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

[RoseRedder]

The whole thing sucks,and for those of you being bit a dissmissive I seriously hope you never find yourself in a position where you have to rely on help from 'the state'

[IneedAsockamnesty]

ifNotNow

Your friend needs to appeal she is 62yo anybody over 61 is automaticly exempt from the rule.

Anybody else whose interested

ATOS has the remit of massively reducing payouts that's why we now ave them,it is there actual job,

Not to help people obtain the funds they are entitled to get but to slash the bill. Its why everybody who comes into contact professionally with them and often there own staff members openly admit they rely on people NOT appealing as they know they are not following the rules.its intentional and encouraged. A bit offish when you know they only come into contact with people made vulnerable by illness or disability but hey it's a easy target group.

rhonda

Very well indeed,short version (if you noticed a absence) I now have a very tiny 10 day old baby girl on my chest born at 35+6 we only came out of hospital a couple of days ago she's only just over 5lbs now but doing very well.

[Darkesteyes]

Oh Sock Many congratulations on the birth of your daughter

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Thank you dark, one great thing about ML is that I don't have to deal with the upset caused by these letters for quite a few weeks

[DoubleLifeIsALifeOfSorts]

Sock congrats! Def the nicest thing I've heard on this thread, if not the whole day

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

an old friend has daily dialysis. she works FT (own business, very long hours). she has a port in her abdomen and connects to a portable unit every night.

so she needs daily dialysis and is capable of work.

two relations worked with terminal illnesses while it was possible.

its not as simple is disease/condition X means someone cannot/should not work.

[RhondaJean]

Oh sock congratulations! I do tiny babies too ( not for a while mind you) they are really great but don't stay tiny for long

I had noticed you weren't around yes and wondered if something was happening. Are we allowed to know the name?

Ok hijack over...

Of course having a terminal illness shouldn't mean automatic exclusion from work as some take years to develop although diagnosed. Now here is the key point though. IT NEVER HAS.

You had to have 6 months or less to live ( obviously occasionally prognosis are out but that had to be the prognosis) or have a substantial physical effect ie disability from the illness to claim benefits. It's never been particularly easy to die

What us disgusting though us that people are being hounded into dying earlier or unnecessarily now by the system. Apologise for it all you like but those of us who actually know what is going on from either sadly personal experience or through or work, voluntary or paid, will stand up as a united front and tell you constantly and consistently YOU ARE WRONG.

Because you are.

But unfortunately truth fact and decency cannot compensate for smallness of spirit.

[Dawndonnaagain]

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


I am decent and empathetic.

[candycoatedwaterdrops]

"I've got no problem with supporting those with disabilities. What they need they can have."

How terribly gracious of you!

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

You had to have 6 months or less to live

but this is nothing like an exact science.

the two close relative who died (1) lived much longer than her prognosis (2) life span could not be determined until the end was a few weeks away.

neither of them got any support from the state when they were dying other than basic palliative healthcare (both had a terminal diagnosis at time of initial diagnosis). they has both worked all their lives without state support (children pre WTC etc.) and so at the end of their lives there was no/little expectation of The State doing anything different in terms of giving them money.

if they could change one thing - if would be better training of GPs explaining terminal diagnoses and the lack or treatment available. not everyone who is disabled, ill or dying wants the same thing.

this type of thread generalises the wants of disabled and ill people, when really their views are as diverse as can be.

of course people on low incomes who are disabled or ill should receive support via the state from everyone else but it is wrong to saying that everyone with experience thinks the same as you do.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

I've pm'd the name as its rather distinctive.

I do rather question the moral fibre of someone who is not a medical doctor who after someone has been declared to not be fit for work by an actual Dr who knows that person says "my next door neighbours dog walkers sisters boyfriends hairdressers mother has that and she can work 100 hours a week and run on the moon"

If your not a doctor you are not qualified to make medical decisions perhaps ATOS need to learn that.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

this type of thread generalises the wants of disabled and ill people, when really their views are as diverse as can be

You do know we are talking about mainly about ill and disabled people who do need the space for a reason associated with their illness or disability who have highlighted the under occupancy charges unfair effect on them and have received letters like the ones we are talking about, don't you?

How is that making any generalisation at all

[YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime]

we had moved on to someone needing dialysis not being able to work when clearly this is not universal.

you obviously don't want a debate so wont waste either of our time.

[IfNotNowThenWhen]

Congrats sock! How lovely, and I am vey impressed that you are still so coherent about all this stuff, even on ten days of new baby sleep!

