Appealing the Bedroom Tax

Anny_2

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 was answering to this hypothetical scenario. No disabilities, capable of work on JSA Yet you reply :-

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



Are you now talking about the parent in the scenario or yourself? - confused.

I could be wrong but it appears you are now talking about yourself, yet again, in the reply to this post. You gave a scenario I answered it so it must be you that is eligible for the 'support group', you have mentioned this many times before, so I presume it is? I had no knowledge of you having a disabled child but do remember you saying you had cancelled DLA for the niece who lives with you now. With regards to the niece you did say in one or more post you got no financial help whatsoever for caring for her and yet in another of your 'scenarios' a few days ago, you received kinship allowance. So I do get very confused with your posts and apologise if I have got it all wrong. I know you care for your nan so perhaps the above is you. To be honest I never know if you are speaking about a fictitious character or yourself - it is very confusing.

If it is you above/reply post to me and you are not fit and able to work then you need to make some choices and you are lucky if you can still make those choices. Many of the disabled people I work with do not have/ did not have that choice - they cannot work - full stop. Maybe you are not at that stage yet but only you can decide that and that must be your choice. Many people seem to presume they are eligible for ESA support group but I thought until you have applied and been given the award there is no certainty...unless you have a terminal illness then special rules apply.

I do not support everyone who comes under the DDA and never said I did. The people I work with are all severely disabled and although I am aware of the wide range of disabilities that are covered by the DDA the children and adults that I have worked with are ,like I say, severely disabled.

If, due to disability, a person 'needs' an extra room be it because they cannot sleep with their partner, they only have occasional overnight care, but can prove they 'need' that care or they 'need' to store disability aids wheelchair, mobility scooter, oxygen, ect. Then they 'need' that extra room and should be able to prove they 'need' that extra room.

It was you Princessdon who spoke of human rights in regard to not living with your husband full-time. I presume that was sarcasm? The rights of family to 'spend' time together is not what is being discussed here though is it? to try to compare the two issues seems pointless, they are not comparable. Often, through peoples choices families do not get to spend time together but that is a choice. People who are disabled and need an extra bedroom due to the reasons above, that is not a choice but a 'need' - often families do not spend time together due to working far in excess of what they really need and that is due to 'greed'. Human rights does not cover for those who choose financial reward (working away, working excessive hours, in order to have an high-standard of living) over the need for family time - lets not confuse the two - one is 'need' and the other is 'greed'!

Morlock

Anny wrote: »

Many people seem to presume they are eligible for ESA support group but I thought until you have applied and been given the award there is no certainty...

There is no certainty whatsoever. Princessdon has read the descriptors and decided that because some of them might possibly apply her, she would definitely qualify, but chooses not to claim. The reality is a lot different, as many claimants who presumed they would qualify, do not.

It sounds very selfless to claim to qualify, but not do so for 'moral' (or whatever) reasons, it adds a bit of credibility when supporting policies that are generally against those who do claim.

mysterywoman10

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

I think it is you that is confused skintmacflint

The figures have not changed.

I merely pointed out that out of the total number of affected tenants who were disabled according to the governments figures 100,000 of them were living in adapted properties (the latter informaton comes from a further analysis of the National Housing Federation)

Extract from DWP's Equality Impact Assessment

Disability [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial].[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]42. The impact of the measure on households containing a disabled claimant or partner, suggests that a higher proportion of households containing a disabled person would be more likely to be affected by the introduction of size criteria. [/FONT][/FONT]
43. The table below considers the differences in the impact between disabled and non-disabled people. The table below is based on the claimant or partner reporting a Disability Discrimination Act recognised disability and is consistent with the definition used in the previous equality impact assessment of the size criteria. The disabled group includes cases who do not currently have difficulties with daily activities but who have in the past or are expected to in the future or would do if they were not able to control symptoms with medication

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Disabled [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]420,000 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Non-disabled [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]250,000 [/FONT][/FONT]
All
660,000

44. If disability is defined as having any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity that leads to a significant difficulty with one or more areas of the individual’s life, the equivalent figures to those in the table above would be that 370,000 (56%) of working age social rented sector HB claimants or their partners affected by the size criteria would be classified as disabled, compared to 48% of all working age social rented sector HB claimants or their partners and 58% of all social rented sector HB claimants or their partners.

45.The proportion of disabled claimants affected by the measure is higher than for non-disabled claimants. Disabled claimants are, on average, older than non-disabled claimants. One consequence of this is that disabled claimants are also less likely to live in households with children. The size criteria affects a greater proportion of smaller households than larger households: Fewer people living in a household means that large accommodation cannot be justified under the size criteria, and Housing Benefit entitlement is reduced. This is often the case for households where the children have grown up and left home.

46. A small number of households containing a disabled adult and a non-resident carer will be assessed as having a reasonable requirement for an additional room. This will have the effect of reducing the number of disabled claimants affected by the measure. Further those living in supported accommodation, where the landlord, or someone on the landlord’s behalf, provides care, support or supervision, will also be exempt from this measure.

