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

But, on the whole people do need those rooms. And not wishing to speak for Custardo, but it's very odd that you begrudge a poor person £28 a week so that they can maintain a relationship with the their children, while rich people are ripping us off for billions of £s.

the point is this - entirely this, if a jot of effort was put into collecting taxes owed to this country by rich people and corporations - we wouldn't need to bully the poor

make no mistake, there is no spare room. this is a tax. those people affected cannot in most circumstances downsize.

calumslist.org is a list of people who have died as a result of 'welfare reform'

i cannot believe that people are buying into the 'spare' room absolute bollocks.

It is a tax on the poor - becuase they are bullies who serve their rich rich mega rich buddies

did you read the one about the dining room being considered a spare room - that needs a google

the point is this - entirely this. ask yourself why? why are they bullying the poor

if your answer is some bullshit about the country owing so much money it might just sink or some shit ( which in itself is bullshit)

then ask yourself why they arne't frothing at the mouth to collect taxes from corporate giants?

here is a very pertinent one at the moment

in August it was reported nPower has admitted paying no UK corporation tax for three years

woowoo

You keep saying people who don't need them and I'm curious about that.

Would you say someone whose additional room was occupied by a specialist disability bed and the person who needed that bed but just so happened to be part of a couple,didnt need it?

Or a family with 2 same sex children whose bedroom was to small to fit an actual bed in it wouldn't need one?

Or someone whose room was adapted with any type of bulky disability equipment?

Or as is happening in several areas families who need occasional carers but are unable to afford to pay upwards of £150 per night for a professional one so have to rely on friends or none resident family to assist but because there is no financial paper trail they can't prove they need one?

Or a family who are retaining residency of children on the condition that two same sex children don't share (learning disability or BESD that for what ever reason does not meet the very high DLA criteria to eligible)

Because people with issues like these are the largest group of people reciving these benefit reductions according to turn to us,CaB, shelter,and the LA's themselves.

Collecting taxes is an entirely separate issue, and it's possible to be disapprove of more than one thing at a time.

The 'bedroom tax' is NOT a tax, in any way shape or form. If it were a tax, then everyone with spare bedrooms would be charged it whether they were in social or private housing. In reality, it is a reduction in housing benefit so that housing benefit is only awarded for the number of rooms a claimant actually needs.

People don't need dining rooms, and if someone wants to privately own or rent a house with a dining room or extra bedrooms, then they pay for it. This is not different, and I think society is less divided if people are treated equally. It is not right that some people are given for free and others are not.

The poor are not being bullied, that's a ridiculous statement to make. If the poor are being bullied because they are expected to pay for more than they need, then so are the people who don't claim benefits, because they aren't having extra rooms paid for by the government either.

I don't agree with disabled people having to find the extra rent money for rooms they need, or to stay in a property that they need even if they could manage fine without the extra room, but I disagree because disability benefits aren't enough to cover the associated costs of being disabled. It would be better if all disability benefits were generous enough to cover each individuals needs, then if people need a spare room because of their disability then they can either pay for that in their owned home or their rented one.

The way things are at the moment, a disabled homeowner doesn't get housing benefit to pay for a spare room no matter how much they may need it, and nor should disabled social housing tenants. But they could both be given other non means tested disability related benefits that are awarded according to needs associated with disability. That way everyone's needs are met, and people are treated as equal citizens.

And you just did it again.

If it was people who didn't need it you wouldn't have needed that let's be all PC and include the last paragraph.

Oh and there is already a fund available to homeowners for home adaptations required due to disability so yes homeowners can get help even in some circumstances a great deal of help towards building a needed extra or larger room.

Or as is happening in several areas families who need occasional carers but are unable to afford to pay upwards of £150 per night for a professional one so have to rely on friends or none resident family to assist but because there is no financial paper trail they can't prove they need one?

on a practical note, you can have occasional carers provided by charities for free or very low cost as my family have used them.

Woowoo - 'tax' doesn't mean 'something that applies to everyone or everything with no exception'. If you don't buy petrol, you won't pay petrol duty (except indirectly if you travel by bus).

Call it a tax or a cut if you will, but it is certainly NOT a subsidy. Money is being taken away from the poor, not given to them.

Youare, I refer quite a few families to the service in my area that does but Ime they tend to be easier to get for emergency provision.

Come off it Sock, do you honestly think that the only people that have seen a reduction in their housing benefit are people that are disabled or who have an equally valid reason for needing a spare room?

The last two paragraphs of my post answer the points you made about disabled people, and are reflective of my opinions. I can assure your I'm not trying to 'be all PC'.

Edam, I know what tax means thanks, unlike those who banged on about bedroom tax so much when it was first talked about that the phrase has stuck. A reduction in housing benefit is not a tax. I realise it's not a subsidy, but before the HB was reduced, it very much was a subsidy. The same as its still a subsidy for those over 61 who don't need their extra rooms but who get them paid for anyway.

