Victims of Bedroom Tax facing "severe financial hardship and distress" MPs warn

Reform: Work and Pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith

Victims of the Bedroom Tax are facing “severe financial hardship and distress”, MPs warn today.

In a withering report, they say Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare shake up is hitting the vulnerable and putting more people on streets.

The findings by the Commons Work and Pensions committee comes as new figures show more than two million of the poorest families have been hit by council tax rises.

The committee says there is conclusive evidence that people hit by the bedroom tax are “suffering financial hardship.”

It says the hated policy is “having a particular impact on people with disabilities, especially those living in adapted accommodation, or who need an extra room as a result of their disability, and who are unlikely to be able to move house or enter work.”

“There is evidence that many of these people are suffering financial hardship,” the report says.

And its says the impact of the bedroom tax - which docks the housing benefit of anyone in social housing deemed to have a spare room - has hurt people in the north of England far more than in the south of the country.

Households in the North have lost £160million compared to £30million for those in the South East since it was introduced a year ago.

The all-party committee of MPs said Mr Duncan Smith should immediately exempt the disabled from the tax if they had their home specially adapated.

The committee also warned the cuts to housing benefit were responsible for “increased levels of homelessness.”

And it said the cap on benefits was unfairly penalising carers who were now being pushed into work rather than caring for loved ones.

Committee chair Dame Anne Begg MP said many victims of the bedroom tax were “vulnerable groups” who were not able to move house or find a job.

“The Government’s reforms are causing severe financial hardship and distress to vulnerable groups, including disabled people,” she said.

Dame Anne said 60 to 70% of the homes affected by the tax included a disabled person who could not move easily to a smaller property.

“So they have to remain in their homes with no option but to have their Housing Benefit reduced,” she said.

Meanwhile, a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) found 2.3million of the poorest households will have seen their council tax bill rise by an average of £149 this year.

This includes 70,000 families who have been forced to pay rates for the first time because of the axing of council tax benefit by Eric Pickles.

The benefit was replaced by Council Tax Support last year but the money was not ring-fenced meaning many town halls have cut the support or withdrawn it altogether.

Chris Goulden, Head of Poverty Research at JRF, said: “For a second successive year, the country’s poorest families are facing big increases in council tax.

"This change to the welfare system is largely below the radar but has significant impact for families already struggling to get by on a low income. Paying this tax increase will be beyond most, pushing them into deeper hardship.”

Shadow Communities Secretary Hilary Benn said: “It is utterly cynical for David Cameron and Nick Clegg to claim they have taken the lowest paid out of tax when over two million low-paid workers, disabled people and carers have had their council taxes forced up under this Tory-led Government.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/victims-bedroom-tax-facing-severe-3338752#ixzz2xl6pbm6S
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

       Bastards.

People need to be made aware that if you have a Labour MP, they will help out, in many cases, when you are in a fight with the DWP in particular.

I was quite pleasantly surprised when only after a couple of days of contacting my Labour MP, i got a call from the HQ offering assistance against this wretched and evil coalition.

boring

i suspect we will hear the cries of "homophobia" echoing across the forum before long

The whole thing makes me bloody sick.

It's a disgusting tax that has penalised some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
End it - now.

It's not a tax, it's a reduction in benefits for those who don't need a spare room.

However, they could look at the situation of disabled people on an individual basis IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not a tax, it's a reduction in benefits for those who don't need a spare room.

However, they could look at the situation of disabled people on an individual basis IMO.

Indeed, they don't just give them the HB and then tax them on it. They just take it at source. Same thing really.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not a tax, it's a reduction in benefits for those who don't need a spare room.

However, they could look at the situation of disabled people on an individual basis IMO.

Indeed, they don't just give them the HB and then tax them on it. They just take it at source. Same thing really.

They give them the amount of HB which equates to how many bedrooms they need. I don't think that someone in private rented accommodation would be able to claim HB for an extra room.

Absolute bollocks why should taxpayers living in odes homes pay for others to live in better homes than they can afford.

As usual scrounger Catman and Sassy lets spend everyone elses money totally miss he point about very reasonable adjustments to make it fairer.

