Crosswords3 mins ago
'bedroom Tax': Government Loses Court Of Appeal Cases
http://
"Michael Spencer, from the Child Poverty Action Group, said the ruling meant families "can stay in their homes safe in the knowledge that their disabled children can get the care they need".
Marvelous outcome for these poor families.
"Michael Spencer, from the Child Poverty Action Group, said the ruling meant families "can stay in their homes safe in the knowledge that their disabled children can get the care they need".
Marvelous outcome for these poor families.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Regardless of your views on the "bedroom tax", this verdict has to be taken in the context of some very specific circumstances. Having said that, the biggest problem I've had with the spare room subsidy (and indeed all of The Conservative Party's recent benefits changes) is how blind it is to the complexity of individual circumstances. You cannot impose blanket rules and expect them to be effective for everybody, or sensible in all cases. Indeed, most of the reason the benefits system grew so complex was because of the need to cope with the various circumstances prompting people to need or to claim benefits.
When the time come for it to be properly rolled out, Universal Credit is likely to suffer in the same sort of way.
When the time come for it to be properly rolled out, Universal Credit is likely to suffer in the same sort of way.
The scheme was always, shall we say, ill advised ? The aim of fitting properties to the size of families is not a bad aim, it makes for efficient use of publicly owned property; but the way it is being implemented is terrible.
Property rental should already be related to the property itself not the number of folk living there. Thus the idea of an extra room would not really be applicable. If they are paying for x rooms then they have x rooms.
When allocating property to offer potential tenants; for each property, it is reasonable to define a range of 'number of occupiers' that can rent it. It's important also for this to be flexible enough to cover issues such as needing someone to stay, perhaps an occasional carer. In fact it is perfectly reasonable to allow anyone a guest room anyway.
Most of this should be covered when first allocating a property. When circumstances change and fewer folk are suddenly at a property the idea of demanding they move elsewhere needs much thought. Folk are likely to be stressed by it, and one must balance that against the savings made.
I accept, since the property is rented, not owned, it isn't unreasonable to be asked to vacate, but the council has the responsibility to ensure folk would be treated well, and if that is so, they must be rehoused in an equally decent place/local area immediately.
When considering whether to demand someone moves, the costs of uninstalling and reinstalling necessary living aids should also be taken into account. Any such cost should be covered by the council who are the party wanting the move.
In addition, folk who have lived at a place a long time ought to have that fact taken into consideration when working out if moving is appropriate; just out of common decency and concern. Elderly folk (however that is defined) are likely to be particularly effected.
At present it there is simply a case of, noting there isn't the defined ideal number of permanent residents at a place and demanding a move, which is not the sort of caring society we ought to want.
By the way, it's been said before that although strictly speaking this is not a tax, a reduction of money coming in is indistinguishable from a tax on the money before you get it, so it's hardly a big issue that it is called a tax.
Property rental should already be related to the property itself not the number of folk living there. Thus the idea of an extra room would not really be applicable. If they are paying for x rooms then they have x rooms.
When allocating property to offer potential tenants; for each property, it is reasonable to define a range of 'number of occupiers' that can rent it. It's important also for this to be flexible enough to cover issues such as needing someone to stay, perhaps an occasional carer. In fact it is perfectly reasonable to allow anyone a guest room anyway.
Most of this should be covered when first allocating a property. When circumstances change and fewer folk are suddenly at a property the idea of demanding they move elsewhere needs much thought. Folk are likely to be stressed by it, and one must balance that against the savings made.
I accept, since the property is rented, not owned, it isn't unreasonable to be asked to vacate, but the council has the responsibility to ensure folk would be treated well, and if that is so, they must be rehoused in an equally decent place/local area immediately.
When considering whether to demand someone moves, the costs of uninstalling and reinstalling necessary living aids should also be taken into account. Any such cost should be covered by the council who are the party wanting the move.
In addition, folk who have lived at a place a long time ought to have that fact taken into consideration when working out if moving is appropriate; just out of common decency and concern. Elderly folk (however that is defined) are likely to be particularly effected.
At present it there is simply a case of, noting there isn't the defined ideal number of permanent residents at a place and demanding a move, which is not the sort of caring society we ought to want.
By the way, it's been said before that although strictly speaking this is not a tax, a reduction of money coming in is indistinguishable from a tax on the money before you get it, so it's hardly a big issue that it is called a tax.
Naomi...the Tory Government tried to put the Rutherford family at considerable disadvantage, but they lost the case in Court.
Instead of admitting their mistake, they are now gainsaying the Court and and are appealing its decision.
So they were the Nasty Party in imposing the penalty in the first place and they are continuing their nastiness in the appeal. Thank God for the rule of law in Britain.
Banged to rights it would seem !
Instead of admitting their mistake, they are now gainsaying the Court and and are appealing its decision.
So they were the Nasty Party in imposing the penalty in the first place and they are continuing their nastiness in the appeal. Thank God for the rule of law in Britain.
Banged to rights it would seem !
read the full judgement here:-
https:/
//The appellants do not challenge either the validity of the overall scheme comprising
the 2012 Regulations and the use of DHP or the 2012 Regulations themselves, but
contend that Regulation B13 is unlawful insofar as it does not include them within a
defined class of persons whose position has to be taken into account for the purposes
of the reduction in Housing Benefit. They contend that their omission is unlawful
discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR).//
https:/
//The appellants do not challenge either the validity of the overall scheme comprising
the 2012 Regulations and the use of DHP or the 2012 Regulations themselves, but
contend that Regulation B13 is unlawful insofar as it does not include them within a
defined class of persons whose position has to be taken into account for the purposes
of the reduction in Housing Benefit. They contend that their omission is unlawful
discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR).//
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.