to think this governments attitude towards disabled people and children is disgusting(73 Posts)
To say they are 'pleased' having won the case that essentially throws disabled families into a poverty situation and may lead to many losing their homes will help save the taxpayer money.
Am I missing something or is this just completely heartless?
I thought the judgement was not due until tomorrow, do you have a link please?
Can't link but main headline on BBC news website..
The judgement was today.
Fuck a duck I've been on Monday all day.
This govt's attitude towards anyone who relies on them for any support is disgusting.
This govt despises vulnerable people who cannot afford to wholly support themselves.
Why is the housing benefit budget so high? It doesn't take a genius to figure out but of course, the blame is laid at the feet of the tenants.
Clegg was spraffing off about how private tenants don't get extra rooms. If he had a clue he would know that private tenants on HB can rent as many rooms as the cap allows.
But what would he know? He gets all the bedrooms in some of his homes paid for by the taxpayer and he gets to keep the place for good.
What judgement was this?
However the judgement only relates to adults not to children, children with a disability that can be proven to create a "unreasonable disturbance" or safety risk to anybody expected to share with them have been exempt from the rule since it came into force.
(Granted this was announced well after the exemption for pensioners and released pedophiles was and had to go to the high court to happen but exempt none the less they are)
This is an actual formal exemption that should not be dealt with under the DHP as an additional payment but actually exempted from the rule.
BUT you have to apply for the exemption its not automatic
Thanks for the link!
I was just really shocked this is being allowed to happen. I know most people agree with cuts to benefits but it just seems a step too far to me..
Hiya sock, heard this on the radio this morning and wondered what you would make of it.
Everything I have read about this suggests that each authority will make its own decision - therefore if you need the spare bedroom because you and your partner have to sleep separately, or space is needed for storage of medical equipment, then people won't be affected.
Or am I misled?
YANBU. I cannot believe that the court ruled in favour of the govt. Of course there are reasons why some disabled people need a spare room FFS.
The other issue is that, if the tenants downsize to a private property, they will likely need more housing benefit as the rent is higher.
Clegg was on and on about how this will help families get into larger homes. Bullshit! Anyone age 61+ is exempt.
Just seen this.
From what I read the judgement wasn't looking at the fairness of the policy, but looking at its legality?
The local MP for Brighton has stated that no one in Brighton will lose their home as a result of the 'bedroom tax'. If local councils can't make their own decisions then is that incorrect?
Yes it was based on legality rather than fairness and the judge did criticise the policy but it still leaves these families high and dry if their LA decides to evict them
Of course there are reasons why some disabled people need a spare room. But this should be done on an individual basis. And I also agree that it is unfair that over 60's are exempt. And also the rules don't apply to people who rent privately. They don't seem to be entitled to very much at all.
The government are saying local authority's can use discretionary housing payments holly. They have given £35 million pounds for them and are estimating saving £500 million per year through the policy.
Councils Will have to choose themselves who they will help out with it but it won't stretch that far.
' And also the rules don't apply to people who rent privately. They don't seem to be entitled to very much at all.'
They are entitled to housing benefit according to the local authority caps. If they can find a place with spare rooms that flies under the caps, then they can get that place.
Agreed it's ridiculous that pensioners are exempt, as by and large they're the ones causing all the problems by clogging up all the family houses.
Discretionary Housing Payments are not going to stetch very far at all. Councils are going to be faced with tough decisions about who gets them and who doesn't. Only the most desperate cases will succeed in getting them.
Holly you are misled but its totally understandable why the info is not out there in any useful way.
How it works is this
You have a HB claim lets say for ease sake your rent is £100 pw as off the first of April this year £14 pw was taken off you straight away for 1 room over and above what they say you need. ( along with several other amounts for different things) now about 4 weeks before 1/4 a court case was won by some families with disabled children ( the case had already been won but was appealed by the LA) that basically stated if you have a disabled child the LA has to asses the case for exemption they do not have to do anything other than asses.if medical evidence can be provided that confirms the none disabled child in question ( or if both are disabled the one who you decide not to apply for leaving you another chance to apply if turned down) would create unreasonable disturbance to sleep.
If they don't exempt they do have to justify why not and it can be appealed.
So that's children done.
On to adults no such exemption exists so the £14 gets taken off your award however you can make an application to the DHP/DHF this is a time limited none long term first come first served type of fund.