I might add it isn't a tax they don't pay tax they receive benefits ust like you Catman.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Indeed, they don't just give them the HB and then tax them on it. They just take it at source. Same thing really.

They give them the amount of HB which equates to how many bedrooms they need. I don't think that someone in private rented accommodation would be able to claim HB for an extra room.

What you seem to be unable to continue to understand, is that there was no law previously, to penalize people with second rooms etc...Before this awful shower came to power, and there isn't the smaller accommodation for people to move to, and private landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on any kind of benefits, both in work and out of work benefits.   

Alright said Fred wrote:Absolute bollocks why should taxpayers living in odes homes pay for others to live in better homes than they can afford.

As usual scrounger Catman and Sassy lets spend everyone elses money totally miss he point about very reasonable adjustments to make it fairer.

I might add it isn't a tax they don't pay tax they receive benefits ust like you Catman.

The usual crap from the kept man, and multi ID queen!  :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not a tax, it's a reduction in benefits for those who don't need a spare room.

However, they could look at the situation of disabled people on an individual basis IMO.

Indeed, they don't just give them the HB and then tax them on it. They just take it at source. Same thing really.

They give them the amount of HB which equates to how many bedrooms they need. I don't think that someone in private rented accommodation would be able to claim HB for an extra room.

Then offer them a decent home with the correct number of bedrooms within the community where they may always have lived or where they have family before lumping this awful tax on them.

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They give them the amount of HB which equates to how many bedrooms they need. I don't think that someone in private rented accommodation would be able to claim HB for an extra room.

What you seem to be unable to continue to understand, is that there was no law previously, to penalize people with second rooms etc...Before this awful shower came to power, and there isn't the smaller accommodation for people to move to, and private landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on any kind of benefits, both in work and out of work benefits.   

Well, as I said, those in rented accommodation wouldn't get HB for spare rooms, so they had to be fair to everyone, and that means including council tenants.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They give them the amount of HB which equates to how many bedrooms they need. I don't think that someone in private rented accommodation would be able to claim HB for an extra room.

Then offer them a decent home with the correct number of bedrooms within the community where they may always have lived or where they have family before lumping this awful tax on them.

Why? Other people have to find their own places and live within their means. Why should council tenants have everything done for them? People have to move to find jobs you know - that kind of thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They give them the amount of HB which equates to how many bedrooms they need. I don't think that someone in private rented accommodation would be able to claim HB for an extra room.

Then offer them a decent home with the correct number of bedrooms within the community where they may always have lived or where they have family before lumping this awful tax on them.

Why? Other people have to find their own places and live within their means. Why should council tenants have everything done for them? People have to move to find jobs you know - that kind of thing.

Well many of these people have probably lived in these homes all their lives or a great number of years and have carefully invested their time and money in maintaining it and have a job locally or they are now retired and living on just their pension or they nay even be disabled.

They signed up to a rental agreement and I'm sure they would be happy to continue with a rental agreement for a home that meets their needs within their community rather than face the prospect of a forced eviction.

What's wrong with that? Where are all the jobs and where are all the available homes?

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? Other people have to find their own places and live within their means. Why should council tenants have everything done for them? People have to move to find jobs you know - that kind of thing.

Well many of these people have probably lived in these homes all their lives or a great number of years and have carefully invested their time and money in maintaining it and have a job locally or they are now retired and living on just their pension or they nay even be disabled.

They signed up to a rental agreement and I'm sure they would be happy to continue with a rental agreement for a home that meets their needs within their community rather than face the prospect of a forced eviction.

What's wrong with that? Where are all the jobs and where are all the available homes?

They're not actually paying rent though are they? The tax payers are paying their rent.

Where are all the jobs and homes for anyone? I just don't see why council tenants should be pampered more than anyone else.

You did realise that an ALL PARTY committee looked at this, all aspects of it, and came up with that decision.

Members of the Committee:

Dame Anne Begg Chairman - Labour
Debbie Abrahams - Labour
Graham Evans - Conservative
Sheila Gilmore - Labour
Glenda Jackson - Labour
Kwasi Kwarteng - Conservative
Nigel Mills - Conservative
Anne Marie Morris - Conservative
Teresa Pearce - Labour
Mike Thornton - Conservative
Dame Angela Watkinson - Conservative


Don't you think they would have looked at it in very great detail, with all the information to hand, information that you don't have?