47. hose facing a rent shortfall can be considered for extra help from the Discretionary Housing scheme
This allows local authorities to give extra help to those facing difficulties meeting their housing costs on a case by case basis. As noted earlier, we have announced that an extra £30 million per year will be added to the scheme, £25 million of which is intended to be used specifically to assist those disabled claimants who are in properties where a significant adaptation has been made to cater for their individual needs. This should help avoid someone who lives in a property that has been significantly adapted at public expense having to move to a smaller property where those adaptations would have to be made again and possibly removed from the original property.
(end of extract from Equality Impact statement Sorry the table wouldn't display properly )

I'm sure angrybuffalo will be able to explain to you legally much better than I can why there are serious flaws with the government's remedies to resolve the problems as highlighted in their own Equality Impact Statement and why there are grounds for appeal in many cases on disability related issues.

Please note that last week £5 million was removed from the above DHP figure to cater for Foster children, armed services and severely disabled children who can't share a room. But you will see if you read the whole Equality Impact statement, that these are probably a much smaller number than older disabled people because clearly families with children are less likely to be under occuppying)

100,000 adapted properties is part of the figure. To clarify further so there is no confusion, for example a mother aged 55 living and caring for a severely learning disabilities man of 30 who has no phyisical disability would not have an adapted property but is living in a 3 bedroomed house (one of which is a box room or a dining room)

An alternative would be a 50 year old mother (this is a real case) caring for a severely disabled son PMLD (profound & multiple disablies) of 28 who has had a ground floor extension fully equiped with overhead tracking with a wet room. The house is now classified as 4 bedroomed because of this. She has one other daughter living at home. But the box room is now spare as her other child has left home. So this is in the figure of adapted properties.

What the above illustrates is that the Government embarked on a policy that they knew would have a very big impact on disabled people which would have a "disproportionate affect" and cannot be reasonably justified. This is why in simple terms HR's laws are potentially envoked and there are grounds for appeal so that the claiment can save money.

I hope that clarifies the matter for you?

mysterywoman10

I would also like to add that the two severely disabled people as examples (true ones) are classed as working age but both would be completely unable to work due to the severity of the dsabiilty. As would the carers who were caring for them.

mysterywoman10

Simple maths

The budget is now £20 million for DHP for disabled people (due to the £5 million going elsewhere)

20,000,000 divided by 100,000 = £200.00 per claimant average shortfall per annum £728.00 so a gap in funding of £528.00 per claimant.

If you increase the figure to 200,000 it is £100.00 per claimant

Which is why the LA's know they cannot meet the shortfall from DHP and it is going to be an absolute nightmare for them.

That is setting aside the reasons why DHP should not be used in such circumstances to fund a long term shortfall.

angrybuffalo

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

Not surprised you lost the plot. the size criteria regulations were brought in to the private rented sector in 1996, largely to control rising rents in that sector. They were not introduced into the social housing sector, because there, rents are under control - ie its the social sector! Since then private rents and property prices have rocketed and with high rents and a housing shortage there is a crisis in housing- it didn't work any more than the current measure will work.

Bringing social housing rents in line with private sector rents is the action of an idiot if the objective is to reduce the housing benefit bill. And it takes a special sort of Secretary of State to extend the problems of the 'size criteria', problematic since their introduction, to the social housing sector, where the problems will be multiplied and worsened, when he has been told by the Court of Appeal that the regulations are discriminatory and breach human rights.

You ask -
<<<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? >>>

the real question is - how is forcing people out of their homes proportionate? how is forcing them into debt and well below the poverty line proportionate? now without going into all the relevant facts which would be considered by the court, not least of which is the shortage of 1 and 2 bedroom homes, I will simply say that Tory hatred of social housing and social housing tenants is not a good enough justification, and leave it there.

beecher2

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?

I've been in many council and HA houses, and have never seen any with a dining room.

Dunroamin

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Simple maths

The budget is now £20 million for DHP for disabled people (due to the £5 million going elsewhere)

20,000,000 divided by 100,000 = £200.00 per claimant average shortfall per annum £728.00 so a gap in funding of £528.00 per claimant.

If you increase the figure to 200,000 it is £100.00 per claimant

Which is why the LA's know they cannot meet the shortfall from DHP and it is going to be an absolute nightmare for them.

That is setting aside the reasons why DHP should not be used in such circumstances to fund a long term shortfall.

Then perhaps it's not a good idea to encourage those who aren't really needy to apply for it, leaving more in the kitty for those who actually are?

Dunroamin

angrybuffalo wrote: »

Not surprised you lost the plot. the size criteria regulations were brought in to the private rented sector in 1996, largely to control rising rents in that sector. They were not introduced into the social housing sector, because there, rents are under control - ie its the social sector! Since then private rents and property prices have rocketed and with high rents and a housing shortage there is a crisis in housing- it didn't work any more than the current measure will work.

Bringing social housing rents in line with private sector rents is the action of an idiot if the objective is to reduce the housing benefit bill. And it takes a special sort of Secretary of State to extend the problems of the 'size criteria', problematic since their introduction, to the social housing sector, where the problems will be multiplied and worsened, when he has been told by the Court of Appeal that the regulations are discriminatory and breach human rights.

You ask -
<<<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? >>>

the real question is - how is forcing people out of their homes proportionate? how is forcing them into debt and well below the poverty line proportionate? now without going into all the relevant facts which would be considered by the court, not least of which is the shortage of 1 and 2 bedroom homes, I will simply say that Tory hatred of social housing and social housing tenants is not a good enough justification, and leave it there.

I can't really see that there's a shortage of 2 bed homes - the world and his wife seem to have been allocated them!

mysterywoman10

Everyone should have equal access to information and what might be available to them.

It is up to the LA's to determine who is the most needy.