Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Council Spent £40,000 Making Home Fit For Disabled Daughter.. Now They Say It's Too Big

Recommended Posts

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/bedroom-tax-council-spent-40000-2110527

..

She has lived in the three-bed semi-detached council house for 17 years, and thanks to grants from the Government and Selby Council, built an extension for Vicki.

The downstairs unit has a wheelchair-access bedroom, with a winch to lift her daughter out of bed, plus a specially adapted bathroom.

A small room next door is for a carer to stay at times of need. Upstairs is Lisa’s bedroom and a small room housing physiotherapy and emergency kit, pads, nappies, sterilised water bottles and tubes.

When the tax was introduced, a Selby Council official called to evaluate the house.

The authority ruled two bedrooms were too small to be classified but the other three were valid, meaning she could be taxed for the room filled with equipment.

The choice was stark – pay up or move from her home – equipped at a cost of £40,000 – to a two-bed bungalow with no hoist, no disabled bathroom and no room to store any of the equipment which makes day-to-day living for mum and daughter tolerable.

So should there be exceptions in cases such as this from the "bedroom" tax? Modifying another house is going to take time and a huge amount of money is moving this family really necessary?

If you put them in a 2 bed house where would the paid for career sleep? As they are working surely they should be entitled to proper facilities?

This clearly is one of the unintended consequences of a policy designed to tackle a shortage of family homes held up when you just have a couple living their.

So who's need is greater in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discretionary payments are there to enable people to stay in adapted accomodation.

Don't understand in the article:

She has lived in the three-bed semi-detached council house for 17 years, and thanks to grants from the Government and Selby Council, built an extension for Vicki.

The authority ruled two bedrooms were too small to be classified but the other three were valid, meaning she could be taxed for the room filled with equipment.

So it is a 5 bedroom house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is a 5 bedroom house?

Sounds like it, but we're not told to what use the 'missing' bedroom is being put. Not that that stops it being ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so she works under the benefits threshold, her daughter (poor woman) clearly doesn't work. They don't pay council tax, they get JSA, they will get invalidity benefits, carer's allowance etc..... and they are being asked to pay £8 a day (as well as for the carer) for rent. Is it really that much to expect them to - or would it be more realistic to expect her father to continue to pay a few quid ? Or perhaps her brother put a couple of quid in the pot (given it's a 5 bed house, I suspect that he's living in one of the other bedrooms).

Don't get me wrong, horrific and tragic circumstances all wrong, but I get the sense that we're being told half a story here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, horrific and tragic circumstances all wrong, but I get the sense that we're being told half a story here....

Me too and though I don't like the "bedroom tax" and feel sorry for above family methinks they are struggling to pull up decent cases.

Indeed as Guido Fawkes exposed yesterday the BBC had to contract out requests for "bedroom tax victims"and I suspect this is one of the results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too and though I don't like the "bedroom tax" and feel sorry for above family methinks they are struggling to pull up decent cases.

Indeed as Guido Fawkes exposed yesterday the BBC had to contract out requests for "bedroom tax victims"and I suspect this is one of the results

Similar to the ban on owning unicorns - surprisingly few people affected for some reason. What a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad for this particular family but given all that they have received for free, is being expected to take a £35 per week cut from their disposable income really such an outrage?

About 80% of the global population wouldn't believe that it was possible for someone in their unfortunate circumstances to actually have the State-finded lifestyle that they have.

Makes you wonder how people are going to be able to adapt to living realistically within the State's means, as will have to happen eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad for this particular family but given all that they have received for free, is being expected to take a £35 per week cut from their disposable income really such an outrage?

An outrage? Arguably not. However, the absurdity is that an extra bedroom can be made to seem so iniquitous. It's a few square metres of floor space ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too and though I don't like the "bedroom tax" and feel sorry for above family methinks they are struggling to pull up decent cases.

Indeed as Guido Fawkes exposed yesterday the BBC had to contract out requests for "bedroom tax victims"and I suspect this is one of the results

Of course, we have the more right-wing press digging up the (very small) number of cases of families-with-10-kids-on-benefits and/or immigrants-in-expensive-london-houses.

Either way it's a stupid way to drive policy.

But still.. we have people getting worked up and angry about other people having a spare room, which is a great distraction from asking questions like 'why does a £50k house cost £250k?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it, but we're not told to what use the 'missing' bedroom is being put. Not that that stops it being ridiculous.

Sometimes people need night carers.....the extra bedroom is for the carer to stay whilst they are doing their caring job........needy and disabled people create many jobs in all sorts of ways......if they didn't have a need nobody would have a job looking after that need.....just a thought. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes you wonder how people are going to be able to adapt to living realistically within the State's means, as will have to happen eventually.

Do the sums.

The state (or contractors thereof) is perfectly capable of providing spacious housing for everyone who wants it (as long as immigration is limited, anyway), and doing so at a cost that would barely register in the budget - indeed, the economic effects of doing this would probably be a net gain.

The land is there. The reserve army of unemployed is there. The material costs are negligible. The only things that stops us is misinformation, NIMBYism and sheer political cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes people need night carers.....the extra bedroom is for the carer to stay whilst they are doing their caring job........needy and disabled people create many jobs in all sorts of ways......if they didn't have a need nobody would have a job looking after that need.....just a thought. ;)

There was already a room for the carer adjacent to the child's room iirc. No, these people deserve to burn for having a spare room because a politician told me so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was already a room for the carer adjacent to the child's room iirc. No, these people deserve to burn for having a spare room because a politician told me so.