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They give them the amount of HB which equates to how many bedrooms they need. I don't think that someone in private rented accommodation would be able to claim HB for an extra room.

What you seem to be unable to continue to understand, is that there was no law previously, to penalize people with second rooms etc...Before this awful shower came to power, and there isn't the smaller accommodation for people to move to, and private landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on any kind of benefits, both in work and out of work benefits.   

are you worried that when doug kicks the bucket you're going to have to downsize??

Fuck off Smelly, you really are a total excuse for a human being, and very bad one.

Sassy wrote:Fuck off Smelly, you really are a total excuse for a human being, and very bad one.

Yes yes my dear you remind me on a daily basis how awful I am

Good, you need it. Lots of it, persistently, until you realise just how foul you are.

Sassy wrote:Good, you need it.   Lots of it, persistently, until you realise just how foul you are.

Calm down sassy

You will give yourself a nose bleed

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:Fuck off Smelly, you really are a total excuse for a human being, and very bad one.

Yes yes my dear you remind me on a daily basis how awful I am

How on earth do you need reminding, I am sure when you look in the mirror is sufficient!

Sassy wrote:Fuck off Smelly, you really are a total excuse for a human being, and very bad one.

Bit rich coming from fat arse Dedrie.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Catman wrote:

What you seem to be unable to continue to understand, is that there was no law previously, to penalize people with second rooms etc...Before this awful shower came to power, and there isn't the smaller accommodation for people to move to, and private landlords are reluctant to take on tenants on any kind of benefits, both in work and out of work benefits.   

are you worried that when doug kicks the bucket you're going to have to downsize??

   I really don't think that we will be worrying about money, in the not too distant future, and Doug is still in receipt of the life saving drugs.  ::D:: 

Catman wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

are you worried that when doug kicks the bucket you're going to have to downsize??

   I really don't think that we will be worrying about money, in the not too distant future, and Doug is still in receipt of the life saving drugs.  ::D:: 

Good for Doug

You're welcome by the way, it's my fucking taxes paying for the consequences of his amoral lifestyle and your scivving ass to sit at home watching JK

Catman wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

are you worried that when doug kicks the bucket you're going to have to downsize??

   I really don't think that we will be worrying about money, in the not too distant future, and Doug is still in receipt of the life saving drugs.  ::D:: 

Then you will be paying tax will you. What a novelty a complete change from sponging. Your pretense you are required 24/7 to care for a man capable of giving you a good hiding is wearing thin.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Catman wrote:

   I really don't think that we will be worrying about money, in the not too distant future, and Doug is still in receipt of the life saving drugs.  ::D:: 

Good for Doug

You're welcome by the way, it's my fucking taxes paying for the consequences of his amoral lifestyle and your scivving ass to sit at home watching JK

I could hide the money off shore, or put the money into some other account, then continue to claim benefits off the tax payer...Like many Tory MP's do, but i'm moral you see, so i won't be doing that.

I'm a member of a very close family, or myself, and one of my brothers....I can be an active partner of the new business, or a sleeping one....All up to me you see!   

Catman wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Good for Doug

You're welcome by the way, it's my fucking taxes paying for the consequences of his amoral lifestyle and your scivving ass to sit at home watching JK

I could hide the money off shore, or put the money into some other account, then continue to claim benefits off the tax payer...Like many Tory MP's do, but i'm moral you see, so i won't be doing that.

I'm a member of a very close family, or myself, and one of my brothers....I can be an active partner of the new business, or a sleeping one....All up to me you see!   

You're low class chav scum matey boy who doesn't work and hates the world

All the money in your mind won't change that

Says the Boer Bore who wouldn't know real class if it got up and bit him every time he moved.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Catman wrote:

I could hide the money off shore, or put the money into some other account, then continue to claim benefits off the tax payer...Like many Tory MP's do, but i'm moral you see, so i won't be doing that.

