Bedroom tax appeal

Morglin

God, what a fiasco.

I hope, subject to various legal actions being bought forward, it will, at least be sorted out, one way or another, so that everyone is clear as to what should be happening.

Well, at least until next year, as Labour have said they will abolish the bedroom tax entirely and it's back to square one, if the Tories are hoisted out......:whistle:

Meanwhile, still least some people will get a nice little lump sum, as they don't have to pay back any Discretionary Housing Benefit they may have been paid.

Lin

cattermole

IMO the comment was unwarranted and it helps no one, least of all the disabled who are affected.

However, higher level staff in the DWP do play a part in it, a very big part because they come up with a lot of the policies for any government. They are a very powerful department. Lord Freud is the main mastermind behind it not IDS, he's just the whipping boy. And it had started before this government got into power when Freud was working for Labour and before he swapped sides.

The Carer's rule for example was put in the June 2010 budget for 2 reasons a) it was a little carrot for all the LHA cuts helpful for the spin b) the select committee report which recommended a lot of things date back prior to the Tories getting in. And because the DWP had lost a 1st stage tribunal which had dis-applied the regulation on HR grounds and this evidence was submitted by the party involved to the select committee. The fight regarding disability issues and LHA, subsequently the Bedroom Tax pre-dates this government. The fight started way before the Tories. And it was the DWP themselves who failed to carry out a Disability Equality Impact Assessment when LHA was introduced.

The DWP didn't make the same mistake when introducing the Bedroom Tax which is why that Impact Assessment shows they knew it would primarily affect disabled people.

But as you say this has nothing to do with Central or Local Government workers at ground level.

Morglin

Well, yes, and it was Labour that bought ESA in, in 2008.

But, as regards Bedroom Tax, I think IDS is the prime instigator, aided, as you say by senior employees at the DWP.

But, the lowly grass roots (and I was one), get no say in any of it and just have to follow whatever the latest rules are.

Lin

kj*daisy

You can let each bedroom to an adult as the numbers of people who can live in a property under the housing act are for the whole property, including living rooms, not just for bedroom space. There should be a higher decision on this point anyway soon to clarify the situation.

cattermole

You can't recover DHP in those circumstances because there is a loophole in the law there anyway and you have no powers to do so.

Are you saying you are back-dating payments on top of DHP?!!

I don't think you need to do that!!! Claimants should not expect to make a profit out of it and be better off than if the tax had never been there in the first place.

So the court sees it as if the payment had already been made (which it has).

cattermole

Morglin wrote: »

Well, yes, and it was Labour that bought ESA in, in 2008.

But, as regards Bedroom Tax, I think IDS is the prime instigator, aided, as you say by senior employees at the DWP.

But, the lowly grass roots (and I was one), get no say in any of it and just have to follow whatever the latest rules are.

Lin

I seriously doubt that IDS could mastermind anything

Morglin

cattermole wrote: »

You can't recover DHP in those circumstances because there is a loophole in the law there anyway.

Are you saying you are back-dating payments on top of DHP?!!

I don't think you need to do that!

Yes, legally they have to reimburse as well - they reckon that, on average the payment to each tenant will be approx £640 although, obviously, that will depend on how much BT has been paid.

Welfare Rights thinks that about 40,000 tenants are affected, the government say about 5000, so who knows?

Lin

cattermole

Morglin wrote: »

Yes, legally they have to reimburse as well - they reckon that, on average the payment to each tenant will be approx £640 although, obviously, that will depend on how much BT has been paid.

Welfare Rights thinks that about 40,000 tenants are affected, the government say about 5000, so who knows?

Lin

I know that in the judgement of the Court of Appeal for Burnip & Co. that it was a condition of no "personal gain" that the legal aid was granted. That no re-payments were made in settlement that had been previously covered by DHP.

The point being this means that LA's should have also located all those who met the criteria for a sleep in carer prior to June 2010 and back dated payments to them because the law prior to 2010 was declared "unlawful". Whether in these cases they need to pay if the DHP covers it I don't know?

It also means that all the severely disabled children's cases of two sharing need to be back dated as well to the date they were refused an extra bedroom, if meet the criteria.

cattermole

Anyway no doubt the loop-hole regarding non recovery of DHP will be closed as well. I suppose in these cases it's slightly different because come March they will need to start paying it again and no guarantee they will get back on DHP so they will have to use the money paid out to pay back again!

It's never been such an issue with DHP recovery before all this fiasco with LHA and BT because it wasn't being used to bridge the gap for such a large number of claimants, it was there for the purpose of short term emergencies/change of circumstances.

I just hope the LA's have the sense to send a proper letter to those affected explaining it all and the likelihood that the legislation that has allowed them to be re-paid will be changed in March so they will have to pay in the future. Numerous Housing Benefit Decision notices can be very confusing as it's very often unclear what the reason for them is.

rogerblack

Morglin wrote: »

There is little point in blaming the actual workers, either at the DWP, or Housing Benefit offices.

They, like the claimants, have to follow the rules laid down, by Parliament, and they have no autonomy to do their own thing.

They actually do in fact have the legal freedom to determine if something is a bedroom or not.

For them not to be able to do this would not be lawful - in the current state of the law.
The law does not define what a bedroom is.
It is up to each individual decision-maker, on the facts of each individual case to come to a view.