Now the Bedroom tax hits Domestic violence victims as 'panic rooms' are levied

[ttosca]

Terrified victims of domestic violence are being forced to pay the Bedroom Tax on “panic rooms” in their homes.

The ultra-secure spaces are only created by councils when tenants are known to be at real risk of attack from their brutal ex-partners.

Despite this, hundreds of women are now being told their potentially life-saving sanctuaries will cost them a chunk of their housing benefit.

The panic rooms – spare bedrooms with strong bolts on the doors and bars on the windows – are provided so women can flee there with their children if under attack. Many have a direct phone line to the police.

But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that 281 ­households in these “sanctuary” schemes have been told to pay around £14 a week extra. The problem is worst in the north east of England where a quarter of homes with panic rooms have been hit with charges.

Campaigners are now calling for a change in the hated new regulations forced through by Tory Work And Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Polly Neate of Women’s Aid said: “The Bedroom Tax is putting women and children at risk. It took no note of the difficulties survivors of domestic violence face in moving and at a time when there is a severe lack of safe, smaller properties for them to move into.”

The controversial new charges are also hitting kidney dialysis patients who treat themselves at home, even though they save the NHS an average £15,000 a year by not going to hospital.

Nick Palmer of the National Kidney Federation, which is already dealing with dozens of such cases, said: “We are very disappointed these very vulnerable people, who often can’t work, are being penalised for saving the NHS a lot of money.

“Dialysis at home is very cost-­effective. And it’s not just the saving of time in hospital. There are reduced transport costs and less complications.”

Government ministers claim the charge will save £490million a year and free up badly-needed larger properties.But the new charge is hitting ­vulnerable people such as the disabled, who often need an extra room.

Anna Bird of the disability charity Scope said: “For the vast majority of disabled people these are not spare bedrooms, these are ­essential rooms. We’ve spoken to disabled people who aren’t able to share a specially-adapted bed with their partner so they sleep in a separate room.

“But they are being forced to move or find the extra cash they don’t have to pay their rent. Many are struggling to make ends meet and getting in debt just to pay for essentials.”

Two-thirds of households affected by the new tax cannot find the cash to pay their rent, according to the National Housing Federation.

In a survey of 183 housing associations the federation found 66 per cent of their residents affected were in arrears.

More than 522,000 people on housing benefit have had it reduced by an average of £14.50 a week .Another 92,000 had their benefits cut for having two “excess” bedrooms, losing around £23.43 a week.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/now-bedroom-tax-hits-domestic-3299992#ixzz2xOAJK9hT

Ttosca complaining that a poster is writing political propoganda is so funny I nearly ruined another keyboard.

I write 'propaganda' for the 99%, not for any political party, and, unlike Isitmebut, I only post what I believe to be true.

And if council tenants think they are entitled to better conditions than many of us have - I would imagine most private houses don't have great fire precautions - then that shows how badly this country has gone wrong.

They're entitled to housing that meets fire regulations - as are you! If your rented house doesn't, then get onto your landlord. If your owned house doesn't then you should sort it yourself.

Of COURSE council properties should be of an acceptable, regulation-meeting, well-maintained standard!

The ridiculous thing about the entire policy is that it assumes that smaller accommodation is available, whereas that simply isn't the case. It is therefore actually costing money, not saving it. When it adds in ludicrous elements like this one and lack of concessions for, for example, families with severely disabled children who can't share rooms, it becomes an overtly cruel policy. Which sadly is simply not unusual for this government.

I hesitate to come on to this thread but can anyone point me to the bit about dialysis (even just tell me where to find it if a link is a faff) I have a relative who this may affect and I wanted to try and find which LA before i speak to her
thanks

Neenypops...elieve it or not, I understand that any emergency policy will have problems and this one is no problem.

But are you saying that there are less people that need to upsize, than those who can/want to downsize - or maybe a year isn't long enough to correct a 30-year social housing imbalance tttttosca talks about, not helped by 2 million secret migrants over several years, that ttttosca wishes to brush under the Labour's red carpet?

Correction "believe it or not.........and this one is no DIFFERENT."

Whilst the political argy-bargy is going on, is anyone going to address the question of why these people are free to terrorise such that panic rooms are necessary?

Panic rooms are an absolute life saver, can't believe how harsh some of you are!

I had one at my previously owned private property, it had a heavy duty fire proof door with a panic alarm linked to the local police station.

When my ex broke in to my house, I was able to stay safe in their with my terrified dc until the police arrived and arrested him.

I wouldn't however sleep in there!

how can some people be so lacking in basic humanity?

You gotta love these threads. Ttosca comments on something in the news and the 2nd post is always Isitmebut saying "but labour are bad" and getting all offended that someone might think the Tories could be wrong about anything at all.

So yeah, yeah Labour are bad, we know that. They are a very naughty party indeed and should be kept on the naughty step and never allowed to be in charge again.

But getting back to the point. The bedroom tax was a gimmick all along. It was meant to sound like something was being done. No thought was given to how to implement it and some of the steps have turned out to be actually illegal.

The idea of forcing someone to move who has a panic room is more stupid than mean because they just didn't think of things like that when they made the law. Just as they didn't think of carers and rooms needed by people with a disability that made sharing a room difficult.