I'm a member of a very close family, or myself, and one of my brothers....I can be an active partner of the new business, or a sleeping one....All up to me you see!   

You're low class chav scum matey boy who doesn't work and hates the world

All the money in your mind won't change that

Wanna argue with two GP's, an MP and a fucking judge then!....Plus a load of medical records, appearances on here, can be a little deceptive   

....In any case, i have a bit of a breather....Before the real mission starts!   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? Other people have to find their own places and live within their means. Why should council tenants have everything done for them? People have to move to find jobs you know - that kind of thing.

Well many of these people have probably lived in these homes all their lives or a great number of years and have carefully invested their time and money in maintaining it and have a job locally or they are now retired and living on just their pension or they nay even be disabled.

They signed up to a rental agreement and I'm sure they would be happy to continue with a rental agreement for a home that meets their needs within their community rather than face the prospect of a forced eviction.

What's wrong with that? Where are all the jobs and where are all the available homes?

They're not actually paying rent though are they? The tax payers are paying their rent.

Where are all the jobs and homes for anyone? I just don't see why council tenants should be pampered more than anyone else.

People live in council houses because the generally can't afford to buy one or they did buy one and lost their job.

People in private rented accomodation get HB as well and those that don't get HB must be on good money and can afford to buy one.

Offer the people a decent home with the correct amount of bedrooms before taxing them for extra money - that's fair.

Irn Bru wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not actually paying rent though are they? The tax payers are paying their rent.

Where are all the jobs and homes for anyone? I just don't see why council tenants should be pampered more than anyone else.

People live in council houses because the generally can't afford to buy one or they did buy one and lost their job.

People in private rented accomodation get HB as well and those that don't get HB must be on good money and can afford to buy one.

Offer the people a decent home with the correct amount of bedrooms before taxing them for extra money - that's fair.

 
People in private rented accommodation would probably not be able to get HB for a house which has more bedrooms than they need though.

Not everyone who can't afford to buy a house lives in a council house because there aren't enough to go around. What about those who buy a house, lose their job, and have their house repossessed? Who is crying for them? What about those who can't afford to buy so they have to share a private house with others?

It seems to me that people in council houses have this idea that they will looked after for life whilst everyone else has to fend for themselves. I think this "tax" is just levelling the playing field for everyone.

Irn Bru wrote:It's a disgusting tax that has penalised some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
End it - now.

Absolutely spot on.

I should not be taxed to pay for those scroungers - make them work and pay for their own homes!

I used to think it was wrong but now i feel it is justified when you never hear people with mortgages banging on about how unfair it is that they have to find the shortfall for their monthly mortgage repayments and mortgage insurance only pay for 6 months so when that ends all mortgage interest rate is paid at 6.36% regardless of how much a persons mortgage is .

Why can't these tenants take in a lodger if they have a spare room? Other people who rent have to do that to be able to afford the rent, or people who buy a house often do it to help with the mortgage.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why can't these tenants take in a lodger if they have a spare room? Other people who rent have to do that to be able to afford the rent, or people who buy a house often do it to help with the mortgage.

The MPs are talking about disabled people who need the spare bedroom for things like medical equipment, or a carer who stays overnight etc and in many cases the council have spent money on adapting that room and the property to that person's needs so that they can actually get round it.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why can't these tenants take in a lodger if they have a spare room? Other people who rent have to do that to be able to afford the rent, or people who buy a house often do it to help with the mortgage.

The MPs are talking about disabled people who need the spare bedroom for things like medical equipment, or a carer who stays overnight etc and in many cases the council have spent money on adapting that room and the property to that person's needs so that they can actually get round it.

Don't they get extra money if they're disabled though?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

The MPs are talking about disabled people who need the spare bedroom for things like medical equipment, or a carer who stays overnight etc and in many cases the council have spent money on adapting that room and the property to that person's needs so that they can actually get round it.

Don't they get extra money if they're disabled though?

No, that is the whole point, they were supposed to be exempt and they aren't, the Councils were supposed to get a fund so that they could sort it, but they didn't etc etc etc.   The Government, as normal, lied through it's back teeth to Parliament about it, which is why they had the Committee investigation, which has now come up with the truth.

