Shame on you Iain Duncan Smith for causing stress to this vunerable DV victim

[JamNan]

link here to story on BBC website

Long story short:
A woman known as 'A' has been raped, assaulted, harassed and stalked by an ex-partner. As part of what is called a Sanctuary Scheme, she and her son live in a three-bedroom home which has been specially adapted as a safe and secure space by the police.

Under new Housing Benefit rules, the woman and her son will only receive HB for a two-bedroom property; which means a reduction in income of 14%. Supported by Women's Aid she has challenged the decision in the High Court.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is defending the claim, no doubt at great expense to taxpayers having unsuccessfully argued at a hearing in June that it should be dismissed.

I am astonished at the callous attitude of the government, IDS and his ministers. Surely we should be helping this vulnerable woman until she can get on her feet again and not penalize her.

Please don't start a bunfight about scrounging benefit claimants.

Sadly it's not just limited to victim-blaming, but bullying, intimidation and outright cruelty.

Twinklestein y.

Her landlord has reclassified her house as a 2 bed from a 3 so she is not penalised financially. Very few are willing to do this.*

So £100,000 has been spent on converting RENTED accomodation??!!! that is a crap decision for a start. If the landlord sells they are back to square one and no-one else gets to benefit from the investment.

Some where in the many posts before this one someone has said that the amount is £11 a week/£44 month. No it's not a lot of money.

I think womans aid would be better to use lawyers to challenge the laws that allow the perpetrator in this case to roam free. It may just benefit others too. Challenging the bedroom tax for those with a panic room will touch only a few.
The focus is all wrong.

Still, I read this morning about the other legal challenge the UK government is spending our money on.

It's trying to stop the EU capping bankers bonuses.

WildBill this does not refer to A's case. Please see NeedsAsockamnesty's post of yesterday at
12:24. She/he was alluding to another DV victim and safe room user.

According to the Guardian article the conversion for A's home was paid for by:

'A women’s refuge charity [which] has spent thousands of pounds at A’s property reinforcing window frames and the front door and making the back garden more secure. A panic space has been installed, with alarms linked to the police station.'
link

I presume that would have been WA.

I agree with WildBill that the focus should be on strengthening laws to address the behaviour of the perpetrators.

In this case though the agencies have worked within the law as it currently stands.

Incidentally WildBill, your first post on this thread bemoaned use of your taxes to keep a woman and child in a three bed property instead of a two bed. I am assuming though that you are happy for IDS to spend far more in defending his immoral HB changes.

I digress there though.

As it stands this woman is living in a home which has been reinforced. There MAY be good reasons why she hasn't just been moved, that would be a far cheaper option. It would be interesting to know why they chose the more expensive option.

See all the posts above where "just moving" hasn't provided security?

Moving an DV/abuse victim and her children does not guarantee their safety and it is not necessarily a cheaper option. We know that from many of the threads on here. Mary's mother fled and her child was murdered by the father (an abusive gun-wielding nutter). Surely it's better to keep a family in a community where they are known to all the local agencies, have support from friends, family and the school and not uproot the children.

And yes I absolutely agree the law should be strengthened. There is talk of making DV a criminal act - I don't know how it would work though. Many of these abusive men are very cunning and run rings around their victims, legal representatives, social workers - even the police.

What domestic violence is not classed as a criminal act.
And indeed shame on you IDS.

There is no offence of domestic violence or domestic abuse on the statute book.

Quite simple to amend legislation so as to exempt safe houses from the HB rules.

I agree that the law in general should be strengthened re dangerous ex-partners - its one of the most common subject matters for the grant of legal aid by far, so these dysfunctional men (and it is primarily men) cost us all a fortune in one way or another.

That said, wildbill makes some good points. And a government often had a duty to challenge EU law or similar - just because it goes against your personal socialist principles doesn't circumvent the rule of law, thankfully.

@The Chandler
Quite simple to amend legislation so as to exempt safe houses from the HB rules

Read my opening post please. IDS and his department have spent many thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on defending the new Housing Benefit regulations to ensure that tenants of homes with a sanctuary room are denied a portion of Housing Benefit.

It's cruel and mean.

