Mum forced to pay Bedroom Tax on sensory room for severely disabled daughter

A struggling mother must pay Bedroom Tax on a room used as a vital sensory haven for her severely disabled daughter.

Kelly Marie, who is blind and unable to walk and talk, relies on the room which contains a ball pool and is used to store the 28-year-old's wheelchairs.

But the Government has decided the room is 'spare', meaning mother Dawn Lennon must stump to more than £570 of Bedroom Tax cash a year.

It has left 52-year-old on the bread line, even cutting back on food to try and make ends meet.

Mrs Lennon said: "It’s going to be a real struggle. The room is not being used as a bedroom, it’s a light room for Kelly Marie, with a ball pool in it.

“I also keep the wheelchairs and other things in there that I use to push her around the house because she can’t walk and I can’t lift her.”

Although she has been awarded a discretionary housing payment that should cover the shortfall for the start of the year, she soon risks running into arrears on her Liverpool Housing Trust bungalow.



Struggle: Dawn and Kelly Marie
Mrs Lennon is one of up to 30,000 people across Merseyside who have been hit with the bedroom tax who between them face paying up to £16m a year.

Mrs Lennon, of Castlefields, Runcorn, added: “I’m having to cut back on everything, absolutely everything.

“I have to cut back on food and just get the basics in and look for the cheapest things all the time.

“And it’s not even a bedroom at all. It makes me so angry when I think about it.”

Studies by housing associations campaigning against the Bedroom Tax have found a significant proportion of people eligible to pay it are either disabled or carers for disabled people.

The Bedroom Tax, which was introduced on April 1, means a property with one spare room suffers a 14% cut in housing benefit for council and housing association tenants and two spare rooms bringing about a 25% slashing.

Single adults and couples are allowed a room each and children under 16 of the same sex have to share. Under 10s of both sexes must share.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “Reform of housing benefit is essential.

“However, we are giving local authorities £150m Discretionary Housing Payment funding this year to support vulnerable people, including £25m to help people who live in accommodation that has been adapted for their disabilities.”



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-dawn-lennon-must-2979313#ixzz2pGYNXcG8
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

   Criminal acts being committed by a criminal and twisted coalition government.......Time to get rid.

Our population went up by millions between 1997 and 2010 Mr Catman.

Unfortunately that house is now needed for a large foreign family.

Or of course one of Mr Blair's benefits scrounging families.

But you don't care - they'll vote Labour.

BigAndy9 wrote:Our population went up by millions between 1997 and 2010 Mr Catman.

Unfortunately that house is now needed for a large foreign family.

Or of course one of Mr Blair's benefits scrounging families.

But you don't care - they'll vote Labour.

The Tories should never have sold off all the council properties in a bid to buy votes, then there would be plenty of accommodation to go around.

There aren't just foreign people on the waiting list, and people that are claiming benefits aren't scroungers, they are claiming what they are entitled to through a need.   

That is pathetic , here is me thinking another bedroom is allowed for disability equipment...

Is it not deformed the like of those who require breathing apparatus like oxygen cylinders?

The system is working exactly as it should.

She has had some benefits reduced because of the extra room I pay for in taxes.

But because of her situation the fund that Dave has put aside on my behalf has given it back to her.

Running as smooth as a baby's backside.

BigAndy9 wrote:The system is working exactly as it should.

She has had some benefits reduced because of the extra room I pay for in taxes.

But because of her situation the fund that Dave has put aside on my behalf has given it back to her.

Running as smooth as a baby's backside.

...oh yeah Andy..sweet as a dream.

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:The system is working exactly as it should.

She has had some benefits reduced because of the extra room I pay for in taxes.

But because of her situation the fund that Dave has put aside on my behalf has given it back to her.

Running as smooth as a baby's backside.

...oh yeah Andy..sweet as a dream.

Well, it is - this is exactly how they said it would be.

The one thing I would like to see in this case is a bit of reassurance - it doesn't seem very clear how long the extra payment will last, or whether another payment will be made to this woman.

Look she had housing benefit reduced because of an extra room then the discretionary payment team looked at her circumstances and decided the room was/is needed and so are paying the amount that the housing benefit was reduced.

The woman is not having to find any extra money her rent now comes from 2 sources instead of one source.

What exactly is the problem here?

sphinx wrote:Look she had housing benefit reduced because of an extra room then the discretionary payment team looked at her circumstances and decided the room was/is needed and so are paying the amount that the housing benefit was reduced.

The woman is not having to find any extra money her rent now comes from 2 sources instead of one source.

What exactly is the problem here?

No problem at all sphinx - they've got a great couple of photos of a handicapped lady in distress and the chance to use nasty and tory in an article.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:Look she had housing benefit reduced because of an extra room then the discretionary payment team looked at her circumstances and decided the room was/is needed and so are paying the amount that the housing benefit was reduced.

