Disabled woman to be evicted from specially adapted home due to bedroom tax

[hettienne]

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bedroom-tax-disabled-mum-of-two-lorraine-2204216

I find this whole bedroom tax situation appalling, but particularly that it disproportionately affects disabled people - I actually find it hard to believe it is legal! I have read that 100,000 people are in this woman's position - living in specially adapted homes, so have nowhere to move too.

My sister has cerebral palsy, lives in a specially adapted (actually, built for a disabled person) bungalow, she was turned down for the discretionary payment. There are no one bedroom accessible adapted properties. The whole thing would be a joke if it wasn't so cruel to people who are already struggling to live independent lives.

Taking money off her benefits so that she has to pay more rent than before is the same as increasing her rent.

The purpose of the bedroom tax is to raise the cost of housing for people you want to force out of accommodation you think is too spacious for their needs.

the govt's whole strategy is to undermine the concept of public provision - NHS (stealth privatised), academies, housing, student fees, the lot. If you don't buy it, you don't count. Public sector is the last resort for the desperate. Council houses are not permanent homes, they are for temporary problems until you can get back to normal ie private sector/ownership

I grant you that the net effect is the same but technically two different things.

Out of interest, if the lady wasn't disabled and all other facts remained the same, would there be such an outcry? Would it have made the papers? Would there be the same level of sympathy given she's refused to apply for a discretionary grant?

If she wasn't disabled, why would public money have been used to have her home adapted for her disabilities?\

I disagree with the "bedroom tax" as a general principle, but it blows my mind that it is being applied to people who have had their homes adapted at public expense. That makes no sense even if you accept the principle that people who claim housing benefit should not be allowed to have a spare room.

I am disabled, I was given a three bed flat in January, for me and my daughter.
The HA say I need this size property as I get High rate DLA, which acknowledges that I may need overnight care, and the carer needs their own room.
My flat also has a wheelchair ramp, and the HA are going to adapt the bathroom and kitchen for me.

However, I have to pay bedroom tax as they are now saying I am not entitled to have the extra room

So they are adapting a property they say I need to have, yet shouldn't have, and if I move, they have to find me another suitable property, or adapt one.

Seriously, you couldn't make it up.

Indeed, Netto, madness. And madness that will be extremely costly for taxpayers as well as miserable for disabled people.

Jesus, Netto, that's straight out of Kafka.

I know it's not really a laughing matter, but it is almost comical how ridiculous it is.

There is something so niggardly about the demand that people have their HB reduced if they have a spare room so that family can visit.

But to refuse to take that into account when someone needs to have overnight care is just a kind of evil.

What benefit can there be to our society that people with disabilities who need overnight care can't afford to stay in homes that allow for that?

It's just lose, lose.

It costs more, it puts some of our citizens under pointless pressure that reduces their quality of life.

So much waste.

Oh, and, when they are adapting my bathroom so I have a walk in shower, they are also replacing the toilet and sink, with the exact same ones as "that's policy".

It's crazy Netto - it does seem bizarre that this policy almost seems to target disabled people.

According to FasterStronger they should have just built you a new house though

"failure to engage"

I've seen that accusation made against people who didn't come into an office for a meeting - one had social phobia and severe anxiety and the other one wasn't physically able to get into an office at 9am, considering that she needed her carer to help her get there and the carer didn't start till 9.30.

There's no bloody reasonable adjustments.

Also, the additional payments are not permanent - they only last a few weeks / months and then stop.

Oh there are new houses/flats being built atm, it's a different HA, but same town.
I have been told I'll get the maximum points if I downsize, but, get this, I can't downsize, because then I'll be in a too small property and they aren't allowed to do that to me
I have no choice but to pay the money, or face eviction.

MPs who voted for the bedroom tax claim extra expenses for spare rooms to have their children visit them in London www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/bedroom-tax-mps-claim-child-housing-subsidy/6528260.article

I've not read the article but if she has grown up children living with her why can't they contribute to he rent

No-one's sure what their situation is Choude. It sounds as though they are in full-time education and residing at home, which I understand would make them exempt, but may be wrong!

If not then I assume they are studying part-time, and in which case I'm not even clear what the pre-bedroom tax rulings were, particularly re: the under 18yo and whether or not either would be able to claim hb for renting a room in their mother's house and whether she'd be allowed to do this, and so on. All a bit woolly.

In any case the examples on this thread (particularly Netto's) are showing how cruel it is to apply these new rules retrospectively, when it's all so ill thought through. It seems an awful, draconian mess.

It's just madness.
Part of me wants to ask to downsize, to see what happens.
They can't, by their own rules, put me in a two bed, yet I have to pay the extra for this one.
I sometimes think about insisting they find me a two bed with all the adaptations I need.
Hey, I'm disabled, I don't get out much, I need to entertain myself somehow

I can't understand how they will be able to commence court proceedings on the couple of hundred pounds arrears she has tbh?

It's usually a minimum of 2 clear months in arrears. Which she isn't. So the council can't have served the valid section 8 notice with the mandatory ground 8 included.

I reckon she has been sent the standard computer generated letters as the system recognises the arrears balance.

The article also statex that the children spend time with their father so it could be that the older one doesn't technically live there then the council doesn't have to allow him a bedroom.

And with a second independent adult living there unless he is in fu time education at uni or equivalent then she may not be entitled to full hb. I know a friend of my mums list £35 a week hb when her unemployed son moved in.

With regards to the adaptions if she applied for the discretionary payment she should qualify. My cousin has mh issues and a 2 bed flat. He hasn't been affected by the bedroom tax as he needs a spare room in case his carer needs to stay.

I agree with the bedroom tax in some situations. When it is obvious that the property would be better suited to a family and there is 1 person living in it. On the condition that suitable alternative accommodation can be found and help with moving costs. But not as a blanket policy.

And it will be interesting to see how the courts will rule on these cases when they do get in front of judges.

Ground 8 which is the mandatory ground for eviction on an arrears based eviction can be over ruled by a judge if he or she decides that the arrears are not the fault of the tenant. Which a sympathetic judge could decide it isn't especially if the tenant gets the relevant advice and can show the judge that either downsizing isn't an option due to either medical grounds or that no smaller properties are available.

All I can see this policy doing is costing the taxpayer in useless coury hearings.

It's very difficult for even private ll to evict the very worst of tenants on normal tenancies never mind councils and ha when there tenants are on permanent tenancies.

very good link Hettienne, if 'spare' bedrooms aren't allowed for tenants, why are they provided for MPs at public expense?

Frouby - indeed. I hope there are some judges who see sense and rule that disabled people should not be penalised for living in adapted properties.

Niceguy2 No actually you are wrong

The vast majority of elderly people in social housing are working class people who have never earned enough to buy, these elderly people in the main are LABOUR voters. Not Tory.

The thing with adapting properties for people or children with disabilities isn't just the cost - its the amount of time it takes. It isn't something that can just be done overnight - I've known families wait for months, years even to get through all the processes before work even starts.