They also do not have to follow the normal benefit income assessing rules so can take Into account income that is normally protected from means testing even if it is already committed to care costs.if they want they can decide to say "nope you can do away with your carer or xyz"
Its intended to be used for people at risk of homelessness short term to allow them to move to more affordable housing and is in no way guaranteed to be awarded no matter how valid your case is.
Different LA's can decide there own criteria for payments historically its never been enough one of its prior usages was for under 25's with estrangement problems after they changed the rules for those. Each time they change the rules they boost the DHP but never enough to cover the fall out.
Most disabled adults will get turned down unless they have professional help to apply same as all the other disability related benefits. But with the DHP there is no real challenge and no real rules they have to follow.
They found have the guts to tackle pensioners.
My green was closed by the council 25 years ago when my grandad required from work that relays came with tied accommodation.
Lovely 3 bed house (2 sons still at home at the time) and now she is rattling about the house alone with a stair lift in to manage.
Problem is the wait for a one bed ground floor is such that she will probably be dead before she is offered one.
I don't see why it should be more distressing to make a pensioner move than a disabled person due to having an extra bedroom. Both situations are upsetting and would cause anxiety to those involved.
Disabled seem to be fair game though. I would hope LA' s won't force people out but surely that will depend on pressure on social housing?
I'm concerned rulings like this just hardens hearts more in this country...
I thought when he first came into power that the disabled would have been one of the last to face cuts seeing as his son was severley disabled so I thought he would have had some compassion towards disabilities. Obviously not! I didnt vote for them btw.
Oh and most LA's are still telling people who do not need to use the DHP to do so because they cannot be arsed to learn what they are actually meant to do or only want to tell one member of staff not all of them.
So funding from DHP is being used when it does not need to be reducing it for the cases that do need it.
Rhonda weirdly enough when I saw this thread one of my first thoughts was hmm I wonder if rhonda's seen this.
Oh and most areas have a approx 15 week backlog on DHP assessments
This Government are despicable. They care about no one but their rich, gentry, landowning type friends.
Where do the propose these people move to? Are they just going to magic up lots of empty 1&2 bedroom properties for them to move in to? Are they fuck.
Do you know what though? I reckon that in 2015 the Tories will get a majority, I really do and I am dreading to think what they will do next. So many people are pleased about what they are doing to people on benefits, the rich/better off pensioners are ok, 75%of people polled don't think Ed Milliband will make a good PM. It's all there if you ask me.
It's all down to politics. And if Labour got a decent leader who talked sense they'd have a chance of getting in. But they haven't with Milliband. I voted for them last time but won't next time.
Sock that made me
Not that there's much to grin about in the whole sorry mess.
Pensioners aren't touched because they are the biggest voters
I can't understand why the woman in the case needs an extra bedroom for her DH.That room is plenty big enough for another bed for him to sleep in too or else he could sleepon a pull out sofa in the lounge.
..and I can't believe people are surprised by the tories' actions.
They never have been anything but how they are now,Can't believe so many numpties voted for them.
I think the idea with pensioners is that
- they don't have the 1 bed places for them all
- they will be dead eventually and their places will not be filled by more people rattling around in houses two big because they will have been rehoused before 61
It's a long term thing and I think that does make sense, I also foresee them slowly dealing with the pensioners after this latest bout of bedroom tax
its disgraceful. not ONE ofthese high court people has a disabled person in their lives? oh of course, theyre highly paid and get rthe top help and carers and never struggle or have tto pay extra rent.
even scameron and Brown with disabled kids didnt struggle with help did they?
FFS they dont give a bloody shite about us.
"slowly dealing with the pensioner?" wtf does that mean?
My rent is £330 per month, for that I have a lovely 3 bedroom house with front and large back garden. This is in newport.
I am 100% sure that in London this would be a lot more.
According to the government I have a spare bedroom even though my son has autism and could not cope sharing a bedroom with DD. I pay my own rent so this isn't an issue for me.
If I was on HB is seem really unlogical that the government would pay for 2 bedrooms regardless of where I live.
It means dealing with the vast numbers of pensioners rolling about in 3/4/5 bedroom council houses (obviously)
I don't understand why they don't just build more social housing. It's ridiculous in this country, where we have a situation where the government is quite happy to line the pockets of landlords rather than build more affordable homes. I can only imagine that they must all be in the buy to let industry up to their necks themselves. I agree, this government is awful.
Would you care to quantify these vast numbers?
Filee, they did not remove the succession rules so no most of the houses will not be back in the running for more people to use.
