Bedroom Tax: Thousands of disabled people hit by charge despite David Cameron claims

Thousands of disabled people hit by the Bedroom Tax have been refused emergency help - despite a pledge by David Cameron to support them.

Freedom of Information requests show that nearly a third of disabled people who applied for support have been turned down by their local council.

David Cameron told MPs last month that the disabled were “exempt” from the Bedroom Tax which docks housing benefit from anyone deemed to have a spare room.

But research by the National Housing Federation says many victims are not receiving the discretionary housing payments - extra money provided by the Government to support the worst cases.

It found that in North Yorkshire only two out of ten applications for discretionary housing payments were successful, while in Wandsworth, Wokingham and Sunderland, only three in ten were accepted.

National Housing Federation chief executive David Orr said: “Whenever ministers are challenged on the Bedroom Tax, they tell us vulnerable people are not at risk because of these discretionary housing payments.

"But many disabled people and vulnerable families are facing miserable odds of getting help.

“Even those who are lucky enough to get support will have to reapply time and time again, each time facing the stress and worry that the funds will be withdrawn, while councils are being inundated with applications.

“This support fund is ineffective and deeply unfair – just like the bedroom tax itself. The only real solution is to repeal it.”

Charity bosses wrote to Mr Cameron last month demanding an apology for repeatedly misleading people about the bedroom tax.

The heads of 18 major charities said the Prime Minister’s claim that the disabled are not hit by the hated policy has caused “frustration” and given families “false hope.”

Among those hit by the tax are disabled people who need the spare room for a dialysis machine, parents of severely disabled children who need the room for sleep while the provides overnight care and terminally ill people who cannot share a room with their partner.



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-thousands-disabled-people-2941513#ixzz2nw8WjAZe
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

OMG! Lying Tory scum now!     

"extra money provided by the Government to support the worst cases."

Not every disabled person needs an extra room, not every disabled person needs a special car and a special place to park it, but many disabled people will take it because it's there.

And some disabled people do not need extra tax payers money.

BigAndy9 wrote:"extra money provided by the Government to support the worst cases."

Not every disabled person needs an extra room, not every disabled person needs a special car and a special place to park it, but many disabled people will take it because it's there.

And some disabled people do not need extra tax payers money.

That's why each case is looked at on an individual basis and only then is extra money awarded.

They aren't awarding much extra money anyway Camerloon has been caught out lying.

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:"extra money provided by the Government to support the worst cases."

Not every disabled person needs an extra room, not every disabled person needs a special car and a special place to park it, but many disabled people will take it because it's there.

And some disabled people do not need extra tax payers money.

That's why each case is looked at on an individual basis and only then is extra money awarded.

They aren't awarding much extra money anyway Camerloon has been caught out lying.

So they have been looked at and it has been decided that they don't need extra money?

Oh well, can't say fairer than that.

At least they get something - me, my wife and our kids get nothing.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

That's why each case is looked at on an individual basis and only then is extra money awarded.

They aren't awarding much extra money anyway Camerloon has been caught out lying.

So they have been looked at and it has been decided that they don't need extra money?

Oh well, can't say fairer than that.

At least they get something - me, my wife and our kids get nothing.

Do you have problems reading?

David Cameron told MPs last month that the disabled were “exempt” from the Bedroom Tax which docks housing benefit from anyone deemed to have a spare room.

  

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

So they have been looked at and it has been decided that they don't need extra money?

Oh well, can't say fairer than that.

At least they get something - me, my wife and our kids get nothing.

Do you have problems reading?

David Cameron told MPs last month that the disabled were “exempt” from the Bedroom Tax which docks housing benefit from anyone deemed to have a spare room.

  

Cite please.

David Cameron defended the policy in the House of Commons, saying some of the most vulnerable groups of people will be exempt from the cut. Is he right about that?



factFiction4 FactCheck: Cameron slips up on bedroom tax“People with severely disabled children are exempt.”

No. There’s no automatic exemption for disabled children.

In fact, not only is the government not making this blanket exception, it is actually fighting a legal challenge on the point from 10 disabled children who argue that the rule changes amount to discrimination.

Under the new rules, the full benefit will only be paid if under-16s of the same sex share a room, and under-10s will have to share regardless of gender. And the expectation is that this will apply to disabled youngsters too.

But local councils will have the discretion to waive the cut in regard to some disabled households. And there is a £30m hardship fund, the money targeted at preventing people whose homes have been adapted to help them cope with disability from being forced to move.

We don’t have much more detail on exactly what guidance has been issued to local authorities on who they spare from the cut, or how many disabled children are likely to be affected.

