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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Ds is 7 and DD is 4
That's my HA and as it states 2 children under 10 can share.
'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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good lord do you actually understand what this thread is about?
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.
Wow Rhondajean. I guess you need an extra bedroom to get a good nights sleep.
well said triggles. exactly. and i hope you get the help.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.