Cameron also said the it would not apply to families with severely disabled children, it did.

That's about as low as you can get from someone who had a disabled son.

How many are now homeless?

It must be awful - I know - we really were made homeless (me, my mum, two brothers and one 2 year old sister) back in the days of real hardship in the 80s.

Luckily a relative took us in.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't they get extra money if they're disabled though?

No, that is the whole point, they were supposed to be exempt and they aren't, the Councils were supposed to get a fund so that they could sort it, but they didn't etc etc etc.   The Government, as normal, lied through it's back teeth to Parliament about it, which is why they had the Committee investigation, which has now come up with the truth.

Cameron also said the it would not apply to families with severely disabled children, it did.

That's about as low as you can get from someone who had a disabled son.

I mean extra as opposed to someone on JSA. They get money to help with their disability.

They don't lose money if they have a carer who needs a room anyway.

They could make up the money by living on the£1 a day Aldi recipes that would make sure the extra money is there to pay for the rent .
I wonder how many of these hard up families have huge dogs to feed too , i bet dogs cost a fair bit to feed a week , so get rid of the dog so the money can go to paying the rent . simple  

What about disabled people who rent privately? Are they allowed benefits for extra rooms?

You said it VOD - they'll have pets stinking out the homes (our homes - we pay for them), a few scratchcards here and there per week.

Oh, and last week the lefties on here were saying they should be allowed to spend their extra money on beer too.

I did ask many many times how people can come on here and tell us how poor people are and desperate on one day but the next day they scream that they should be allowed to spend spare cash how they wish.

BigAndy9 wrote:You said it VOD - they'll have pets stinking out the homes (our homes - we pay for them), a few scratchcards here and there per week.

Oh, and last week the lefties on here were saying they should be allowed to spend their extra money on beer too.

I did ask many many times how people can come on here and tell us how poor people are and desperate on one day but the next day they scream that they should be allowed to spend spare cash how they wish.

There also seems to be an assumption that only people in public housing are poor, and everyone else is better off.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No, that is the whole point, they were supposed to be exempt and they aren't, the Councils were supposed to get a fund so that they could sort it, but they didn't etc etc etc.   The Government, as normal, lied through it's back teeth to Parliament about it, which is why they had the Committee investigation, which has now come up with the truth.

Cameron also said the it would not apply to families with severely disabled children, it did.

That's about as low as you can get from someone who had a disabled son.

I mean extra as opposed to someone on JSA. They get money to help with their disability.

They don't lose money if they have a carer who needs a room anyway.

Yes they do.


Their disablement money is meant to help them get around, and they get it whether they are on benefits or not, because it is recognised that life is a lot more expensive if you are disabled.

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:You said it VOD - they'll have pets stinking out the homes (our homes - we pay for them), a few scratchcards here and there per week.

Oh, and last week the lefties on here were saying they should be allowed to spend their extra money on beer too.

I did ask many many times how people can come on here and tell us how poor people are and desperate on one day but the next day they scream that they should be allowed to spend spare cash how they wish.

There also seems to be an assumption that only people in public housing are poor, and everyone else is better off.

No there isn't. Housing benefit is paid differently to people in private accommodation. For example, I had it for a short while when I was looking after my daughter. We were told what amount we could go up to, the number of bedrooms was not mentioned.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean extra as opposed to someone on JSA. They get money to help with their disability.

They don't lose money if they have a carer who needs a room anyway.

Yes they do.


Their disablement money is meant to help them get around, and they get it whether they are on benefits or not, because it is recognised that life is a lot more expensive if you are disabled.

Well I've just read that they don't.

You mean DLA? There are other benefits for disabled people as well.

Would you like to name them?

And if you read the report, rooms for carers are supposed to be paid for, and they are not being paid for, one of the problems.

How many are now homeless?

Let's talk about the real poor of England - they are the ones I'm worried about!

Sassy, come on, help us out - how many innocent people have those b4st4rd Tories put out on the street?

Sassy wrote:Would you like to name them?

And if you read the report, rooms for carers are supposed to be paid for, and they are not being paid for, one of the problems.

https://www.gov.uk/financial-help-disabled/overview