Is that right, over 61 years and you are exempt? I will look into this for sure.I know she has been stressing about it. Thank You.

I wish there was a [squish] emoticon for squishing new babies.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

I would be delighted to debate this actual issue with someone who is aware of how it works how its implemented who it effects, and the negatives and positives so far as well as costings as well as the impact on housing so far and predicted in a more in depth way than I read it in the fail so it must be true.

Unfortunatly and rather disappointingly anyone who does know that information tends to already agree with me so we never get an actual debate,its always more of a education thing with people who either don't know or don't want to know.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Yes over 61 is a automatic exemption that should not require her to do anything nor apply for anything she has not already applied for.

However according to many charities who work with over 61's a few mistakes have been made with 'computer error's' not correctly seeing the DOB so a quick note or email to the HB dept just saying my DOB is 123456 please check and amend my claim to reflect that I am exempt as my DOB clearly makes me over 61.

Is doing the trick and quite quickly

[PirateJelly]

I have to disagree with the posters saying that it isn't a tax but is just removing people getting money for bedrooms they don't need.

Maybe it's different in other places but where I live you are only entitled to an amount of housing benefit that meet your bedroom need. I.e If you are a single parent with one child or two the same sex then you are assessed as only being entitled to 2 bedroom rate - currently £91 p/w. If that person went to live in a 2 bed costing £86 p/w then they have no extra to pay. If they were given a 3 bed costing £91 in the past they'd have nothing to pay as it met the allowance they were allowed. If that person lived in a 4 bed costing £110 then they have to pay the shortfall off £19. The same if they rent privately and the house is £100 a week the LA will only pay upto the allowance.

But what this bedroom tax now means is a person whose rent fell below what they were entitled to and in some circumstances is actually the same or even lower than a smaller property now has to pay £13 per week bedroom tax despite the fact they are not costing the LA any extra!

Some people seem to have got it into their heads that if someone receiving HB decides to go rent a 3/4 bed house with a spare bedroom then their local authority in the past just paid all their rent no questions asked. I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that!

I live in a 2 bed HA property (so shoot me) I decided to dip my toe in the water and look into a mutual exchange as even though I'm only entitled to a 2 bed I work and wouldn't get charged bedroom tax anyway despite the fact I would be under occupying and saw this as a good chance to get a larger property (several of my 1 child neighbours are doing the same ). Anyway the lady who wanted to swap had two sons but received HB and was being charged £13 p/w bedroom tax which she couldn't afford. We checked with our landlord council, all ok to go ahead despite the fact my extra bedroom really would be spare if I moved into her property. Now here is where it gets really stupid- her large 3 bed property was council and had a weekly rent of £78 p/w (bargain) my 2 bed is a newbuild HA house and costs £91 p/w so if we go ahead with this swap the LA/HB will end up paying an extra £13 p/w in order for this women to downsize,and she won't have to pay a penny in bedroom tax as she is now not under occupying! It would be cheaper for them if she stayed in her 3 bed! Madness!

[BillyBanter]

Well quite. Wrong and costing money not saving it. All it achieves is more divisiveness that seems to work a treat on people who claim to have empathy. The people on the bottom rung getting blamed for the failings of those on the top rung. Again.

[custardo]

madness indeed pirate jelly i agree. What many don't understand is that this is absolutley tory poor bashing ideology wrapped up in a spin of nationalism and " we are all in this together" against austerity bullshit dig for britain against the jerry's war mentality.

if we were all in this together then the taxes from large corporations would be collected

if we were all in this together then the MPs wouldn't claim their energy bills on expenses whilst telling US to put on a fucking jumper

If we were all in this together, the tories wouldn't allow Wonga to rip off desperate people

but we are not in this together

the taxes aren't collected becuyase they are chums, influences and corporate doners

wonga gave handsomely to the tory party. the robbing theiving cunts

[IfNotNowThenWhen]

What custardo said. And also piratejelly has explained the actual, real life, practical insanity of the whole thing perfectly.
I think historians will look back on this time and wonder how the Hell this government got away with it. Every single thing they do is geared towards their rich friends-the shareholders of the nation. They are even stuffing the middle classes!

[Dawndonnaagain]

Well said, Custardo!

[edamsavestheday]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24887143 Tory MP in the news today for claiming expenses for heating his stables... and yet people are frothing about tenants having 'too many' bedrooms.

[edamsavestheday]

here

[Darkesteyes]

Yes well said Custardo