Bedroom Tax megathread

[Plain Talker 11]

Is it not a case of sharing limited housing more fairly? E.g. stopping people rattling around overly large houses/flats because they've lived there "fotty year, man and boy"?

 

eg if the state is giving you subsidised or free housing then they should be able to tell you where to live?

 

I'm not mad for or against it as it seems like brain surgery to put into practice. However I do think that there's a lack of vision re the bigger picture. I also believed that disabled people were exempt, apparently not but then again why should they be? If they're receiving benefits then why shouldn't they have theirs deducted from too?

 

No, because if it were about sharing "redundant" properties equally, then OAPs would not be exempt. THEY are the biggest sector who are "Rattling around in overly large houses", as couples or singletons, having "lived there fotty years".

 

If the property has had money spent on it, to adapt it to the standard needed by the disabled occupant:- as I said to (not so) charming above, what the hell is the point of turfing someone out of a property that's been adapted, to have to spend money (that the councils supposedly havent got!) adapting the NEW property to the standard needed? surely to God, the sensible option is to leave them the hell alone until such time as the tenant no longer needs the adaptions (viz when the disabled tenant had passed away, moved out, or moved into a nursing home). At which time the property gets re-allocated to ANOTHER disabled tenant who needs the adaptions.

[Qualtrough 10]

No, because if it were about sharing "redundant" properties equally, then OAPs would not be exempt. THEY are the biggest sector who are "Rattling around in overly large houses", as couples or singletons, having "lived there fotty years".

 

If the property has had money spent on it, to adapt it to the standard needed by the disabled occupant:- as I said to (not so) charming above, what the hell is the point of turfing someone out of a property that's been adapted, to have to spend money (that the councils supposedly havent got!) adapting the NEW property to the standard needed? surely to God, the sensible option is to leave them the hell alone until such time as the tenant no longer needs the adaptions (viz when the disabled tenant had passed away, moved out, or moved into a nursing home). At which time the property gets re-allocated to ANOTHER disabled tenant who needs the adaptions.

 

I'm amazed that isn't the case, probably far too sensible.

 

The 'bedroom tax' or whatever its called is far too complex.

[Plain Talker 11]

 

If you are forced to move then the state has a duty of care to provide the smae facilities does it not? I thought such a house would be exempt, I guess not.

 

yes, the council or other social landlord would have to provide adaptations.

 

However, were I to move from my current home, into some scabby hole of a place, which had no level access, or wet room etc, I would have to go through the process of applying all over again for the adaptations I need.

 

So, it would be as follows:-

 

1) Apply to Social Services for an adaptation.

 

2) Wait up to 18 months/ 2 years for someone to come out and assess the property as to what needs to be done, (and, indeed, as per my previous property, whether that particular property can actually BE adapted.. which that one could not be)

 

2) Wait a further few months for the "committee" at Social services to look at the Occupational therapist's report about what is needed, and come to a decision about whether or not they are prepared to agree to these adaptions.

 

3) Wait (hang on, I'm seeing a pattern emerging, here...) to hear from said committee as to what their decision is, about whether or not they will fund the adaptations.

 

4) (IF you are successful...) wait for three companies to submit their quotes for the work.

 

5) WAIT (yet again) for the committee to allocate the work to the successful company...

 

6) Wait (yes! surprise, surprise... there's that four-letter word again) for the company selected to have an opening to carry out the schedule of works.

 

This timescale could be three years in the offing....

 

Now, compare that with the other option, of allowing the tenant to stay put in the adapted house:-

 

1) The tenant stays where they are, in an already suitable property. at no detriment to anyone, or anything...

 

2) Erm... that's it.

[charmer 10]

Please smell the coffee, and stop spouting such trollish cobblers.

 

it's NOT an extreme example, it's an absolute fact (note, carefully, that the word fact has not been highlighted, denoting that this is truth, not hysteria or hype) that people who have had their homes adapted are being forced to look at moving into less suitable accommodation.

 

the truth of the matter is that there are cases like that of a family who have had £60,000 spent on providing a ground floor disability extension to their home to enable their severely disabled child a room of his own. A room where he can manage with his wheelchair and have enough space for his specialist equipment. because of this obscenity of a TAX his mother is now being charged as an underoccupier, and being forced to move. Even with your blinkers, I defy you to justify the vicious and cruel way this family have been treated.