BackOnlyBriefly…..who said the Conservatives can’t be wrong about anything, fool?

There is a housing crisis as due to their immigration policy, Labour allowed TWICE as many NON EU citizens in as EU citizens in this country, FOR VOTES, as EU citizens cannot vote in General Elections, whereas Commonwealth & Other can .

There was no benefit to the UK population to employment, homes or public services in allowing in to this country citizens THEY HAD CONTROL over, when the numbers from the EU with the right to travel/work/stay was yet to be determined but potentially huge.

So you may call that “the naughty step”, I would call that a screw ‘the people’ sickness to stay in power and keep out 'the Tory scum', gross incompetence of a government, or both.

So we are where we are, and as an emergency measure, trying to facilitate moves to occupy a million (?) empty bedrooms with around 2 million needing social accommadation makes sense – the devil is in the detail, and there are funds available to help hardship cases – it is early days, but what solution has Labour had OTHER than build more homes from 2015 (how?) they forgot to do during 13-years in power, with money to burn.

whatever the state of the economy or housing shortage, it goes without saying that people who have fled domestic violence should not face any further financial penalties just for taking up the offer of a basic security measure in their new house, so that, you know, they can evade serious physical harm or death

I can't believe any decent person would think to argue otherwise, it is a cost we are all happy to help cover surely? obviously it is still cheaper than locking up the perpetrators indefinitely

P.S. Sorry if I ruin ttoscas non political comments in the news, and then pages of 'tut,tut, more proof of the uncaring and out of touch Tories', - but sometimes non political people might want to understand how we got into so many problems - as it gives a more accurate picture on WHICH party was/is 'out of touch' with the people.

Especially if having the sheer hypocrisy to campaign on it and blame a coalition trying to find solutions to social and economic problems of the last governments making, that DID NOT EXIST in 1997.

But are you saying that there are less people that need to upsize, than those who can/want to downsize

Please tell me that you don't seriously believe this issue is that simplistic. I'm simply telling you what councils are saying, namely that they haven't got small properties into which to transfer all the people with alleged spare bedrooms.

I notice you continue to skirt round the issues of panic rooms and disabled children.

Isitmebut you have a right to post and I have a right to point out that your one sided tirades inevitably draw attention away from a real problem here and now. There's nothing constructive about that. It comes across as shrill, unthinking, loyalty to a party.

If we listen to you then no problem can ever be addressed because they can all be traced back to the last Labour Government (or if need be to the one before that or the one before that)

In your excitement you seem to have got quite muddled in your last post to me. You point to a Labour policy on immigration and say "you may call that “the naughty step”. Not sure how you connect the two things at all, but I guess by then you were not reading back what you had written.

As to the actual problem the thread was about. Let's spare a little time for that shall we?. Building a lot more houses would be a solution and as discussed in other threads could be a long term way of stabilising the housing market and preventing housing benefit financing the purchase of property for landlords.

But I don't see our current government doing that and you appear to be saying it can't be done. Not sure why unless you are a landlord. I'm pretty certain houses have been built in the past and it seems to make money for other people when they do it.

The bedroom tax isn't even much of a stop-gap. It's sold as a means to make room for other tenants, but it doesn't do that in most cases. It doesn't address the typical situation where the tenant can't move to a place with less bedrooms because no such places exist.

Oh and for the record I think the Labour government were incompetent and self-serving with little in mind other than preserving their own careers.

And I think mass immigration should be rejected by anyone who can do simple arithmetic. A smaller number than it used to be now that our schools have deteriorated to the point where we will need international relief agencies to come and help us get them working again.

281 households with panic rooms???

If you are so threatening to your partner that they need a specially adapted room and guaranteed contact with the police to protect themselves from you, why aren't you in jail?

Of course that would be a lot more expensive...

I am running out of sympathy. The subsidy has been reduced. People are still being subsidised. It isn't a tax. It's a reduction in a subsidy.

it's not about sympathy, it's simply not humane that people at risk of such serious violence should face further financial hardship just because other system failures mean their abuser is at large - I am really struggling to understand how anyone can adopt a stance that defends that

and the same with the disability, these aren't lifestyle choices (whatever that means)

There are some bizarre posts on this thread. Not only is there such a thing as council house envy, now we have panic room envy.

Vivien, no one needs your sympathy, but when you are part of a society which brings certain benefits to everyone there is a duty to include everyone.

But these people are already getting a reduced rent because of housing benefit. They are not getting as much reduction because they have an extra room. And Labour did absolutely nothing to solve the housing problem.

And I agree with lock these people up so they aren't a danger. I hardly think panic rooms are the answer.

AS others have said, I'm not sure why they don't just make the property more secure (or an existing room within the property).

Regardless of the merits of these rooms, the simple fact is that it's going to see less use than a downstairs loo. It would seem almost perverse that you'd keep an entire room solely for a contingent purpose. If you own your home, then you're of course free to do as you wish, but as a council tenant, is it really too much to expect that a bedromo/ panic room, might be dual purpose?

Seems like it's just an excuse to bash the Tories the big meanies