Appealing the Bedroom Tax

princessdon

nannytone wrote: »

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?

Then that becomes another issue.

Why should someone with a dining room that could be a bedroom be exempt when others aren't.

It needs to be at least an equal playing field (as far as they can).

Someone with a 2 bedroom home and a dining room is treat more favourably than a 3 bedroom home and no dining room.

I am no expert on housing but have never seen a "box size" dining room.

I have said again and again they need to have some form of standardisation, or it's postcode lottery again!

Confuseddot

Not understanding the rules but surely if all those who rent privately and get HB are not treated as equal then does that effect their human rights ? Who should they appeal to ?

princessdon

Dunroamin wrote: »

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

But their political points are not clear.

Is it disability or income?

I am not sure as I can never work their argument out.

Take the likes of glaswegen (sorry, but using you as an example). severely disabled but gets very limited help as working. No one doubts their disability, but income trumps it as they work.

I would genuinely rather see help go to disability (income NOT related). When someone with a severely disabled child is chastised for claiming DLA it shows the true motive. It isn't disability, it's about "sharing wealth".

It's the "cherry picking" what part people want that drives me mad.

princessdon

tomtom256 wrote: »

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!

Because their human rights are infringed and private renters aren't?

I assume as I can't see an argument (other than severely disabled with carers and need for own room), and this appears to be case law now, so can't work it out if honest.

mysterywoman10

Confuseddot wrote: »

Not understanding the rules but surely if all those who rent privately and get HB are not treated as equal then does that effect their human rights ? Who should they appeal to ?

The cases quoted by angrybuffalo are based on cases in the private rented sector. Disability and sizing criteria issues apply equally in both sectors. Both groups have the right of appeal in regard to their Housing Benefit.

angrybuffalo

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

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.

thanks mysterywoman.:)
this cruel and pernicious tax causes significant harm to the vast majority of people affected. disabled people are likely to be hit the hardest, but very few with be able to simply shrug it off with little effect of consequence. i would advise everyone except that fortunate few to appeal - not to worry too much about the legal grounds - simply to state what they think is wrong - not to move, unless they want to, and to pay attention to and support if they can the campaigns which are growing against this tax.

angrybuffalo

princessdon wrote: »

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.

I thought there was a possibility that your previous post referred to a genuine problem, but obviously not. You don't want my help, you just want an argument - that's not why I'm here.

angrybuffalo

thanks anny.

angrybuffalo

<<<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>>>

human rights are fundamental rights and protect citizens from harmful government actions which are disproportionate and cannot be objectively justified. the right to a family life cannot be invoked if the separation of a family is not caused by a government action at all.

skintmacflint

angrybuffalo wrote: »

human rights are fundamental rights and protect citizens from harmful government actions which are disproportionate and cannot be objectively justified. the right to a family life cannot be invoked if the separation of a family is not caused by a government action at all.

Anyone else lost the plot on this now? How is bringing social tenants in line with the majority with the majority of households in the UK ie-they can't have spare rooms unless you pay for them themself disproportionate? How are their human rights being affected unfairly in comparison to the majority?

When the severely disabled are being catered for now? Latest figures from Mystery woman are 100,000 disabled , so that leaves 560,000 out of line with the total UK household figure which has to be in the millions.