The only thing that will happen is the tenancies get succeeded
but a lot of immigrants come and take housing? not trying to encourage a biscuit throwing here but it was on the news they dont know how many people come into the country and yet theres a big problem with housing shortage?
dont know if Ive worded that right, this is not a pop at immigrants but a question about housing shortage?
Game that's not the case.
Ones who have recourse to public funds go on the list just like everybody else ones who don't get sent away from the housing office with nothing.
and how many empty buildings are there left to rack and ruin? but thing is too that
1- people with disabled people have houses adapted to the disabilities yet are told they have to go, and
if theyre so bloody insistent we have to move then THEY should find appropriate housing, not sit back on their silk lined arses and smoke their cubans in their luxury pads.
I was told that due to my DS1 being disabled, that the extra would be paid out of the discretionary fund, but it was mentioned that if the outcome of the court case changed that, then there was the understanding that I could be billed for it. I had to give the council a letter from DS1's paediatrician explaining that not only was it not safe for both boys to be in the same room, but that because DS1 (7) was up frequently during the night, it would mean that DS2 (3) would never have a full night's sleep either, which would be detrimental to his schooling and his health.
If it comes down to me having to pay it, I think it's about £50 or so a month. I would pay it if it meant the difference between staying here where they've made a bunch of alterations to my house due to DS1's disability and having to move somewhere else. I'll deal with it because I have to, and cut back in other areas to make sure I have the money. However, I know there are a lot of families out there that won't be able to cover it, and that is horrendous. When someone in the family is disabled, there are enough stresses and worries without this as well, especially with all this changeover to PIP and ATOS appointments and DLA cutbacks.
Have I just wandered into a Labour Party convention? I think people have forgotten that one of the reasons the country is in a mess financially is the spend spend spend views of the last government.
I don't see the issue with people having less housing benefit if they have spare rooms. Why should the tax payer have to pay for someone to have rooms that are either not required or only used very occasionally.
Of course some cases need to be looked at carefully, but there are some that will be rightfully refused any leeway.
And yes, I receive housing benefit and have to pay a large proportion of my £775 per month rent...
The housing situation in this country is f***ed and clearly no political party wants to anything to address this issue. They all love high house prices as that gets them votes from the home owners. The problem is though that it has caused serious problems for those not fortunate enough to own their own homes, and now Osborne is doing all he can to re-inflate the bubble. I really do despair at the lunatics running
destroying this country.
Yes damn those poor people and their SPACE.
How dare they want a decent nights sleep. It's selfishness like that that's brought this country to its knees...
And all those one bedroom houses going spare around the country too...
well said triggles. exactly. and i hope you get the help.
Wow Rhondajean. I guess you need an extra bedroom to get a good nights sleep.
Ilovemyself - I agree money was overspent by the last government and I saw first hand some appalling waste going on but it's STILL going on unchecked by those in power and yet certain groups of people are taking a huge portion of the hit.
IMO it's purely Tory rhetoric that wants to reduce the benefits bill and see anyone who needs help as scroungers or work shy.. the real waste happens where you don't see it.
Good lord do you actually understand what this thread is about?
I'm actually okay at this point. We're getting by. But thank you Game. My concern is all those families out there that are NOT okay. This, combined with all the other upsets and cutbacks regarding disabilities, could push them over the edge and into homelessness, depression, and having to move could mean the loss of a job. Having to move could cause untold problems for children with disabilities that are on a statement in a particular school regarding transportation.
I find it rather distasteful that David Cameron went out of his way prior to election to stress how he was in the corner of families with disabilities and then all this is happening. And yes, he had a son with disabilities, but do you honestly think he faced some of the stressful financial worries that so many have? He said he applied for DLA for his son, even though financially he is well-off. That's fine, he's entitled to it. But to then turn around and be quite happy to allow them to make these changes that will be so detrimental to those that are disabled is a slap in the face, really. He's never had to worry about paying for an extra bedroom for medical equipment or because his child is not safe to share a room with a sibling. He's not going to have to worry whether about what level of care or mobility his child is going to get and whether or not it means he can claim carer's allowance in order to make sure bills are paid. Or realise he can never get childcare because of his child's disability, which means he can't work. It's highly disappointing, but I'm not horribly surprised that he cannot understand what this is doing to all these families.
The other issue is that, if the tenants downsize to a private property, they will likely need more housing benefit as the rent is higher.