And the £30m has to be seen in the context of the total benefits cut disabled people are expected to take.

According to government impact assessments, 420,000 of the 660,000 people affected by the changes are disabled, and they will lose an average of £14 a week. That’s just under £306m a year.

06 disabled FactCheck: Cameron slips up on bedroom tax

So there is some money available and councils are expected to use some discretion, perhaps mitigating the impact for the most severely disabled, but there is no “exemption” for disabled children overall.

factFiction4 FactCheck: Cameron slips up on bedroom tax“People who need round-the-clock care are exempt.”

Wrong again. DWP has said that an extra bedroom is allowed if a disabled person has a live-in or overnight carer. But that doesn’t apply if the carer is also your partner or spouse.

If you are disabled and your wife is also your full-time carer, but needs to sleep in a different room, you will still face a benefit cut.

Again, you could be eligible for money from the hardship fund, but that doesn’t amount to an exemption to everyone who needs 24-hour care.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-cameron-slips-up-on-bedroom-tax/12962

Don't see what the fuss is as people can appeal to wrong decisions, which will happen from time to time:









The first tribunal rulings on bedroom tax appeals have emerged – and Inside Housing is now able to reveal the full details.

Four out of five appeals brought with the assistance of Fife Law Centre have been upheld.

The rulings have provoked fierce debate in the sector as to the extent to which tribunals will take room size and intended use into account when assessing councils’ housing benefit awards. The rulings raise questions about the extent to which councils should rely on housing association data when deciding what a bedroom is for the purposes of the under-occupation penalty.

Inside Housing has now obtained all five rulings and has summarised the main points below.

1) APPELLANT: Name withheld upon request by claimant

The basis of the appeal:

Brought by a man living alone in his former family home, which has three rooms originally judged as ‘bedrooms’ including a ‘boxroom’.

He is disabled having lost his left leg above the knee four years ago.

He said he needed one of the other bedrooms because his sons come to stay overnight to care for him when he is in discomfort. This was accepted by the council in April – meaning he was only deemed to be underoccupying by one room.

He said he is waiting to hear from his occupational therapist about converting the ‘boxroom’ into a wetroom as his bathroom is too small for him to use.

The claimant’s legal representative argued that the boxroom was too small at 64 square feet to be classified as a bedroom – as space standards in the Housing Act (Scotland) 1987 state a room of between 50 and 70 square feet should only be sufficient for a child under the age of 10. Also, because welfare reform minister Lord David Freud has suggested tenants hit by the bedroom tax take in lodgers, the appellant argued that the room should only be classified as a bedroom if it is big enough for a lodger.

The appellant also argued that the room was needed to store equipment he needs for his disability, including an exercise bike, walking and ‘mirror’ device. He therefore argued the established use of the room was not as a bedroom.

The ruling:

Tribunal chair Simon Collins QC accepted the first part of the appellant’s argument, that it is ‘relevant to have regard to statutory space standards’. However he rejected the argument that the boxroom was needed to store equipment, saying the equipment could be stored in the second largest bedroom.

Verdict: Appeal allows

2) Appelland: David Nelson

Basis of the appeal:

The appellant and his wife live in a three-bedroom property. One room has been acknowledged as necessary for an overnight carer, as Mr Nelson is disabled. The other room, a ‘boxroom’, was under dispute.

The appellant argued the room, at 66.3 square feet, was too small to be classified as a bedroom with regard to the space standards in the Housing Act (Scotland) 1987.

It was also argued that Mr Nelson’s room is used to store equipment he needs for his disability and therefore its established use is not as a bedroom.

Third, Mr Nelson argued that he needs to keep the bathroom door open due to his (unspecified) disability. This room faces the boxroom, which meant ‘obliging the appellant to take in a lodger would compromise the appellant’s dignity’.

The ruling:

Mr Collins again accepted the space standards argument, that the boxroom was too small to be used as an adult bedroom.

However, he rejected the other arguments, saying he was ‘not satisfied’ that the disability equipment could not be stored elsewhere in the property. He also rejected the argument about Mr Nelson’s dignity due to the door being left open, saying ‘a bedroom…does not cease to be a bedroom because the appellant is using a nearby bathroom with the door open.’

Verdict: Appeal allowed

3) Appellant: Louise McLeary

Basis of the appeal:

Ms McLeary is blind, and lives alone in a three-bedroom property owned by Kingdom Housing Association.

She was assessed as needing a three bedroom house, and receives a package of support from KHA under contract from Fife Council.

Ms McLeary’s legal representative argued that she was living in exempt accommodation, so her rent is not determined in accordance with the ‘bedroom tax’ rules in the housing benefit regulations.