The woman is not having to find any extra money her rent now comes from 2 sources instead of one source.

What exactly is the problem here?

No problem at all sphinx - they've got a great couple of photos of a handicapped lady in distress and the chance to use nasty and tory in an article.

Ha!

....And and others of your ilk like to post Daily Mail articles all the time!

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

No problem at all sphinx - they've got a great couple of photos of a handicapped lady in distress and the chance to use nasty and tory in an article.

Ha!

....And and others of your ilk like to post Daily Mail articles all the time!

Seriously phil what is the problem? Her rent is still being paid.

I mean every disabled person I know of affected by the change in housing benefit rules has had the difference made up from the discretionary fund - about the only hardship (if it can be called that) is that they now have renew 2 applications a year instead of 1.

In the meantime the working families with 3 children in 2 bedroom houses are no longer having to look at the unemployed middle aged woman living alone in a 3 bedroom house paid for out of benefits but actually stand a chance of being able to move into a three bedroomed house.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Ha!

....And and others of your ilk like to post Daily Mail articles all the time!

Seriously phil what is the problem? Her rent is still being paid.

I mean every disabled person I know of affected by the change in housing benefit rules has had the difference made up from the discretionary fund - about the only hardship (if it can be called that) is that they now have renew 2 applications a year instead of 1.

In the meantime the working families with 3 children in 2 bedroom houses are no longer having to look at the unemployed middle aged woman living alone in a 3 bedroom house paid for out of benefits but actually stand a chance of being able to move into a three bedroomed house.

I don't think the discretionary fund has been applied in every case though..It would be interesting to see some statistics on that.

But it had been applied in the case in the article and I do not know of any case where it should have been applied and has not been.

sphinx wrote:But it had been applied in the case in the article and I do not know of any case where it should have been applied and has not been.

We would need to see the statistics before we could reach the conclusion that the discretionary fund is fair and fit for purpose though.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:But it had been applied in the case in the article and I do not know of any case where it should have been applied and has not been.

We would need to see the statistics before we could reach the conclusion that the discretionary fund is fair and fit for purpose though.

But that is not what this thread is about - this thread is about a woman with a disabled daughter who has experienced changes in her benefits because of rule changes but these changes have resulted in no actual change to her income.

If the story was she had actually had her income reduced then it would be worth getting angry about but why should we get angry about something that has not reduced her income and is making it possible for other people in need to have their needs met.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

We would need to see the statistics before we could reach the conclusion that the discretionary fund is fair and fit for purpose though.

But that is not what this thread is about - this thread is about a woman with a disabled daughter who has experienced changes in her benefits because of rule changes but these changes have resulted in no actual change to her income.

If the story was she had actually had her income reduced then it would be worth getting angry about but why should we get angry about something that has not reduced her income and is making it possible for other people in need to have their needs met.

All is fair in love and war!

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But that is not what this thread is about - this thread is about a woman with a disabled daughter who has experienced changes in her benefits because of rule changes but these changes have resulted in no actual change to her income.

If the story was she had actually had her income reduced then it would be worth getting angry about but why should we get angry about something that has not reduced her income and is making it possible for other people in need to have their needs met.

All is fair in love and war!

But why do you see this as either love or war?

Surely it should be about using tax payers money as wisely as possible to make sure those that need help get it and those that dont cant?

Was it fair that an able bodied person should have their entire rent on a 3 bed house paid for them while there were over crowded families?

The point is, she was lucky that she got the discretionary grant, she has the worry of not knowing if she will get it next time, and there are many disabled people and their carers in exactly the same situation, where the discretionary fund has run out (each council only has so much) and they are not going to get it.   Plus, David Cameron lied in Parliament and said that disabled people were exempt from the tax, a complete fabrication.

She has enough stress in her life without this hanging over here every year so she has no stability.

Sassy wrote:The point is, she was lucky that she got the discretionary grant, she has the worry of not knowing if she will get it next time, and there are many disabled people and their carers in exactly the same situation, where the discretionary fund has run out (each council only has so much) and they are not going to get it.   Plus, David Cameron lied in Parliament and said that disabled people were exempt from the tax, a complete fabrication.

She has enough stress in her life without this hanging over here every year so she has no stability.

Exactly!

This Lib/Con coalition need to be a bit more transparent over the statistics...That is highly unlikely as they have refused to release the figures on how many people have killed themselves over being classed as fit for work by ATOS, when even coroners have said that Lib/Con policies are contributing to people taking their own lives.   

What about the stress experienced by families living overcrowded while watching single people get their whole rent paid on properties bigger than they need - does that not count?