So £100,000 has been spent on converting RENTED accomodation??!!! that is a crap decision for a start. If the landlord sells they are back to square one and no-one else gets to benefit from the investment

You don't know much about the rules you are moaning about do you?

The under occupancy charge only relates to social housing (LA or HA) the landlord is the LA or HA the tenancies are secure long term ones. No other type of property can be subject to the under occupancy charge.

Yes, I gathered that JamNam. Which is why I suggested the solution of exempting them by amending the legislation...

Christ alive the steps they went to to unsuccessfully fight against exempting disabled children who would cause significant issues for the sibling expected to share with them then successfully fight against exempting disabled adults who needed the space for medical beds and equipment was huge.

So not really surprised that a few hundred women at serious risk of being murdered is considered to be something worthy of penalty

TheChandler,
I don't think you get it. The government does not wish to amend the legislation - that is why they are defending the case at vast expense using taxpayers' money.

Everything'sRunningAway puts it PERFECTLY:

"what kind of mind it takes to justify charging someone for "under occupation" of a safe house?

That is pretty close to my personal definition of evil.

"Oh, I see you live in permanent fear of you life. But the thing is, we really need there to be more people at risk from this man or else we're going to have to charge you for the extra rooms."

Kafkaesque doesn't cover it."

JamNan TheChandler,I don't think you get it. The government does not wish to amend the legislation - that is why they are defending the case at vast expense using taxpayers' money.

What part don't you think I get? I'm a lawyer, I often write legal papers for legal journals, I'm also a qualified solicitor. I'm trained to scrutinise legislation and deal with it.

They are defending the case because that's what the legislation currently says.

This thread is about how awful the legislation is. To bring about a solution, which a lot of hand wringing won't do, we make suggestions for improvements. Legislation is amended all the time, and I would normally expect such houses to be exempt from this requirement. The Government cannot make up legislation, its duty it to defend an attack on its correct purpose, so they will do so whether or not there is a political will to change it or not. So correcting the legislation by amending it to exempt safe houses is the best solution. Push for an amendment of the legislation and you are more likely to achieve the outcome you desire than generalised wailing.

Read that over again and remind me which bit I don't get.

I got your meaning that you agree with many people on this thread that the legislation should be amended (indeed should have been written in the first place) to make such houses exempt from underoccupancy charge, TheChandler.

It's just that your posts are slightly confusing.

Statements like "Government cannot make up legislation," for example. Er...

Also, your post about the EU refers to "circumventing the rule of law", when Osborne made a legal challenge to the EU's creating a particular law. All within legal process - so who is trying to circumvent what law? I don't see any of that, or anyone suggesting anything like that.

It is, however, germain to point out which laws and parts of laws particularly parties throw their energies into either supporting or opposing the creation of. IDS could have chosen to put the amendment you suggest before the House. He hasn't.

particular ly parties

If, indeed, such an amendment would even need to go before the House.

And in fact lawyers for the specific woman are indeed pushing for an amendment of the legislation, just as you recommend. So hardly generalised wailing.

This thread was started to comment on IDS's choice - not duty, choice - to defend the current legislation rather than agreeing to seek an amendment.

Well Chandler I sincerely hope that none of the DV victims and children we've been talking about on this thread ever come across you in the legal world or real life.

JamNan Well Chandler I sincerely hope that none of the DV victims and children we've been talking about on this thread ever come across you in the legal world or real life.

Do you live in a parallel universe or something? I suggested changing the legislation so that safe houses are exempt. Is there something you object to in that? You want to keep legislation which would cause this woman to stay in her own home? Or you object to a response which suggests a practical solution?

Governments cannot make up legislation to suit changing situations from case to case, that is the duty of Parliament to pass it in the correct manner. It is the duty of Government ministers to enforce the rule of law, including legislation, not just the bits they like or dislike, whether or not they personally agree with it is irrelevant. I don't really think theres much to be gained from attempted vilification of individuals.

Surely there are pressure groups and charities who should have made their interest known before the legislation was passed, and who are doing so now to try and get an amendment of the law as speedily as possible?

"Surely there are pressure groups and charities who should have made their interest known before the legislation was passed"

As indeed they did.

Got ignored.