Instead, Ms McLeary argued that under the Consequential Provisions Regulations 2006, exempt accommodation ‘includes accommodation which is provided by…a housing association…where that body…also provides the claimant with care, support or supervision.’

The council argued that KHA is not obliged to provide the support as it is not in Ms McLeary’s tenancy agreement, so the exempt accommodation rules don’t apply.

The ruling:
Mr Collins rejected the council’s argument, saying there is no requirement that the care provision ‘must be pursuant to a contractual obligation to the claimant’.

Verdict: Appeal allowed

4) Appellant: Annie Harrower-Gray

Basis of the appeal:

Ms Harrower-Gray lives alone in a property deemed by Kingdom Housing Association to have three bedrooms.

She argued that her property only has one room which can properly be classified as a bedroom.

The ruling:

The ruling found the property dates from as early as 1660 and may have been part of a manse. Mr Collins said: ‘It is not possible for me to say… whether any particular apartment was originally designed to fulfil any particular purpose.’

Mr Collins said one of the rooms has been used as a sitting room since at least 1996 and there is no evidence to suggest it has ever been used as a bedroom. He said another room is used as a dining room and said a third is an ‘irregular L-shape’ and has a floor area of just 67 square feet. Again, he said there was no evidence of use as a bedroom.

The council argued again that it relied on the landlord to describe the property in line with government guidance. Mr Collins said the council was entitled to do this, but it is not ‘determinative’.

Verdict: Appeal allowed

5) Appellant: William Thomson

Basis of the appeal:

Mr Thomson lives with his adult daughter in a property deemed to have three bedrooms.

He appealed on the basis the room deemed to be a spare bedroom was in fact used principally to store gardening equipment and had always been used for this purpose. He argued that he was obliged under his tenancy agreement to maintain the garden and he used the room to store a strimmer, lawn mower and hedge cutter. He claimed there was no other storage space in the property.

The council argued that it was not relevant to consider what the room was used for as otherwise claimants could get around the bedroom tax by simply using a bedroom for another purpose. Again, the council said it had relied on DWP guidance, saying it is up to the landlord to describe the property in line with the rent charged.

The ruling:

Mr Collins said he did not consider Mr Thomson’s evidence as ‘wholly credible and reliable’ and did not accept that the room ‘had habitually and primarily [been] used as a store for garden tools’.

Verdict: Appal refused

Well after all that, Cameron still lied.

We know they can appeal, they should have to, and even if they win the money might not be there because of the way the emergency fund is set up.

So you agree mistakes happen then?

So, do you agree he lied. They are not mistakes, they are trying to get away with making people who are disabled pay, and they fight it ever step of the way.

Sassy wrote:So, do you agree he lied.    They are not mistakes, they are trying to get away with making people who are disabled pay, and they fight it ever step of the way.

Sassy darling,one has to agree with you as that pooper Cameron is such a liar and I can hardly bear to look at him.

Sassy wrote:So, do you agree he lied.    They are not mistakes, they are trying to get away with making people who are disabled pay, and they fight it ever step of the way.

Lied about what?

They were mistakes as seen and ruled by tribunals

Again has anyone been wronged?

No, all rulings are correct on appeal

He lied, he said the disabled are exempt from bedroom tax in Parliament. That is a lie.

They are exempt, people keep making errors

PhilDidge wrote:They are exempt, people keep making errors

They are NOT exempt, read above. He lied.

factFiction4 FactCheck: Cameron slips up on bedroom tax“People with severely disabled children are exempt.”

No. There’s no automatic exemption for disabled children.

In fact, not only is the government not making this blanket exception, it is actually fighting a legal challenge on the point from 10 disabled children who argue that the rule changes amount to discrimination.

Under the new rules, the full benefit will only be paid if under-16s of the same sex share a room, and under-10s will have to share regardless of gender. And the expectation is that this will apply to disabled youngsters too.

actFiction4 FactCheck: Cameron slips up on bedroom tax“People who need round-the-clock care are exempt.”

Wrong again. DWP has said that an extra bedroom is allowed if a disabled person has a live-in or overnight carer. But that doesn’t apply if the carer is also your partner or spouse.

If you are disabled and your wife is also your full-time carer, but needs to sleep in a different room, you will still face a benefit cut.


He lied.

I have read it thanks.

I read many things also, that might give you a clue why I do not buy this.
I mean your fact finder is correct but mine is not?
Go figure

Whatever, everyone else knows he lied, if you don't want to face it, its up to you.

Now I have dinner to do.

Cameron said the Disabled were exempt and he said it in parliament. If they're not then he lied.

Exactly. He lied.