I have yet to see evidence of a disabled person actually being worse off - lots of "oh but they might be" but no actual case.

I have seen plenty of real cases of people in properties too big for the having their whole rent paid by benefits.

And before anyone asks how would I like it I have dealt with it - I have taken a lodger. I am not moaning about it being unfair or my rights or whatever I am accepting that this is the best way of being most fair to the largest number of people.

[quote="sphinx"]What about the stress experienced by families living overcrowded while watching single people get their whole rent paid on properties bigger than they need - does that not count?

I have yet to see evidence of a disabled person actually being worse off - lots of "oh but they might be" but no actual case.  

...And it's unlikely you will do either, as this Lib/Con coalition are doing their best to obscure all evidence of their wrong doings.  

sphinx wrote:What about the stress experienced by families living overcrowded while watching single people get their whole rent paid on properties bigger than they need - does that not count?

I have yet to see evidence of a disabled person actually being worse off - lots of "oh but they might be" but no actual case.

I have seen plenty of real cases of people in properties too big for the having their whole rent paid by benefits.

And before anyone asks how would I like it I have dealt with it - I have taken a lodger.  I am not moaning about it being unfair or my rights or whatever I am accepting that this is the best way of being most fair to the largest number of people.

..yes your boyfriend, you told me this before but often when you talk of managing just fine on benefits , you often fail to mention that your boyfriend lives with you, maybe you don't remember saying that on another forum ?

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:What about the stress experienced by families living overcrowded while watching single people get their whole rent paid on properties bigger than they need - does that not count?

I have yet to see evidence of a disabled person actually being worse off - lots of "oh but they might be" but no actual case.

I have seen plenty of real cases of people in properties too big for the having their whole rent paid by benefits.

And before anyone asks how would I like it I have dealt with it - I have taken a lodger.  I am not moaning about it being unfair or my rights or whatever I am accepting that this is the best way of being most fair to the largest number of people.

..yes your boyfriend, you told me this before but often when you talk of managing just fine on benefits , you often fail to mention that your boyfriend lives with you, maybe you don't remember saying that on another forum ?

Why would I forget something I say often as it is the truth? My boyfriend (really doesnt seem like the correct term but never mind) lives with me and is recorded as being my carer when I get bad.  He is on my claim so we get the correct amount of benefits for a couple with one on ESA.  Now would you like to explain why this means I cant talk about it being possible to manage on benefits?

EDIT - and no my boyfriend is not my lodger - for one that would be illegal for 2 he has been here 10 years since before I became ill when we both worked. According to the law we only need one bedroom for us, and one bedroom for my son, so we have a lodger in the third bedroom while my other sons share their brothers room when they visit.

sphinx wrote:What about the stress experienced by families living overcrowded while watching single people get their whole rent paid on properties bigger than they need - does that not count?

I have yet to see evidence of a disabled person actually being worse off - lots of "oh but they might be" but no actual case.

I have seen plenty of real cases of people in properties too big for the having their whole rent paid by benefits.

And before anyone asks how would I like it I have dealt with it - I have taken a lodger.  I am not moaning about it being unfair or my rights or whatever I am accepting that this is the best way of being most fair to the largest number of people.

Had you not read, people are desperately trying to move to smaller properties - And There Aren't Any!!!!

The next onslaught on the poor in this country begins on Monday.

C4....'Benefits Street'......Straight off the pages of the Daily Mail, this new series will seek to demonize the poor even more!

....To try to cushion the blow for this Lib/Con coalition...Just in time for the next raft of benefit cuts that begin in April.

    FUCKERS.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:What about the stress experienced by families living overcrowded while watching single people get their whole rent paid on properties bigger than they need - does that not count?

I have yet to see evidence of a disabled person actually being worse off - lots of "oh but they might be" but no actual case.

I have seen plenty of real cases of people in properties too big for the having their whole rent paid by benefits.

And before anyone asks how would I like it I have dealt with it - I have taken a lodger.  I am not moaning about it being unfair or my rights or whatever I am accepting that this is the best way of being most fair to the largest number of people.

Had you not read, people are desperately trying to move to smaller properties - And There Aren't Any!!!!

No I see people trying to move into smaller properties that match their very specific wants - meanwhile they have families begging them to do a mutual exchange but they wont do it because the smaller property faces the wrong direction or is on the wrong bus route.

You haven't read the Kent County Council report that Irn put on here then.

And the Merseyside one:

The bedroom tax is having a devastating impact in one of the poorest areas of the country and is failing to achieve the Government’s ambition of freeing up extra social housing, a new report has revealed.

