BEDROOM TAX related. Letter mentioning Childrens Services. AIBU to think this is appalling.

[Darkesteyes]

Apparently if a parent recieves a letter notifying them of eviction proceedings they will be considered to have caused this situation intentionally and Childrens Services will be notified.
Ive seen at least 3 copies of letters like this on Twitter over the past few days. So

twitter.com/robolollycop/status/397035649460498432/photo/1

Anyone else finding this thread really upsetting? I'm fed up of facts being ignored and people willfully being happy for disabled people to be persecuted.

YY Double If you look at posters that were put up in Germany in 1933 the parallels are chilling.
I dont believe the human race as a whole have learnt anything from history.

www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/fact/the_holocaust_and_disabled_people_faq_frequently_asked_questions.shtml

From the above link.

The Nazis claimed that the social and economic problems that Germany experienced in the 1920s and early 1930s were due in part to the weakening of the population created by an unfair burden.

Nazi propaganda in the form of posters, news-reels and cinema films portrayed disabled people as "useless eaters" and people who had "lives unworthy of living". The propaganda stressed the high cost of supporting disabled people, and suggested that there was something unhealthy or even unnatural about society paying for this. One famous Nazi propaganda film, Ich Klage An (I Accuse), told the story of a doctor who killed his disabled wife. The film put forward an argument for "mercy killings". Other propaganda, including poster campaigns, portrayed disabled people as freaks.

We had issues earlier this year where we were made homeless as the private landlord gave us notice and claimed we were behind on the rent (when we weren't) and after 2 months in a homeless shelter the council ruled we were intentionally homeless and gave us a date to be out by, saying they would provide no more help. (we have since proved the landlord was a lying git, as have other families he did this too as he owns hundreds of properties)

SS were made aware by the homeless advisor from the council, They had to come and meet the children and did tell us that if we got to the day we had to be out without having sorted somewhere for the children to stay (even if that was just with family until we found somewhere) then they would take the children into respite care until we found somewhere but that SS cannot help house us as a family, just give us information of places that can (which we had already contacted with no luck). They did offer information on a scheme to help with a deposit but the majority of private landlords here do not accept the scheme.

The social worker had sorted a temporary placement for the children for the night we were due to be evicted from the shelter but luckily for us we did eventually find somewhere and the lovely new landlord rushed our paperwork through so we got our keys 6 hours before we had to be out of the shelter.

Disabled people aren't being persecuted and to compare it to the Nazis is ridiculous!

The changes effect everyone regardless of whether they are able bodied or not. If a disproportionate amount of disabled people are affected, it's because a disproportionate amount were living in homes bigger than they needed.

You can appeal if you can prove you need the space. That's need, not it's more convenient. You wouldn't need a room for a wheelchair, I imagine you would for dialysis equipment etc.

You might like to look at Calum's List to see how. Any people 'aren't' dying.

I cannot believe how ignorant and narrow minded your comments are. Really proves you gave zero knowledge, empathy or imagination.

Calums List

Disabled people are being disproportionately targeted and persecuted by all the reforms.

There has also been a rise in hate crimes against disabled people.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9626664/Disability-hate-crimes-rise-by-a-quarter-in-a-year.html

www.bluebadgestyle.com/2013/07/disability-hate-crime/

People killing themselves don't count as dying as a result of the changes. They did it. No one made them.

Old people having to choose between heating and eating and freezing to death is a problem with the benefit system.

I know it may sound cold hearted. It's not meant to be. If you need the room, you need it and you can appeal. If you want it but don't need it, then yes, you should pay for the privilege.

The whole thing with the bedroom charge is that the government have changed their rules and instead of helping people who they have housed in houses/flats they now deem as being too 'big' they are expecting the people to either pay up (and £14 a week is alot on benefits) or find a smaller house.

People are trying to find smaller houses but it's all done through a swap system. So if no one wants to swap with you, you're fucked

The problem is everyone should have downsized before but as there were no penalties didn't!

Fifi you make me ashamed to be human. That second last post of yours is disgusting.

No.

And where do you downsize to when no one will swap with you?

And where do you downsize to when no one will swap with you?

private rentals.

Disabled people aren't being persecuted and to compare it to the Nazis is ridiculous!
Actually a recent University of East Anglia study showed that disabled people are suffering the cuts, disproportionally.
As for your comment about people killing themselves, well, it's beyond contempt.