My own home is extensively adapted, precisely according to my own needs as a disabled tenant. it's the right size, it has the right accessibility in terms of level access etc. It has a wet room, as per my needs and a second bedroom in order that I may have someone stay overnight, when I need them to. But despite a smaller property being

a) unavailable,

b) potentially unsuitable in terms of size and number of bedrooms, as well as

c) hampered by the impracticality of being unable to get my equipment etc into a smaller property and have room for my chariot... (or indeed a proverbial cat to swing!)

I still am being slammed with the bedroom tax on it.

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 00:01 ----------

 

did you see the inside out edition yesterday (Mon 3/2/14)?

there was an article about the BT on the show, and one woman featured was a Grimsby tenant with a disability, who was forced out of her adapted home, into a smaller home which she was not happy with.

 

 

Again, it isn't a tax. You are ignoring the actual definition of the word which is quite important.

 

You say it isn't an extreme example yet you then cite further extreme examples! I agree that the legislation should not have been arbitrarily imposed. However, perhaps assessing the individual needs of every person effected would not have been cost effective.

 

It does seem sad the plight of the family. Without knowing the story of the family it is hard to justify anything. Can the mother work? Is there any extended family that can foot the bill for the extra room? Where is the dad? Without knowing it is hard to comment really.

 

With regards to yourself, again I do not fully know your situation so it is hard to comment. IS there work you could do on the internet? Perhaps admin or data entry? Perhaps you could buy a sofa bed so that the person staying over could sleep on that?

 

You seem to have lots of needs which is regrettable, but should the state really fund this?

 

In an ideal world we would all be looked after by the state. I wouldn't have had to grow up poor, the state would have bought me the trainers I wanted, the PC at home to help me with my school work etc. We do not live in an ideal world, the welfare state is too big and it has become a lifestyle choice for many. Reversing this trend will be difficult and will have some casualties, but it needs to be done.

 

You seem to think that because I disagree with you that a must be a troll. That is exceptionally arrogant.

[Plain Talker 11]

Again, it isn't a tax. You are ignoring the actual definition of the word which is quite important.

 

You say it isn't an extreme example yet you then cite further extreme examples! I agree that the legislation should not have been arbitrarily imposed. However, perhaps assessing the individual needs of every person effected would not have been cost effective.

 

It does seem sad the plight of the family. Without knowing the story of the family it is hard to justify anything. Can the mother work? Is there any extended family that can foot the bill for the extra room? Where is the dad? Without knowing it is hard to comment really.

 

With regards to yourself, again I do not fully know your situation so it is hard to comment. IS there work you could do on the internet? Perhaps admin or data entry? Perhaps you could buy a sofa bed so that the person staying over could sleep on that?

 

You seem to have lots of needs which is regrettable, but should the state really fund this?

 

In an ideal world we would all be looked after by the state. I wouldn't have had to grow up poor, the state would have bought me the trainers I wanted, the PC at home to help me with my school work etc. We do not live in an ideal world, the welfare state is too big and it has become a lifestyle choice for many. Reversing this trend will be difficult and will have some casualties, but it needs to be done.

 

You seem to think that because I disagree with you that a must be a troll. That is exceptionally arrogant.

 

Make a carer or someone stopping over to provide assistance, sleep on a sofa? What an insult!

 

If I were to be provided with a carer, on a "Sleep-night call" from the care company I use, they would have to be provided with a proper bed of their own, not a sofa. So why would someone else be expected to have to "make do" by dossing on the sofa?

 

Who actually WANTS someone dossing down on the sofa in their living room, making the living room stink of sweat? A living room is a room for LIVING in, not sleeping in anything but occasioanlly. A bedroom is a room for sleeping in.

 

In any case, we aren't talking about what work I can or can't do, we're talking about bedrooms, and the bedroom tax. My "cans" and "can'ts" are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I seem to have a lot of needs. Should the state fund them?

 

yes I do have a lot of needs. should the state fund them? Well, I always thought that the welfare state's principle was "FROM each according to his ability to pay, TO each according to his need".... So, yes... I should get back, from the state, the help I need, when, after paying in whilst in work, I cannot support myself.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Plain Talker

[charmer 10]

Make a carer or someone stopping over to provide assistance, sleep on a sofa? What an insult!