Download The Bedroom Tax in Merseyside - 100 days on (PDF, opens new window)

Less than 100 days into the policy’s implementation, thousands of families in Merseyside are spiralling into debt for the first time and are facing an impossible dilemma – to pay the bedroom tax and face financial hardship, or to try to downsize despite there being a huge local shortfall in smaller homes.

Based on new figures collected by the National Housing Federation from 18 housing associations across Merseyside that collectively own more than 130,000 properties (1) in the area, The Bedroom Tax in Merseyside: 100 days on has revealed that:

During the first four weeks (2) of the bedroom tax coming into force more than 14,000 Merseyside households fell into arrears with their rent. For nearly 6,000 it was the first time they had ever spiralled into rental debt.
Nearly 26,500 households in Merseyside are being impacted by the bedroom tax yet due to a shortage of smaller homes only 155 managed to downsize into housing association properties in April 2013.
More than £22 million (3) which could be used to build desperately needed new homes across Merseyside will be lost this financial year as a result of the financial impact on housing associations of the bedroom tax.

Disabled people are bearing the brunt of the changes, with an estimated 19,055 disabled people in Merseyside losing over £13 million a year due to the bedroom tax (4). Many of these residents live in homes that have been adapted to meet their needs, a time consuming and costly process, and may now have to move. Meanwhile, Government support to help vulnerable people affected by the bedroom tax through Discretionary Housing Payments is proving a short-term fix, with some Merseyside residents receiving grants for just three months.

The Government hopes the cut to people’s housing benefit will encourage under-occupying families to look for smaller homes. The idea is that they swap homes with those needing more space – and so reduce overcrowding.

Yet across the North West the number of households who will be hit by the bedroom tax outnumbers families living in over-crowded accommodation by more than four to one (5). This raises the prospect of tens of thousands of families being forced to try and find a smaller property to avoid the bedroom tax despite there being no local reason for them to do so.

Research by the Merseyside housing associations shows that families want to stay near their local support networks and relatives. But due to a shortage of smaller homes they would be forced to move potentially hundreds of miles away. This would separate families and move people further away from their places of work. If just 10% of households affected by the bedroom tax requested a smaller home, social housing waiting list figures in Merseyside would rise by 5.6%. One in 13 households would be stranded on the housing waiting list (6).

Housing associations across Merseyside are doing all they can to lessen the blow. They are visiting residents, helping them get back into work and look for ways to downsize or finding better ways with which they can manage their money. Yet despite this support they have reported significant increases in indicators of poverty, such as foodbanks, across Merseyside.

David Orr, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation, said: “Housing associations warned the Government from the start that the bedroom tax would not work and that families would face financial hardship and struggle to make ends meet.

“The fact is there aren’t enough smaller social homes in Merseyside for people to avoid the bedroom tax even if they wanted to move. If they rented in the private sector, where costs are higher, this would more than likely increase the benefit bill – which raises questions on why they have been asked to move in the first place. The reality is that many people will stay in their homes and will be forced to live on less money in a country where living costs and utility bills are rising.

“The bedroom tax is hurting the most vulnerable people in Merseyside. It is time to face the facts and repeal this unfair policy now.”
- See more at: http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/new-report-reveals-impact-of-bedroom-tax-100-days-on#sthash.G2i9NeBC.dpuf

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Had you not read, people are desperately trying to move to smaller properties - And There Aren't Any!!!!

No I see people trying to move into smaller properties that match their very specific wants - meanwhile they have families begging them to do a mutual exchange but they wont do it because the smaller property faces the wrong direction or is on the wrong bus route.

Cite - where is your evidence as all evidence seems to be the exact opposite.

BTW, they are reducing the Discretionary Grant by 33% next year.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No I see people trying to move into smaller properties that match their very specific wants - meanwhile they have families begging them to do a mutual exchange but they wont do it because the smaller property faces the wrong direction or is on the wrong bus route.

Cite - where is your evidence as all evidence seems to be the exact opposite.

Oh for fuck sake - half a page response disappeared into ether

Sassy wrote:BTW, they are reducing the Discretionary Grant by 33% next year.

Of course!...Some of us are aware that they are intent in the systematic destruction of the welfare state...Go starve on the streets is their agenda, they really don't care!

...That sort of ambivalence to other people problems and struggles will lead to a revolt imo....Wat Tyler just came into my head.

My evidence is the real people I see and speak to every day. You show me reports with numbers and estimates I talk to real people in real life.

My evidence does not consist of thousands that are thought to be and estimated to be and predicted to be my evidence is the working family man who has had yet another exchange offer turned down.

Maybe its not like this everywhere but where I am I see far more overcrowding than under occupation. Not reports of or stories of but actual families I greet in the street.

OK its not empirical evidence, it doesnt mean anything, its just my every day real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Tyler

Sorry Sphinx, I'll take the numbers of smaller places that are available any day.

