Victim of Domestic Violence challenging bedroom tax(21 Posts)
This is a fascinating case. Sometimes victims of DV can have a 'panic room' installed in their home which is a secure room they can hide in which is only lockable from the inside in the event of their abuser attempting to break in and attack them. This woman has fallen foul of the 'bedroom tax ' because of this extra room. It's just another example of how different people can fall foul of this unjust law. I hope she wins her case.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
"The woman... has been the victim of rape, assault, harassment, stalking and threats to kill at the hands of her former partner" on a tangent here but why on earth isn't he in jail? It doesn't say how long ago the attacks were but if it happened recently, why is he allowed the opportunity to torment her? If it happened a long time ago, why is it down to a refuge charity to keep her safe while IDS tries to take back less than £12 a week from her and just 280 other families? It's so ridiculous, it's a drop in a drop in the ocean of the public purse but a world of difference to the individuals. The fact she will be forever living in fear to the extent that she needs a panic room, and is being penalised for having a spare room, is just .
If the definition of a panic room is one which is only lockable from the inside, surely any room can be used? A bolt on the bedroom door serves the purpose; or am I missing something?
The door is heavier. There is usually separate lines in the room that are not connected with the main house, so are harder to cut. Alarm linked straight to the police. Either no windows or bars on the windows. Its a safe room that is built in a way to protect the person from numerous things.
She as others in a similar situation either had these rooms built, and other adjustments to the house done prior to the bedroom tax. Or where moved into the house by the council when fleeing dv, and again modifications made.
These modifications are not quick to be built. So even if she and others like her where able to move to a smaller property, it would take time to get the LL to agree to the changes and for the changes to be made. And during this time, she and others like her would still need to pay this extra money.
FloggingMolly I did wonder about that. This Women's Aid link explains some of their concerns.
Panic rooms are fitted with strong doors and a phone line and other safety measures. They are designed with safety in mind not sleep or comfort. Why would you want your bedroom to be a place of fear which is what it would become if you fitted it as a panic room.
The point is that if this woman was forced to move she would be at further risk and another Panic room would be fitted for her. This all costs money..... Much more than her paltry 11 quid a week.
I was in favour (and still am) of the principle of the bedroom tax, but it was poorly thought through and has bought hardship and suffering for those who should never have been affected including: those in areas where there are no downsizing options available; disabled & carers; elderly with carers who would otherwise be in state funded residential care etc...
The rules should be reviewed urgently and local councils should stop blindly applying policy because it suits them.
I hate, hate, hate the bedroom tax with passion. The poor always pay in times of crises, always more than the rich. But the bedroom tax is extra special in how it demeans and degrades people. Poor people are begrudged a few extra square feet of space. How dare they take possession of resources in a way that does not perfectly align with their deservedness? It is astonishing to me how much violence poverty brings even in countries with a good social safety net. If you are poor, the state will always watch you, assess you, evaluate your private life, move you about, treat you as a plant that just needs to be fed and watered just enough.
Of course the bedroom tax should be waived in this case (and the 300 others in the same position). Only an absolute fool, with a cruel streak, would think differently. I agree with Trapper about the other types of situation where it should also be waived.
There is a similar thread about this case in Relationships at the moment. A few rather nasty and ill informed comments about this case but lots of supportive ones too. To me, this case illustrates how women have been victims of these cuts and how ideological they are. IDS has already spent more money fighting this case than any money they will recoup from getting, what, £11.00 a week back from this poor victimised woman. The law is so inadequate that it can't ensure her safety and now she is being doubly victimised by having to have these extreme measures in her own home. What the hell has happened to compassion and protection of women against extremely violent men in this country?
There was a thread about this months ago, I will try to find and link it.
Poster on there explained panic room more as well inc think about a room which is fireproof for a pretty good long time, you can't get through door with a chainsaw etc. Bloody terrifying. One of the conditions is that you can't use it for anything else as I understand it and they cost £££ to put in.
Also questioning why if there is enough evidence that an individual (& kids) are at risk of danger so much that a council will agree to spend £££ on a panic room then why the fuck is there not enough evidence to put them in prison. Can't imagine the councils dish them out without masses of reason & evidence as they cost so much.
Now will read article and look for link
Oh the article I didn;t realise that this case had already been to the Govt / IDS and they had told her to fuck off.
I don't think this is linked to the case in the other thread where the council had put the panic room in rather than a charity.
Where is the benefit in getting this woman to move I don't understand their thinking at all. Well I do, they're scum and this woman and her child's life is worth less than £11 and change a week.
It's not the first the govt have heard of it obv and they are fighting against people with panic rooms being exempt from it.
That's just wishing these people injured or worse really isn't it? Or is that an over-reaction?
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.