Appealing the Bedroom Tax

mysterywoman10

I am just clarifying it is your opinion re your reply to angrybuffalo.

Thomas_Hardy

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I am just clarifying it is your opinion re your reply to angrybuffalo.

It is an informed opinion, as opposed to someone picking random bits of legislation out and saying "these will work", when in fact the opposite is true.

Of course, you are welcome to give your opinion on the quoted legislation ...

angrybuffalo

<<<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][/QUOTE]>>>

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?

mysterywoman10

Well I'm glad someone is well "informed" welcome to the board angry buffolo

Thomas_Hardy

There are too many errors in that for me to respond. I say this genuinely angrybuffalo, please do not try to "help" people with the above. Your arguments are in the majority incorrect, and the few valid points you do make are contradictory.

mysterywoman10

Well please do respond to all these errors I'm interested to see what they are.

pipkin71

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

People have the right of appeal that is the law and it is up to the Judge to decide the outcome.

How much will that cost people?

How will those who have said they are going to struggle to find the rent they now have to pay, be able to afford to appeal?

Will they be given legal aid?

princessdon

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?


I am being denied the human right to live with my husband full time, does this cover it?

angrybuffalo

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

They'll check they followed (their own) procedure, that is all they need to do. I can't see them changing their decision purely based on someone saying they use the room as a dining/ computer room - neither are essentials. The only cases I can see being successful are where the LA has the wrong information as to the size of a room - but even then, it will have to be a very small room to be ignored.

Ultimately, as it is likely to be a policy issue as opposed to a procedural one, the case would need to go to judicial review. That's not something I would recommend a lay person attempts on their own

they must check for errors in law and errors of fact. if for example a disabled child needs a bedroom of their own and it has been deemed that they can share with a sibling, the Court of Appeal ruling on Burnip etc means that they can allow for the additional room, payable as housing benefit, not DHP. It's in their interests to do so, because they receive the housing benefit subsidy from central government, rather than deplete the finite resources of the discretionary fund.

the statutory appeal rights can be exercised by all claimants and are heard by a tribunal not a court. a first tier tribunal can disapply the regulations on human rights grounds if they conflict with primary legislation and can't be read in a way which is compatible with human rights.

mysterywoman10

To appeal to the first stage tribunal costs nothing.