Facts that can be substantiated, not rumours.

Sphinx cant see because she doesnt want to, and big andy complains about how his tax is spent because he resents having to be a civilised member of a stable society WHILST AT THE SAME TIME demanding the benefits of such a stable society.

I like you already lol.

grumpy old git wrote:Sphinx cant see because she doesnt want to, and big andy complains about how his tax is spent because he resents having to be a civilised member of a stable society WHILST AT THE SAME TIME demanding the benefits of such a stable society.

Sphinx has no desire to see it any way she just reports what she does see. Where she lives there is more overcrowding than under occupancy. To be fair the under occupiers have full time jobs and pay their rent themselves and nobody has an issue with them but if they were claiming benefits there would be a lot more friction locally.

Somebody else - sassy I believe has reported that in a different area there are more under occupied than over crowding which suggests that the changes in policy need to be made more flexible so councils facing a problem with too many overcrowded can encourage the under occupiers to swap while any area without this problem can ensure people are adequately funded to keep their homes.

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:Sphinx cant see because she doesnt want to, and big andy complains about how his tax is spent because he resents having to be a civilised member of a stable society WHILST AT THE SAME TIME demanding the benefits of such a stable society.

Sphinx has no desire to see it any way she just reports what she does see.  Where she lives there is more overcrowding than under occupancy.  To be fair the under occupiers have full time jobs and pay their rent themselves and nobody has an issue with them but if they were claiming benefits there would be a lot more friction locally.

Somebody else - sassy I believe has reported that in a different area there are more under occupied than over crowding which suggests that the changes in policy need to be made more flexible so councils facing a problem with too many overcrowded can encourage the under occupiers to swap while any area without this problem can ensure people are adequately funded to keep their homes.

If you feel so strongly about people living in a council home with one or more bedrooms than they actually need then why give those that can afford the additional cost the option to pay the extra charge and not just force them out as well?

It's a bit like if you have got the money then that's ok but not for those that can't afford it.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Sphinx has no desire to see it any way she just reports what she does see.  Where she lives there is more overcrowding than under occupancy.  To be fair the under occupiers have full time jobs and pay their rent themselves and nobody has an issue with them but if they were claiming benefits there would be a lot more friction locally.

Somebody else - sassy I believe has reported that in a different area there are more under occupied than over crowding which suggests that the changes in policy need to be made more flexible so councils facing a problem with too many overcrowded can encourage the under occupiers to swap while any area without this problem can ensure people are adequately funded to keep their homes.

If you feel so strongly about people living in a council home with one or more bedrooms than they actually need then why give those that can afford the additional cost the option to pay the extra charge and not just force them out as well?

It's a bit like if you have got the money then that's ok but not for those that can't afford it.

But that is exactly what is happening.

For years the working person paying their rent in a council property has been faced with the choice of pay the extra amount for their extra bedrooms or move to a smaller property while those on benefits have not had to choose this because their rent has been fully funded. Now they are simply facing the same choices as their working brethren.

Take a street of 3 bed houses at £120 a week, 2 bed houses at £100 a week, and 1 bed flats at £80 a week - you have Ms Smith with a son and a daughter live in one 3 bed and Ms Jones with a son and a daughter in another 3 bed. Ms Smith works and pays her rent Ms Jones is unemployed and her rent is paid in benefits. The children grow up and leave home - Ms Smith has the choice of continue to pay £120 a week for 2 empty bedrooms or move and pay £100 a week or even £80 a week, whereas Ms Jones did not have to consider this choice because her rent would be paid anyway. Now Ms Jones is faced with the same choice as Ms Smith - what exactly is so unfair about that?

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

If you feel so strongly about people living in a council home with one or more bedrooms than they actually need then why give those that can afford the additional cost the option to pay the extra charge and not just force them out as well?

It's a bit like if you have got the money then that's ok but not for those that can't afford it.

But that is exactly what is happening.

For years the working person paying their rent in a council property has been faced with the choice of pay the extra amount for their extra bedrooms or move to a smaller property while those on benefits have not had to choose this because their rent has been fully funded.  Now they are simply facing the same choices as their working brethren.

Take a street of 3 bed houses at £120 a week, 2 bed houses at £100 a week, and 1 bed flats at £80 a week - you have Ms Smith with a son and a daughter live in one 3 bed and Ms Jones with a son and a daughter in another 3 bed.  Ms Smith works and pays her rent Ms Jones is unemployed and her rent is paid in benefits.  The children grow up and leave home - Ms Smith has the choice of continue to pay £120 a week for 2 empty bedrooms or move and pay £100 a week or even £80 a week,  whereas Ms Jones did not have to consider this choice because her rent would be paid anyway.  Now Ms Jones is faced with the same choice as Ms Smith - what exactly is so unfair about that?