I don't disagree with you that there are some people with space that could be put to better use.....but instead of putting the blame on the people, why are we not saying provide more affordable, secure, rented accommodation for the people and their families we as a nation actively encouraged to move and live here, to work here and pay taxes here....it is the state that is to blame in this instant, not the innocent people living in a situation they have little power to change, that I am sure they would love to if they could.........You encourage it and want to benefit from it, you provide for it....end of. ;)

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was already a room for the carer adjacent to the child's room iirc. No, these people deserve to burn for having a spare room because a politician told me so.

I thought the carer wasn't a live in one. She same during the morning, then the poor woman goes to day care, so no-one there. She then comes back and mother deals, unless she is at her chippy job (which will be under 16 hours a week). When the carer will be there. There's no need for a bedroom for the carer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you that there are some people with space that could be put to better use.....

You did realise I was joking, didn't you? (just checking)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did realise I was joking, didn't you? (just checking)

No I am not joking......there are people out there in property that is far too big for them, very few mind.....there are some that would welcome a nicer smaller place in a better environment, better insulated with lower fuel and up keeping costs......I am sure they would jump at the chance to take it, if it was local to their family, friends and support networks........but do they have these places for people to move into? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am not joking......there are people out there in property that is far too big for them, very few mind.....there are some that would welcome a nicer smaller place in a better environment, better insulated with lower fuel and up keeping costs......I am sure they would jump at the chance to take it, if it was local to their family, friends and support networks........but do they have these places for people to move into? ;)

Well, quite. Why is a spare bedroom such a big issue? Because they aren't allowing enough building where it's needed. Why is there no where for these people to move to with the right number of bedrooms? Because they aren't allowing enough building where it's needed.

I wish I could think of a solution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad for this particular family but given all that they have received for free, is being expected to take a £35 per week cut from their disposable income really such an outrage?

About 80% of the global population wouldn't believe that it was possible for someone in their unfortunate circumstances to actually have the State-finded lifestyle that they have.

Makes you wonder how people are going to be able to adapt to living realistically within the State's means, as will have to happen eventually.

Many people on benefits are allowed to work less than 20 hours a week - surely the brother or one of the parents can get a job earning £35 a week (6 hours a week) to enable them to stay in a 5-bedroomed house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the bedroom next door to the disabled daughter - is for occasional overnight stays by a carer - and can be used to house the pads and tubes and equipment that is apparently filling a whole (?) bedroom upstairs.

In fact, my guess is that if this disabled daughter really needs the physio equipments, pads and tubes - they are generally stored in the room next door to her - not upstairs - and this family has moved them upstairs for the purpose of the inspectors' visit to make it look like the 5th bedroom is being used for something.

It doesn't mean it's not a hard case - but they seem to be trying to pull a fast one.

And the bottom line is that there are 4 adults in this house - the disabled daughter - plus the son and the parents - and they may all casually assume the taxpayer can cover every single thing - but 3 of them, or 1 or 2 of the 3 of them, could do some work. This is not a lone disabled person by any means, but a household of people she has to rely on. How did we get into the situation where a whole house of people could do nothing and assume they didn't have to find ways to look after themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick box Civil servants at their worst.

Only the troughers are to be trusted.

It wold be obivous to any sensible person whether a tenant needed the extra room or not....but nooooooo...tick box list takes priority.

Just what are we paying MANAGERS to supervise about?..decisions, money saving or just ensuring the tick boxes are correctly filled in with the right coloured ink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes people need night carers.....the extra bedroom is for the carer to stay whilst they are doing their caring job........needy and disabled people create many jobs in all sorts of ways......if they didn't have a need nobody would have a job looking after that need.....just a thought. ;)

Actually, no!

Totally up the spout there. A job is created when someone in the private sector has money to pay for it.

What you are talking about is job "created" by public spending (i.e. by exactions on the private sector). Those exactions levied to fund the public purse cut investment and cut job making the economy, and although some jobs are created in return - the net result is negative in terms of employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick box Civil servants at their worst.

Only the troughers are to be trusted.

It wold be obivous to any sensible person whether a tenant needed the extra room or not....but nooooooo...tick box list takes priority.

Just what are we paying MANAGERS to supervise about?..decisions, money saving or just ensuring the tick boxes are correctly filled in with the right coloured ink?

o72UEuO.jpg

Green this week. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people on benefits are allowed to work less than 20 hours a week - surely the brother or one of the parents can get a job earning £35 a week (6 hours a week) to enable them to stay in a 5-bedroomed house?

There is a £5 disregard when it comes to benefit withdrawal for a single person.

After that you lose JSA at a rate of £1 for every £1 earned.

Then the MDR for combined council tax and housing benefit is 85%.

You'd have to work over 20 hours a week to be better off enough to pay a £20 a week bedroom tax.

And that is before you take into account travel costs, work related food and clothing costs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, quite. Why is a spare bedroom such a big issue? Because they aren't allowing enough building where it's needed. Why is there no where for these people to move to with the right number of bedrooms? Because they aren't allowing enough building where it's needed.

If you're in private rented it's unlikely you'd get a spare room.

Should we fund everyone having a spare room?

What about those who work and have kids? Should they have a free spare room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're in private rented it's unlikely you'd get a spare room.

Should we fund everyone having a spare room?

What about those who work and have kids? Should they have a free spare room?

IMHO the question you need to ask is why is a spare room (a fairly meagre amount of space in the great scheme of things) such a prized commodity?

FWIW I'm fully of the opinion that if person X earns more money than person Y, then, all else being equal, person X should be able to afford a better lifestyle than person Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.