 

If I were to be provided with a carer, on a "Sleep-night call" from the care company I use, they would have to be provided with a proper bed of their own, not a sofa. So why would someone else be expected to have to "make do" by dossing on the sofa?

 

Who actually WANTS someone dossing down on the sofa in their living room, making the living room stink of sweat? A living room is a room for LIVING in, not sleeping in anything but occasioanlly. A bedroom is a room for sleeping in.

 

In any case, we aren't talking about what work I can or can't do, we're talking about bedrooms, and the bedroom tax. My "cans" and "can'ts" are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I seem to have a lot of needs. Should the state fund them?

 

yes I do have a lot of needs. should the state fund them? Well, I always thought that the welfare state's principle was "FROM each according to his ability to pay, TO each according to his need".... So, yes... I should get back, from the state, the help I need, when, after paying in whilst in work, I cannot support myself.

 

I am sorry but you can't bring up your personal situation and then say "My "cans" and "can'ts" are irrelevant to the discussion." Either we discuss your situation or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

About the sofa bit, I said a sofa bed, not a sofa. They are sofas that can fold out to make a bed. This person may have to "make do" because it is part of their job. There is a difference between needs and wants. You do not need a room for the carer, you want one. The state should fund your wants not your needs.

 

Whilst I agree the state should help people, there needs to be a limit.

 

I have stated previously that I do not think that the legislation should be imposed arbitrarily and universally. Perhaps people like yourself should be exempt. However you must admit that people with your specialised needs are in the minority of people effected by this legislation.

[Plain Talker 11]

I am sorry but you can't bring up your personal situation and then say "My "cans" and "can'ts" are irrelevant to the discussion." Either we discuss your situation or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

About the sofa bit, I said a sofa bed, not a sofa. They are sofas that can fold out to make a bed. This person may have to "make do" because it is part of their job. There is a difference between needs and wants. You do not need a room for the carer, you want one. The state should fund your wants not your needs.

 

Whilst I agree the state should help people, there needs to be a limit.

 

I have stated previously that I do not think that the legislation should be imposed arbitrarily and universally. Perhaps people like yourself should be exempt. However you must admit that people with your specialised needs are in the minority of people effected by this legislation.

 

do you mean "Affected"?

[Mecky 10]

The bedroom tax does not seem to take into consideration individual circumstances. That's clear to see.

 

Yes it does, you have to be in social housing, in receipt of housing benefit and to be considered by some to have more bedrooms than you need. Either way it is discrimination.

[Ms Macbeth 73]

Yes it does, you have to be in social housing, in receipt of housing benefit and to be considered by some to have more bedrooms than you need. Either way it is discrimination.

 

The principle is now the same as for people in private rented housing. A single person or couple who need their rent paid by benefits, will get it paid, up to a maximum, based on a locally adjusted amount for a one bedroomed property. Why was no one saying it was unfair that they couldn't have a three bedroomed house, and wasn't that discrimination?

 

I understand the principle of the so called 'bedroom tax' but the implementation has left a lot to be desired. For instance, if someone has a home that has had adaptions to suit their needs, they should be allowed, at no extra cost, to live there until the adaptations are no longer needed. In most cases that will be for life. I think most folk who work in social housing would recognise that would be the most cost effective and realistic outcome.

 

I think more effort should have been made to encourage the elderly who may only be using one or two rooms in a large family home to downsize too. That has worked very well in some parts of the UK, where there is more choice of small properties, and in some cases incentives were part of the deal.

[Epic Fail 10]

Yes it does, you have to be in social housing, in receipt of housing benefit and to be considered by some to have more bedrooms than you need. Either way it is discrimination.

 

"And to be considered by some to have more bedrooms than you need..."

 

This is the part where you would expect them to look into individual circumstances such as disabilities, childcare arrangements and house adaptations, but it doesn't. You either have to pay it or you don't.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Epic Fail

[Anna B 1,402]

According to the BBC news, homelessness has risen by 58% which is quite a shocking figure.

 

I don't think that is acceptable in a relatively rich western country. (It's not acceptable anywhere, but we have no excuse.)

[truman 10]

According to the BBC news, homelessness has risen by 58% which is quite a shocking figure.

 

I don't think that is acceptable in a relatively rich western country. (It's not acceptable anywhere, but we have no excuse.)

 

Could you define homeless and over what period?