You are making a difference between someone who is fortunate enough to have a job and can afford to pay and someone who is unemployed and can't afford to pay so the unemployed person has to cough up or move out whilst the person who has a job doesn't.

I'll ask again. If you feel so strongly about larger families getting access to the homes occupied by the two families you mentioned then why not shift them all rather than put it down to ability to pay?

That sounds like something that would come straight out of Tory central office for consumption by the masses.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

But that is exactly what is happening.

For years the working person paying their rent in a council property has been faced with the choice of pay the extra amount for their extra bedrooms or move to a smaller property while those on benefits have not had to choose this because their rent has been fully funded.  Now they are simply facing the same choices as their working brethren.

Take a street of 3 bed houses at £120 a week, 2 bed houses at £100 a week, and 1 bed flats at £80 a week - you have Ms Smith with a son and a daughter live in one 3 bed and Ms Jones with a son and a daughter in another 3 bed.  Ms Smith works and pays her rent Ms Jones is unemployed and her rent is paid in benefits.  The children grow up and leave home - Ms Smith has the choice of continue to pay £120 a week for 2 empty bedrooms or move and pay £100 a week or even £80 a week,  whereas Ms Jones did not have to consider this choice because her rent would be paid anyway.  Now Ms Jones is faced with the same choice as Ms Smith - what exactly is so unfair about that?

You are making a difference between someone who is fortunate enough to have a job and can afford to pay and someone who is unemployed and can't afford to pay so the unemployed person has to cough up or move out whilst the person who has a job doesn't.

I'll ask again. If you feel so strongly about larger families getting access to the homes occupied by the two families you mentioned then why not shift them all rather than put it down to ability to pay?

That sounds like something that would come straight out of Tory central office for consumption by the masses.

You really dont get it do you? When the children move out both Ms Smith and Ms Jones have less money coming in because child benefit and tax credits stop. This means that Ms Smith who is working cannot afford £120 rent no matter how attached to the house she is she has no choice but to move. However you think Ms Jones who is unemployed should be allowed to stay?

People with jobs cannot always afford the bigger houses with extra bedrooms - people with jobs have to look at their income and consider whether they can live somewhere cheaper.

How about the parent who is willing to pay rent for their child - do these parents not say to their children that they will only pay for them to have a one bed property and if the child wants more the child will have to fund the extra?

You are talking about the ability to afford things - well the unemployed person cannot afford any sort of rent themselves their rent is paid by tax payers. Why is it the tax payers can afford to pay rent on a 3 bed for the unemployed person but cannot afford to live in a 3 bedroom themselves.

You want to add to Ms Smith and Ms Jones stories? Well in the town there is the Browns who are in private rented - they also have a boy and girl but are in a small 2 bed flat because that is all they can afford. After getting married they worked out that they could manage to have a single child on Mr Browns salary for a couple of years before Mrs Brown returned to work. The pregnancy was twins. Then there was the economy collapse.

The brutal fact is there is no reason why any single person should need a property larger than a single bedroom. People who earn their own money know this and if they want extra bedrooms they understand they will pay extra for them. It seems a section of people think that those who are unemployed should be exempt from knowing this and should be allowed to stay in whatever property they wish without having to consider how much it is costing.

Please give me one solid reason why Ms Jones should stay in her 3 bed while Ms Smith is forced to move to a one bed because she cannot afford the rent on the 3 bed.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You are making a difference between someone who is fortunate enough to have a job and can afford to pay and someone who is unemployed and can't afford to pay so the unemployed person has to cough up or move out whilst the person who has a job doesn't.

I'll ask again. If you feel so strongly about larger families getting access to the homes occupied by the two families you mentioned then why not shift them all rather than put it down to ability to pay?

That sounds like something that would come straight out of Tory central office for consumption by the masses.

You really dont get it do you?  When the children move out both Ms Smith and Ms Jones have less money coming in because child benefit and tax credits stop.  This means that Ms Smith who is working cannot afford £120 rent no matter how attached to the house she is she has no choice but to move.  However you think Ms Jones who is unemployed should be allowed to stay?

People with jobs cannot always afford the bigger houses with extra bedrooms - people with jobs have to look at their income and consider whether they can live somewhere cheaper.  

How about the parent who is willing to pay rent for their child - do these parents not say to their children that they will only pay for them to have a one bed property and if the child wants more the child will have to fund the extra?

You are talking about the ability to afford things - well the unemployed person cannot afford any sort of rent themselves their rent is paid by tax payers.  Why is it the tax payers can afford to pay rent on a 3 bed for the unemployed person but cannot afford to live in a 3 bedroom themselves.