My friend lives in a 4bed HA house. She has a bigger back garden than me, plus 2bathrooms and a downstairs loo, massive kitchen, balcony,
designated parking (not that she has a car)
On the other hand, I live in a 2bed terraced private rent. Postage stamp garden, 1bathroom.
My rent is roughly double what hers is. When her dd moves out (coming up 16, could be any time really) she will no longer be 'entitled' to that house. But there is a massive shortage of 3bed ha houses, so she could well have to move into a private rent. Which will cost more than double what her current house is in hb payments. Where is the logic?! We are both on full hb btw.
My nanny otoh is in a 3bed council house, despite the fact there are 1bed places available here she doesnt have to move, despite the fact that doing so will free up a much needed family home.
There was loads of examples on how the previous government over spent.
Like Heath in pregnancy grant £190 , £250 per child for CTF so that £440 per pregnant women that was wasted.
In 2009 there were 706,248 births and if every women claimed this and assuming there was no multiple births that £310,749,120 wasted.
McNewPants How old are your dc? My local borough don't allow girls and boys over a certain age to share, so you would be entitled to 3bedrooms. And unless its been changed, my local authority also say that a child with asd isn't expected to share, so you'd be entitled to 3bedrooms regardless of age/gender.
Rhondajean. It was aimed at your sweeping statement. Not everyone deserves the extra room. Why should others have to pay for it or suffer in cramped accommodation because some want that extra room.
I agree that if a person with a genuine requirement is penalised that is wrong, but there are many out there that reap the benefits ( no pun intended) and don't give a monkeys
Do your self a favour email your HB dept with a letter.
And quote this
It has also been sent round to every LA in a housing circular
Directly state in your letter that this states an exemption HAS to be made and not that additional funding should be applied for also directly state that the rules of the DHP/DHF state that no payment should be made where statutory duty exists to fund from normal HB reserves.
Include in it that you have already supplied all the information they requested but they have used that information incorrectly and used it for DHP rather than applying the exemption.
And that they should treat this email as a formal request for an exemption.
Find a tactful way of including that given that the gov has issued guidance on this you are surprised that they are advising use of the DHP when most LA's around the country are using the correct procedure.
It may take about 12 weeks to get an answer and they won't want to admit they fucked up but after a fashion it will have the desired result.
And unless its been changed, my local authority also say that a child with asd isn't expected to share, so you'd be entitled to 3bedrooms regardless of age/gender
It's not this way in all areas, definitely not in mine. I still had to request it, get a letter from paed, and wait (weeks) for them to make a decision.
'I agree that if a person with a genuine requirement is penalised that is wrong, but there are many out there that reap the benefits ( no pun intended) and don't give a monkeys'
And this entire thread is about those people who are being penalised.
Plenty reaping the benefits? You mean like every single one of those age 61 or more who are completely exempt?
Sock Thanks, I'll look into that.
Ds is 7 and DD is 4
That's my HA and as it states 2 children under 10 can share.
The heading and the op should have indicated quite clearly that we are talking about people who do need it have genuine need for it and not the people you are talking about.
Oh for crying out loud.
Every single LA says that under 10's have to share and over tens of the same sex have to share.
That's the law and that is what we are talking about.
Also no disability is automatically exempt each one gets assessed on a case by case basis.
In this government's eyes people with disabilities are a drain on the state, and policies and rhetoric like this are propaganda designed to convince the general population that this is the case. Listening to the whole language of policy towards people with disabilities chills me. I find it genuinely frightening that people are happy to go along with this.
Oh ok it was just a thought about their ages, I didn't know if all LAs had the same rules about that. I don't know much about the rules for disabilities, other than everyone I know with an asd child has been allocated a bedroom for them to have to themself. Sorry if that information is incorrect.
Yeah bit spikey while they have people moaning about other people having a few more square feet of room, they aren't looking at the true costs of supporting Thr banks or tax avoidance compared to the cost of the welfare system.
Divide and conquer.
My parents were both disabled, Dad is dead now but he was a double amputee and we had a 3 bed council house with a lift through the ceiling. At one point there were 5 children living there but by the end just my parents and myself. Dad had a hospital bed, oxygen tanks, electric wheelchair etc. My mum had to sleep in another room, there was physically no room for her in Dad's room. If this policy had been in effect then we would have been in real difficulties.
Now I care for my mum, she lives in my (mortgaged) house and I save this disgraceful government money. I don't have a spare room, but I don't begrudge those who do. I don't see people in social housing as 'other' than me. As getting things that I should have. The government wants me to, though. It wants me to see these people as a burden who should be removed.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.