Appealing the Bedroom Tax

angrybuffalo

<<<There are too many errors in that for me to respond. >>>
ROFLMAO:rotfl:
<<<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>>>

i've been helping people win appeals for the last 12 years, and you don't appear able or qualified to make valid criticisms.

angrybuffalo

princessdon wrote: »

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?

it depends on the circumstances.

some circumstances may well come under Article 8, but not all will.
do you want to say more?

mysterywoman10

Well I found your long post very interesting and informative angrybuffalo.

You seem to be making a good case for appealing under certain circumsances on HR's grounds.

princessdon

angrybuffalo wrote: »

it depends on the circumstances.

some circumstances may well come under Article 8, but not all will.
do you want to say more?

Ok, in order to keep it relevant to the reduction in benefits and in the same human vein, I will use a hypothetical scenario.

What if a parent with 2 spare rooms (for children to visit overnight) now has to pay for that room(s).

No disabilities, capable of work, on JSA.

Surely to deny children and the NRP their family rights contravenes this and the Govt should pay for a secondary home? Or does this not count.

Anny_2

I am glad you are posting and sharing your experience angrybuffalo. For those who are affected by this policy just because it will be introduced in April does not mean that, that will be an end to it. That it will just be accepted and 'put up' with. The fight is just beginning and already there have been changes to the policy and there will be more. Many organisations are there to support those who feel they have a valid right to appeal and if anyone is feeling adrift and not sure what to do next the letter asking for information that MW posted is something solid to begin working from.

"I am being denied the human right to live with my husband full time, does this cover it"? Princessdon - what are you talking about? The reason you do not live with your husband all the time is because you choose not to...because he earns more 'working away'.


You are fond of your hypothetical scenarios aren't you?
I am sure if children are visiting overnight and the parent they are visiting is on JSA then they can sleep on a blow-up or sofa bed in the living room, You can get db sofa-beds free on may free sites. The parent on JSA with no disabilities would surely find work in order to pay the rent so he/she could remain in a 3 bed SH property before it came to that though.

We all make sacrifices for what we want after all. I did not go on holiday last year so I could buy the car I wanted. Princessdon, your husband works away so you can have the money and therefore the lifestyle you want and the parent in the above scenario would need to work or move to a 1 bed and buy a blow up/sofa bed to have the children stay over. Sacrifices and choices are easier when you are fit and able-bodied, it is those who are not that we should be concerned about, not ourselves. They are being given no choice with this policy and that is wrong on every level!

princessdon

Anny wrote: »

I am glad you are posting and sharing your experience angrybuffalo. For those who are affected by this policy just because it will be introduced in April does not mean that, that will be an end to it. That it will just be accepted and 'put up' with. The fight is just beginning and already there have been changes to the policy and there will be more. Many organisations are there to support those who feel they have a valid right to appeal and if anyone is feeling adrift and not sure what to do next the letter asking for information that MW posted is something solid to begin working from.

"I am being denied the human right to live with my husband full time, does this cover it"? Princessdon - what are you talking about? The reason you do not live with your husband all the time is because you choose not to...because he earns more 'working away'.


You are fond of your hypothetical scenarios aren't you?
I am sure if children are visiting overnight and the parent they are visiting is on JSA then they can sleep on a blow-up or sofa bed in the living room, You can get db sofa-beds free on may free sites. The parent on JSA with no disabilities would surely find work in order to pay the rent so he/she could remain in a 3 bed SH property before it came to that though.

We all make sacrifices for what we want after all. I did not go on holiday last year so I could buy the car I wanted. Princessdon, your husband works away so you can have the money and therefore the lifestyle you want and the parent in the above scenario would need to work or move to a 1 bed and buy a blow up/sofa bed to have the children stay over. Sacrifices and choices are easier when you are fit and able-bodied, it is those who are not that we should be concerned about, not ourselves. They are being given no choice with this policy and that is wrong on every level!

hmm except

A) I am not fit and able. I am ill and eligible for support group
I have a disabled child who can't use a blow up bed
C) I am a carer for a disabled adult


Point is that there are 2 issues here which people keep mixing up and the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

A) Severe disability with limited choices (absolutely protect 100%), this doesn't mean anyone who comes under the DDA needs protection. Being disabled doesn't always mean a lower quality of life, nor without choices. Severe disability does, minor disabilities doesn't.

Human rights, disability rights etc - will always be trumped by income. Those who have means will pay, regardless of their level of disability and or human rights.


Chose an argument or mix the two. But to keep mixing the two up doesn't help.

I have said I support all severely disabled. I would like MORE help for them (not financial if able to provide) but help. I don't support someone with a stutter who comes under DDA saying they can't downsize.

When people keep banging on about human rights - they need to realise that this is NOT means tested and will apply to all. If the issue is disabled rights, stick to it.

It's hard when everyone who is "entitled" thinks they are due to human/disabled rights.

So yes, if the argument is that a family needs time together - then those must consider the wider implications, families don't get that time, simple fact, if it is against human rights for 1 group, it is for another

Rather like the reduction in benefits where a person is paying over the odds in private rental and their clone is arguing they'd have to pay the same in exact circumstances. Anyone who considers this fair is either bonkers, or stands to benefit personally.

Confuseddot

I do not know or understand the legal points on this. I do know that if you have limited resources within the authorities for dealing with such claims surely a better use of these people times would be to try and help people downsize and get new claimants through the door.

Seems like tying up the people who are needed to help those vunerable and needy is a bit counter intutive.

nannytone_2

it's only a dining room because theres a table in it.
if there was a bed in it, then you would describe it as a bedroom.
where do you think peop[le who dont have dining rooms eat?

tomtom256

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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

I don't see how they can appeal. It's not a sanction, it's not a loss of benefit it's a lawful reduction in benefit to bring Social Housing inline with private renting who have had the LHA for umpteen years and puts all on an even playing field.

Why should a person who can get social housing be better off then someone who can't and has to rent privately, if they are all claiming the exact same benefits!

Dunroamin

Confuseddot wrote: »

I do not know or understand the legal points on this. I do know that if you have limited resources within the authorities for dealing with such claims surely a better use of these people times would be to try and help people downsize and get new claimants through the door.

Seems like tying up the people who are needed to help those vunerable and needy is a bit counter intutive.

Of course, the people arguing this don't actually want tenants to be helped - they're more interested in scoring political points.

(I say "they" but I'm pretty sure there aren't as many people on that side of the debate as may appear at first sight.)