You want to add to Ms Smith and Ms Jones stories?  Well in the town there is the Browns who are in private rented - they also have a boy and girl but are in a small 2 bed flat because that is all they can afford.  After getting married they worked out that they could manage to have a single child on Mr Browns salary for a couple of years before Mrs Brown returned to work.  The pregnancy was twins.  Then there was the economy collapse.  

The brutal fact is there is no reason why any single person should need a property larger than a single bedroom.  People who earn their own money know this and if they want extra bedrooms they understand they will pay extra for them.  It seems a section of people think that those who are unemployed should be exempt from knowing this and should be allowed to stay in whatever property they wish without having to consider how much it is costing.

Please give me one solid reason why Ms Jones should stay in her 3 bed while Ms Smith is forced to move to a one bed because she cannot afford the rent on the 3 bed.

More R/W hypocracy...the following though not strictly on topic illustrates this hypocrisy over homes.

If you recon THAT is a sound argument rather than some convenient nonsense. then those who own "second homes" should be either paying a PENALTY council tax of around 10 times the going rate OR should be forced to put them up for sale. It should be all but illegal to own a second home. there is no need.

If nobody owned a second home where would people rent houses from

Or are you suggesting communism? (I suspect I know you I just cant remember your name)

Yes I do think people with second homes that are not rented out should pay extra council tax, or rather not council tax as they will not be using facilities as heavily, but pay extra into a fund to cover making adequate accommodation available for those unable to afford their own. I would also like to see controls on numbers of properties available for purchase as second homes in each area or possibly some sort of price control that says locals looking to purchase their main home will pay a much smaller affordable price while the outsider looking to buy it as a holiday home has to pay 2 to 3 times as much.

Sphinx..NO-ONE should be able to buy a "holiday home" (except one of those log cabin/static caravan jobs in a designated area)

sphinx wrote:If nobody owned a second home where would people rent houses from

Or are you suggesting communism?  (I suspect I know you I just cant remember your name )

Yes I do think people with second homes that are not rented out should pay extra council tax, or rather not council tax as they will not be using facilities as heavily, but pay extra into a fund  to cover making adequate accommodation available for those unable to afford their own.  I would also like to see controls on numbers of properties available for purchase as second homes in each area or possibly some sort of price control that says locals looking to purchase their main home will pay a much smaller affordable price while the outsider looking to buy it as a holiday home has to pay 2 to 3 times as much.

 :::grouch:: 

And NO i'm not a communist that is a failed scheme
I am, if anything a nationalistic socialist (as opposed to a national socialist).

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You are making a difference between someone who is fortunate enough to have a job and can afford to pay and someone who is unemployed and can't afford to pay so the unemployed person has to cough up or move out whilst the person who has a job doesn't.

I'll ask again. If you feel so strongly about larger families getting access to the homes occupied by the two families you mentioned then why not shift them all rather than put it down to ability to pay?

That sounds like something that would come straight out of Tory central office for consumption by the masses.

You really dont get it do you?  When the children move out both Ms Smith and Ms Jones have less money coming in because child benefit and tax credits stop.  This means that Ms Smith who is working cannot afford £120 rent no matter how attached to the house she is she has no choice but to move.  However you think Ms Jones who is unemployed should be allowed to stay?

People with jobs cannot always afford the bigger houses with extra bedrooms - people with jobs have to look at their income and consider whether they can live somewhere cheaper.  

How about the parent who is willing to pay rent for their child - do these parents not say to their children that they will only pay for them to have a one bed property and if the child wants more the child will have to fund the extra?

You are talking about the ability to afford things - well the unemployed person cannot afford any sort of rent themselves their rent is paid by tax payers.  Why is it the tax payers can afford to pay rent on a 3 bed for the unemployed person but cannot afford to live in a 3 bedroom themselves.

You want to add to Ms Smith and Ms Jones stories?  Well in the town there is the Browns who are in private rented - they also have a boy and girl but are in a small 2 bed flat because that is all they can afford.  After getting married they worked out that they could manage to have a single child on Mr Browns salary for a couple of years before Mrs Brown returned to work.  The pregnancy was twins.  Then there was the economy collapse.  

The brutal fact is there is no reason why any single person should need a property larger than a single bedroom.  People who earn their own money know this and if they want extra bedrooms they understand they will pay extra for them.  It seems a section of people think that those who are unemployed should be exempt from knowing this and should be allowed to stay in whatever property they wish without having to consider how much it is costing.

Please give me one solid reason why Ms Jones should stay in her 3 bed while Ms Smith is forced to move to a one bed because she cannot afford the rent on the 3 bed.

Oh I get it alright and there really is no need to write seven paragraphs of text trying to explain yourself.

You just keep making up scenarios to suit your argument and here you are doing it again by fast forwarding by several years toa situation where both women are now living alone.