The funny thing is, those that do manage to downsize to private rentals will see an increase in their housing benefit, in order to ensure their rent is met.

The hard of thinking are out in force tonight eh?

Most private rentals will not take people on housing benefit, which includes many low earning workers. Even when they do the rental cost for a smaller house is often more than the cost of a larger social rented house.

For the less challenged among us, there's also now an issue around letting "larger"social rented properties, eg 3 bed or up, as there are so few people who would not be penalised for being in it. Thus there's void rental loss starting to affect housing associations and local authorities as well.

So we reach a situation where we have people needing accomodation, no suitable accomodation available, accomodation which COULD be suitable except gosh darn it it would give those damn poor people too much space and you know, we don't want to encourage them with their expectations, god knows what they will want next, a net increase in costs to teh country, and a bunch of numpties who really cannot see anything remotely farcical about the whole situation because they are so bitter they are scared anyone might get something over on them.

God help us all.

I'm hoping somebody else will have posted some realities in this thread already, and I do apologise if so as I'm too lazy to read through.

I worked as a Housing Officer at a Local authority making enquiries and ultimately written decisions on homeless applications. I now work for a charity giving legal advice to the homeless and scrutinising LA decisions.

Being evicted for rent arrears does not automatically equate to being intentionally homeless.

Under Section 191 (1) of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, a person only becomes intentionally homeless if;

'he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy'.

I cannot stress quite clearly enough that you CANNOT be found IH from an unaffordable property.

-If a property was always unaffordable from the day you moved in, the LA will not deem it to be 'settled' accommodation and they will have to look back at to the property prior to that to determine whether it was both 'available' and 'reasonable'.

-'Reasonable' also covers criteria such as disrepair and overcrowding. If the prior property still wasn't suitable, the LA will keep looking back until they find somewhere that was suitable. I've seen people found intentionally homeless from properties they vacated 8+ years ago.

-If a property became unaffordable at some point during the tenancy, then the LA would have to consider whythis is. For example, I found somebody intentionally homeless for having been found guilty of racially aggravated assault against their manager, thereby losing their job. Their benefits then didn't cover the rent in full, and they built up arrears. However, I found that we owed a duty to the chap who was simply made redundant and could not longer afford to pay his rent.

The part VII housing legislation has largely been clarified in many parts by a code of guidance from 2006, but there are an absolute wealth of interesting case law on the matter of homelessness.

An utterly fascinating job but times are fucking tough right now, and I am so glad that I'm the one scrutinising their decisions now, rather than making them.

Even when they do the rental cost for a smaller house is often more than the cost of a larger social rented house.

but then the larger social house can be used to move a larger family from private to social.

so 2 people in 3 bed social house move into a 2 bed private rental.
3 people in a 3 bed private rental move up the housing ladder and into the 3 bed social housing.

there are move people living in social housing and fewer in private, so by your accounting, the total cost is reduced.

Nope you are because believe it or not most of the people looking for social housing need one or two bedrooms.

The last time I discussed it with the policy manager from our local authority he said that their 3 bedroom or larger properties are now practically unlettable.

I am very heavily involved in social housing locally and actually have a clue what I am talking about.

Oh, and Social Services cannot just take children from you because you're homeless and the local authority won't assist.

I have interviewed and held the cases of hundreds of homeless families, and I have only ever see two of them have their children taken into care. In those cases, there were extremely serious, pre-existing child protection concerns and all children were already on the at-risk register.

Please can I recommend that anybody facing these problems, or with any concerns about their own security of tenure, PLEASE- contact Shelter (and no I don't work for them I promise!).

They are truly brilliant and can direct you to more local legal advice centres if necessary.

Don't go through it alone- there are huge funding cuts all round and professionals will lie about what your rights are. Get help.

then the funds to build social housing have been mismanaged.

in private rentals land, there is no shortage of small properties.

Even if that were the case youare it doesn't really resolve the current problem facing a significant number of families, does it.

IF you actually read the rest of the thread, I pointed out last night that for years successive governements have direct social landlords away from building one bedroomed properties, and directed them towards "family" homes. That's been national policy for a long time, reflecting the ideals of people being able to have a home, for life, with a secure tenancy which did not leave them at the whims of private landlords. Along with the sale of many properties under right to buy, it leaves a housing stock which even if ideologically or humanely this policy was correct, cannot meet the demands it places upon it.

But yknow, been explaining that on here for months now...getting slightly frustrated.