensions

You daughter should be exempt particularly if you have produced medical evidence.

Ring them tomorrow say you have sought advice and quote the information in the link above.

If they say it's because it's not yet in the regulations quote the following:

Local authorities are obliged under s6 of the Human Rights Act to act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Following Gorry, they must allocate an extra room to disabled children who are unable to share a room. This is primary legislation and so trumps the Regulations. The Guidance merely confirms this.

This shouldn't need to go to appeal because there is clear guidance and law that the LA should be applying. Did they give any reasons?

Any more problems PM and I can give more help. It would be useful to know which authority it is as well if you didn't mind sharing?

wrightk

thankyou, i have just called again to clarify armed with your advice. Now they are saying that the paperwork submitted to my welfare reforms officer has gone missing and they have no notes on the system to suggest i have appealed. so i have to submit it all again which i will do

Thanks for the advice and will let you know

mysterywoman10

That sounds more positive sounds like an administrative thing, they are probably snowed under with paperwork and not been able to update it on to the system.

Make sure when you send it all in again that you put a covering letter and quote the advice above again and that you want the original decision re-looked at. Also make it clear you have made two phone calls and been informed that the paperwork was missing from when you sent it on X date so you are covered from the point of view of dates etc. because there is a one month time limit. Send the letter recorded delivery or take it in personally and ask for a receipt from them.

Hopefully it should all got through smoothly, yes do let me know how you get on.

All the best.

[Deleted User]

It's all a bit of a shambles though with left foot not knowing what right arm is doing

Not the staffs fault I know , but who are the decision makers in that particular dept / borough or does each one just make up it's own rules it seems with no-one REALLY knowing what the real and current laws and rulings are on the bedroom tax situation

It was a poor thought out law in my opinion , impractical , unfair to the vunerable and downright impossible to assess who to say yes to and who to say no to without any clear cut rules!!!

Glad ALL disabled children who cannot share do NOT have to share now but they should not have tried to impose this in the first place it is such an unworkable system but it can't be ''can't pay , won't pay'' it will be ''can't pay , lose your home'' no choice and the only choice I have left it seems ( at the moment ) is what I can have for dinner tonight , but that might change soon anyway if they impose a voucher or payment card system!

neverdespairgirl

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

A council house is not the property of the tenant.

I am not suggesting that A 1 of Protocol 1 does apply in this case.

However, I do know that "property" in this sense doesn't have to mean ownership of goods or chattels in law.

For example, a licence to be a taxi driver, or to sell alcohol, is capable of being "property" within the meaning of the protocol.

neverdespairgirl

angrybuffalo wrote: »

A local authority cannot lawfully dispose of an appeal in this way - but I suggest appealing on human rights grounds, citing Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 8.

I strongly suggest that, should you choose to take this path, you look up all the relevant case law on Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 8, first. So as not to plead a case in direct contravention of case law which might already exist.

Article 8 isn't some catch-all right which gives you what you want, all the time. It's a qualified right, for a start, meaning that hte right set out in Article 8(1) is qualified by the factors in Article 8 (2).

Article 8 of the ECHR provides:

Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

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

The Protocol passage provides:

Article 1 – Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

mysterywoman10

I think AB does know their case law

neverdespairgirl

angrybuffalo wrote: »

Flats are not that suitable for young children, and I personally do believe that safe outdoor garden space is important for the development and well-being of young children.

I don't see why not. I certainly don't think there should be any principle that the taxpayer should shell out for all families to have housing with a garden.

In most of Europe, pretty much all city housing, including for children, is in blocks of flats.

When my son was born, and until he was 6, he lived in a 2nd floor flat with no garden. We had a park nearby, and spent time with my parents in the countryside, but had no garden. He appears undamaged by the traumatic experience.

When he was 6 (he's now 7) we moved to a ground-floor flat with what an estate agent would call a garden, and anyone else would call a tiny patio. He's still surviving.

A garden is nice to have. But far from essential.

neverdespairgirl

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I'll await AB response on this but I would say from first impressions it was a very general case,

Judical review does not form case law.

It most certainly does.