And if Ms Smith is on a such a low income then she will be eligible to claim for HB herself. Just keep punishing the unemployed because they're unemployed by forcing them out whilst others who are working can stay because they have the ability to pay.

Sound Tory policy based on punishing those who have done nothing wrong other than being poor due to them being unemployed. Kick them out,,,,,,to where?

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You really dont get it do you?  When the children move out both Ms Smith and Ms Jones have less money coming in because child benefit and tax credits stop.  This means that Ms Smith who is working cannot afford £120 rent no matter how attached to the house she is she has no choice but to move.  However you think Ms Jones who is unemployed should be allowed to stay?

People with jobs cannot always afford the bigger houses with extra bedrooms - people with jobs have to look at their income and consider whether they can live somewhere cheaper.  

How about the parent who is willing to pay rent for their child - do these parents not say to their children that they will only pay for them to have a one bed property and if the child wants more the child will have to fund the extra?

You are talking about the ability to afford things - well the unemployed person cannot afford any sort of rent themselves their rent is paid by tax payers.  Why is it the tax payers can afford to pay rent on a 3 bed for the unemployed person but cannot afford to live in a 3 bedroom themselves.

You want to add to Ms Smith and Ms Jones stories?  Well in the town there is the Browns who are in private rented - they also have a boy and girl but are in a small 2 bed flat because that is all they can afford.  After getting married they worked out that they could manage to have a single child on Mr Browns salary for a couple of years before Mrs Brown returned to work.  The pregnancy was twins.  Then there was the economy collapse.  

The brutal fact is there is no reason why any single person should need a property larger than a single bedroom.  People who earn their own money know this and if they want extra bedrooms they understand they will pay extra for them.  It seems a section of people think that those who are unemployed should be exempt from knowing this and should be allowed to stay in whatever property they wish without having to consider how much it is costing.

Please give me one solid reason why Ms Jones should stay in her 3 bed while Ms Smith is forced to move to a one bed because she cannot afford the rent on the 3 bed.

Oh I get it alright and there really is no need to write seven paragraphs of text trying to explain yourself.

You just keep making up scenarios to suit your argument and here you are doing it again by fast forwarding by several years toa situation where both women are now living alone.

And if Ms Smith is on a such a low income then she will be eligible to claim for HB herself. Just keep punishing the unemployed because they're unemployed by forcing them out whilst others who are working can stay because they have the ability to pay.

Sound Tory policy based on punishing those who have done nothing wrong other than being poor due to them being unemployed. Kick them out,,,,,,to where?

Ms Smith would not be eligible for housing benefit as a single person working on a wage sufficient to pay £80 but insufficient to pay £120.

Why is it unreasonable for a working person to have things an non working person does not?

Is it unreasonable for non coeliac to be able to eat wheat flour? After all its not the coeliacs fault they are sensitive to gluten so maybe we better force everyone to stop eating wheat.

Or maybe we better put the unemployed in the most expensive homes and force the people working to live on the streets because after all its not the fault of the unemployed they have no money is it.

maybe we would be better making suitably sized accomodation available in the first place, at a suitable cost to the consumer
THEN implementing some sort of incentive scheme?
THEN perhaps the rules should be made quite specific and NOT cause problems for folks like the above who have a genuine need for a so called "spare" room, which isnt spare at all anyway

then again, can anyone tell me how much this idiocy is saving the poor old tax payer???

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Oh I get it alright and there really is no need to write seven paragraphs of text trying to explain yourself.

You just keep making up scenarios to suit your argument and here you are doing it again by fast forwarding by several years toa situation where both women are now living alone.

And if Ms Smith is on a such a low income then she will be eligible to claim for HB herself. Just keep punishing the unemployed because they're unemployed by forcing them out whilst others who are working can stay because they have the ability to pay.

Sound Tory policy based on punishing those who have done nothing wrong other than being poor due to them being unemployed. Kick them out,,,,,,to where?

Ms Smith would not be eligible for housing benefit as a single person working on a wage sufficient to pay £80 but insufficient to pay £120.

Why is it unreasonable for a working person to have things an non working person does not?

Is it unreasonable for non coeliac to be able to eat wheat flour?  After all its not the coeliacs fault they are sensitive to gluten so maybe we better force everyone to stop eating wheat.

Or maybe we better put the unemployed in the most expensive homes and force the people working to live on the streets because after all its not the fault of the unemployed they have no money is it.

See, your making up the scenario to suit your argument by deciding how much Ms Smith will be paid in a few years time. Maybe she'll be on the dole and after all those years that she has worked and paid her rent she'll be kicked out of the home she has maintained and decorated for years because through no fault of her own she has lost her job.

Punish the unemployed then.