Sock - forgot to say that I'm aware there are funds available to help homeowners who become disabled. But that is the equivalent of giving social housing tenants priority on the housing list for adapted properties, or of giving them adaptations they need in social properties that they already live in.

It is not the same as giving them money to pay their mortgage, which is what housing benefit does if it pays the rent in full.

The claim that people who pay for their own accommodation have to pay extra for rooms they don't use is a bit of a red herring IMO, as there is no standard price for either bought or rented rooms. A house with a dining room will not necessarily cost more than a house without one - it depends on a lot of other factors, including what area it's in, what the other rooms are like etc. And you decide before you commit your funds whether you can or wish to pay extra for a particular feature such as a spare bedroom or two. You don't get put in a house which you are told by the authorities is suitable for your needs - and the estate agent doesn't come round a few months later and say actually we decided your family didn't really need a house this big so the price has gone up. Your choices are limited by your means, but not by someone else's idea of what you ought to have chosen before you knew it would make a difference.

The cost of private rents does go up though, and you could be paying £1000 a month rent and then be forced to reduce it by moving because you lost your job or you lost hours.

That's just life, circumstances change.

You don't get put in a house which you are told by the authorities is suitable for your needs - and the estate agent doesn't come round a few months later and say actually we decided your family didn't really need a house this big so the price has gone up. Your choices are limited by your means, but not by someone else's idea of what you ought to have chosen before you knew it would make a difference.

but isn't this an argument against having social housing for people who aren't seriously ill/disabled and need extra support?

According to every single org dealing with welfare benefits and housing the vast majority of people experancing the changes do fit into groups I mentioned there are far less subject to the reduction who don't fit the disadvantaged groups I mentioned.

I think the only reason older people are exempt is so people don't go crazy that poor Mavis has lived in that house all her life and now she's being made to move.....

If it stays in place there won't be old people alone in big houses. Sounds like a win to me.

People with medical conditions requiring another room can appeal with medical evidence. I don't actually think an occasional carer should count, not when there's a cramped family that could use that room 24/7.

No people with medical conditions can't appeal no matter what evidence they can provide.

Get your facts right. No ill or disabled adults have any exemptions unless they are exempt by age ( over 61) its only significantly disabled children where sharing would create a major disturbance to any child expected to share with them and no other reason not even a requirement for personal care in situ and privacy is considered just the disturbance to the none disabled child that qualifies for consideration for exemption.

The rules do not even promise exemption only that it will be considered.

No, it's not an argument against social housing for anyone at all who wants it. Why would it be?

Re rents going up and incomes down, well yes, that is life. The closer you are to the bottom of the heap the more uncomfortable things get. That is when you may be on your knees to the Council, giving up your former flexibility in exchange for affordable rent (or even no rent if your circumstances are harsh enough). It could happen to anyone, although those who have their health, marbles and savings tucked away will hopefully not be in that position for long. What's my point? Er, I've forgotten. What's yours?

with the situation I was referring to, I find it unfair as the man concerned would have been happy with a 1 bedroom flat but it was the council themselves that housed him in a 3 bedroom flat

The flat was a HTL , Hard to Let, so essentially they gave him the extra bedrooms because no one else were bidding on these properties to stay there (as I said , a highrise, in a bad area, loads of crime and drugs)

But now they want to charge him for a situation they put him in.

And, as I mentioned, he has been on the transfer/swap list since the bedroom tax was touted as an idea but no one wants to live there as a shithole

If the government have made mistakes and given houses that are too big to people , that is their problem to fix, I find it bad that they are taking it out on the people living there simply because they have decided to change their rules.

David Cameron is an idiot.

Why is it the governments problem to fix?

Surely people should be expected to sort out their own housing unless they are particularly vulnerable?

ODFOD

Because the government caused it! They changed the rules. Their policy is causing hardship, disruption, and will end up costing the public purse far more. It's stupid and cruel.

How do you 'sort out' your own housing when you find find yourself in a property that the council allocated to you and no one will swap with you?

The government/councils should be actively helping people find a smaller home but they don't.

Some council houses are in crap areas and it's hard for them to get anyone to take up tenancy in them.

If no one will swap with you, what do expect the tenants to do?

The removal of subsidy for extra bedrooms in social housing is entirely sensible, in its old form the Government was providing subsidy for no benefit, which is wasteful.

What buggering fuck do we pay the national and local government for if not to looking after the well-being of its citizens on matters such as housing? The national government have a lot of control over housing policies and, directly and indirectly, local government policies on the same.

Look at private rentals. The state sorting put housing for healthy adults is wrong. People unable to care for themselves, yes, the state should step in.