TomandJerry
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2013
- 11,467
"Appeal Court judges rule so-called bedroom tax is discriminatory in two cases brought against UK government"
Barber won't be happy..
Barber won't be happy..
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Government loses 'bedroom tax' cases
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Czechmate
Well-known member
FFS !!!!! , Who´s houses are they anyway ? Occupiers ? , Court´s ? No they belong to the government . Some cases i agree need an extra bedroom but the majority NO WAY .
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
Just another Tory crime.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
so they'll need to change the rules, or the guidance on how the rules should be applied (by local authority, where apparently it varies). shouldn't detract from the purpose of the charge, to discourage people living in homes with excess capacity. i dont suppose anyone will talk about how many families will have benefited from availability of larger social housing from this policy (it never gets covered in the press, only the edge cases of those which have problems)?
I'm all for the change. Who cares if you have lived somewhere for decades, your child has now grown up and got married, you're poor so know your place. Get OUT of the house and we will stick you somewhere else that meets the approval of Ian Duncan Smith, impoverished vermin.
They do not belong to the government. They belong to the taxpayer.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
A shockingly unprogressive, punitive way to address the problem you're presenting above.
Czechmate
Well-known member
Yes , but we democratically voted them in to control and use our money how they see fit like , cut tax credits , cut immigration , cut benefits and vote on Europe ! That´s why i voted them in and many others i would presume .
Im no Tory but cutting any benefits ,like immigration or NHS is a no no to action or even talk about. There will always be exceptions that need to be looked at. However the principle of living in social housing with say 3 beds after children have left is wrong. Nobody is throwing them out . Just asking that they accept less accomadation or if they refuse pay higher rent. It then frees up there property to family who will use every bedroom. No brainer to me
I don't suppose these cases were about the majority.
Many disabled people need an extra room just to store all the stuff they need to be able to get around, it's unfair to charge them IMO.
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
There isn't the 'smaller' housing stock to move people into, so no, they can't free up the so-called family sized property.
So not using your brain on this matter is the approriate comment.
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
This ruling affect only women with a panic room (i.e. victims of domestic violence), and households with a severely disabled person in need of constant care.
The government, in intending to challenge the ruling, doesn't agree that these people shouldn't be charged the extra, even though the law courts have ruled that they are a necessity.
In reality, there are many more instances where, for example, the storage space required for a disabled or elderly person's specialist equipment means the extra charge is applied. It's just that that scenario hasn't been challenged in court yet. This ruling could well make any future challenge more likely to succeed.
Playing the role there EP?
Who govern on behalf of the electorate/taxpayer.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
And don't ASK me for any CHEAP fruit and VEG , GET a JOB !!!
It's only just occured to me to think about it but surely the rent on a 3 bed house is more than a 2 bed house ? If so surely the occupants already pay more for that extra room whether they use it or not ?
Someone has to speak on behalf of the SILENT MAJORITY Woodster. It's just me and IDS at present!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
possibly, but we agree there is a problem to address? it has been a problem for social housing for decades. it had previously been floated that tenants a simply evicted once thier need changes, rejected because, well, obviously not going to go down well. the current policy gives people some option, if they deem the value of that room to be worth their keeping. how the majority of the population determine if they can or cant afford a spare room. otherwise higher room dwellings might become available for those that need it more. the schemes intent was always flawed because there wasnt always suitable smaller properties available and some have special requirements for that extra room. councils are supposed to have a budget to allocate to those special cases, to mitigate the impact, but seems thats not worked as well as it should have.
if we go back to the problem though, what other option is there? we could do nothing, and leave single people in 3-4 bed houses while families are put in B&Bs. or we could conjure up thousands of additional housing stock, but thats a whole other set of problems.